Loading...
1977 Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 1977 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 4, 1977 at the New Hope City Hail, 4401X¥1on Avenue North. 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, Andersor Absent:None PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 76-?6 (CONTINUED FROM 2-7-76) REQUEST FOR SiGN VARIANCE AT ~ 42ND AVENUE NORTH, YMCA~ PETITIONER. Mr. Douglas Herron, Executive DirecTor of the Northwest Branch of the YMCA was oresent. He was accom- panied by Mr. Steve Biederman, Chairman of the Board, ane Mr. David Griswold, the architect. Mr. Herron stated that it was his strong concern that they had a human care institution that people might not be able to find. The architecture is not such that it commands attention. He noted that the sign appeared to be too close to the street and too large. His concern was that it ce eft where it is, purely for the reason that it is necessary to draw attention to the center, especially in view of the traffic soeed on 42nd Avenue. He added that the structure was approximately a 2.9 million dollar family enrichment, healt~ care center to be opened in about April. The Chairman noted that he felt the Commission was aware of the advantages to New Hope in having the facility ocated here, ane requested that the issue of the variances be discussee. Mr. Griswold noted that they were not talking about just one sign but two. The logo for the "Y" and another for the Jr. Achievement Building whicn is located at the South ena of the structure. The second logo nas not as yet been erected becaus~ of the concern of the CiTy Inspector about its being non-conform- ing to the City sign ordinance. Mr. Cr'iswold stated that they'were act aware of the sign ordinance at the time the details were drawn. -ne YMCA Io9o is The official YMCA identification symbol used universally. This logo is located seven feet back from the property line. The Jr. Achievement logo would be set back somewhat farther, pro- bably 16 feet from the oroperTy line. He noted that they were before the Commission because they felt it was necessary that the signs be located as indicated ir order to attract attention. He hoped that the Commission would agree to this because the structure was different from a normal sign. He noted that the structures have Oeen on the drawings from the beginning and that they were somewhat taken aback wnen suddenly the Iogos did not conform to the sign ordinance. n answer to a questio'n from the Chairman, Mr. Griswold stated that they had 0een informed of the non- conformance 2-3 months ago by the building department of the City. This was the first time they had been aware that the signs were non-conforming. He added that there will be one additional Jr. Achieve- ment logo, to be located at the South end of the building. Chairman Cameron asked Mr. Griswold who was responsible in construction projects such as this for check- ing City ordinances? Mr. Griswold noted that he guessed it was whoever was responsible for putting the project together. He added that he had appeared before the City a number of times during the last couple of years, meet- ing with staff and appearing before the Commission and Council as well as makin9 visits to the office of the State Building Code office in regard to both the Jr. Achievement building and the "Y" building, He recalled the meetings in May and June relative to the construction of the Jr. Achievement building, which they had thoug~had been approved at the time they appeared in regard to the construction of the "Y'~ building. 'The Chairman repeated his question as to who was responsible for checking City ordinances in regard to construction plans° Mr. Griswold repeated that he felt it was the people who put the project together -- the owner, the architect and everyone else involved. He added that they had been at the City innumerable times to dis- cuss the project and the structures had been included since the beginning. He added that he had been unaware of any problems with the logo at the time that they had appeared relative to the Jr. Achievement building. It had been their understanding that the project had been thoroughly reviewed. The Chairman noted that he felt it was the Commission's understanding that the "Y" would at all times be following City Codes. He added that he felt the architect was paid well enough by the "Y" to check City Codes. Mr. Griswold commented that he felt that the meetings held at the City Hall were entirely in reference to this and that they consider the signs as part of the total plan. In response to a question from the -2- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 1977 3. Chairman that he was now aware of the existence of a Sign Ordinance but that it had not been brought to his attention earlier. Commissioner Gustafson asked who had authorized the construction of the sign? Mr. Griswold stated that the construction was part of the contract document for the general construction of the building. Commissioner Gustafson then referred to the meeting of May 6, 1975 when other agenda items included sign variance requests. He added that at the following meeting construction plan approval had been given. On June I, 1976 when the architect had appearea in regard mo Tne Jr. Achievement center, ne recalled that there had Deep lengthy discussion at the meeting in regard to a church sign being requested, and also discussion of the new Si~n Ordinance for the City. Commissioner Gustafson added that when the Jr. Achievement building had been aaproved at that same meet- ing, it was his recollection that on both occasions there had been warnings given Dy one or other of the Commissioners regarding the New Hope Sign Ordinance and the fact that the signs would have fo comply with the ordinance. Mr. Griswold stated he reca led no such conversation. He restated that the planned signs have always been included in the documents and this was not new. Commissioner Christensen noted in response to Mr. Herron's comments that the City of New Hope was very aappy to have the "Y" located here. He further commented that there appeared to have been some confusion on the Dart of the arcnitect in regard to the construction of both.the Jr. Achievement building and the installation of the signs for the buildings. Commissioner Christensen added that as Chairman of the Desiga and Review Committee he made notes of the meetings. He had referred to tqese notes for the meeting of May 18th, when the Committee had considered tne Jr. Achievement building. He noted that the policy of the Committee was to attempt to point out any areas that might De of concern or fhat the Committee felt the petitioner Should look at before appearing before the Planning Commission. He then. read the minutes of that meeting which included the suggestions from the COmmittee that they were concerned about the following: I. The number of parking spaces provided 2. The sidewalk plan on the Southwest side of the building, which might become a hang-out. 3. The need for more lights aT the entrance and at the South 4. Advised Mr. Griswold TO caeck The Sign Ordinance. 5. Potentia ly eliminate the vestibule and sidewalk on the West side of the proposed addition. Commissioner Christensen noted that these concerned areas were presented to Mr. Griswold, as they always are at Design aha Review meetings. At the Planning Commission meeting following the D and R meeting, Items ann 2 had been determined To not be prob ems. The Sign Ordinance had peen discussed, with the recommendation that it be checked out. At that point, in Commission consideration of a ~roject, they did not review signs. He stated that his point in bringing this up was that the Design and Review Committee hac mentioned to Mr. GriswoJd, among other things, the necessity of checking the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Gustafson asked Mr. Herron why he felt it was necessary for the signs to be of the size, and at the location, indicated? Mr. Herron noted that it was a subjective matter. How could he tell if the sign was one foot too big or too small? However he was aware that before the sign was up, a lot of oeople naa not even known that the building was under corstruction. To him, this indicated the speea of cars passing the location -- this was a big concern of his, that the people would not be able to find the YMCA, or the Jr. Achievement Center. He is concerned with identifying the center. The Chairman asked who, if the City did not approve the signs, would be paying the cost of the reinstalla- tion of the signs? Mr. Herron stated he was sure this would go to their attorney. TheY wou d have to pass the cost on to the members if the "Y" paid. The Chairman questioned whether they had no recourse from the architect? He added that as a worker for · the "Y" for the past years, he felt that there had been gross negligence on the part of somebody. Commissioner Pakonen noted that he felt a lot of time had been spent in rationalizing and that a lot of time had been spent in warning someone about an ordinance -- he did not feel that this was the Cole of the Commission. Commissioner Craigie commented that the criteria to be used in approving the sign variance would include whether or not there was a strong need for the sign in the location. He added that the problem of traf- fic was a problem for anyone, that met the City Ordinance, that was located on that street. He questioned whether there was anything more that the '~Y" had to offer that would be a stronger argument for the need for the sign to be on the boulevard and extra sized? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JANUARY 4~ 1976 3. Mr. Don Murphy, 7725 45th Avenue,asked about the setbacks? The City Manager noted that the sign should be 25 feet back from the property line. Mr. Glen Cording, I00 Brunswick North, noted that perhaps the Commission could consider that the "Y" was a social organization, and as such would be drawing from a large area ano that the sign would be of benefit to the entire community. In answer to a question from Commissioner London, Mr. Griswold stated that the logo was a standard sign for the "Y". The size of the logo depended upon the location. CcmmissionerLondon noted that he had not heard sufficient justification to allow a variance for this sign, that could nave been designed within the ordinance. He stated he felt the petitioner had had am- ple op0ortunity to discover what the sign ordinance required, and that it had been indicated to them that ?hey should consult the ordinance. Commissioner Christensen commented that he felt it was a double edged sword. While the "Y" was a fantas- tic organization and they weren't the ones involved directly, on the other hand were the businesses that have been, and will be, compelled to bring their signs into comoliance with the Code. The issue must be decided cased on what is fair and non-discriminatory for all. ~ommissioner Craigie noted that he felt it was really a nice sign, and suggested the possibility of con- sidering ?he t*o variances seoarately (size ann setback) with, in his opinion, the setback restriction being the more important. Commissioner Bartos commented that he felt that if the Commission was going to be fair, even though it might be unfortunate, they had to live by the word of the law. Chairman Cameron commented that he had been a"Y" worker for many many years and in his opinion this was a case of either arrogance or ignorance and no justification had been for granting the variance. The Commission does not have to defend the Ordinance. Commissioner Anderson made a motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 76-76, Request for Siqn Variance at the YMCA. Commissioner Pakonen second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion passed. 4. PLANNING CASE 77-I-REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIGN ORDINANCE AT 7117 BASS LAKE ROAD - ROBERT HARLFINGER, PETITIONER. The City Manager noted that Mr. Harlfinger had been called out of town and requested that this case be postponed until the meeting of February I, 1977. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to table Case 77-1 until the meetinq of February It 1977. Commis- sioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion passed. 5. PLANNING CASE 77-2 - REQ~ES~ FOR ~ARt~NCE IN SETBACK~ SIZE AND SIGNS AT POSTE HASTE SHOPPING CENTER - PAKO PHOTO, INC. PETITIONER. Mr. Randy Toth and Mr. Marlo Fernandez represented Pako Photo Company. Mr. David Reimer represented Poste Haste Center. Mr. Toth stated that Pako was a 66 year old Minneapolis based company. They have recently added some drive-up processing centers to their operation. They are proposing a building that fully meets all of the energy requirements and that is completely constructed of wood. They do have a State seal of approval on the buildirg. They will put in shrubbery and maintain the area. They have looked into the traffic flow and do not feel they will be causing any traffic congestion. Mr. Toth distributed pictures of the proposed facility and building plans for the Commissioners review. The operation will be a 24-hour photo finishing service. There will be a pickup/delivery every day. In the original application they had requested a variance in signage but did not now feel this would be required if they could consider the drive-up side of the. structure as the front and changed one sign. The City Manager noted that the Commission should discuss the option of the petitioner using the drive- up side of the building as the main entrance since this was a question of interpretation. He added that the petitioner also needs a size variance for the building since it is to be only 60 square feet in size. Mr. Toth reviewed the plans with the Commissioners regarding the position of the structure on the parking - 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 1977 5. lot. The building will be twelve feet out from the corner and will eliminate four existing parking spaces. The structure will be rough sawn cedar and blend in with the shopping center. They will land- scape in the spring if the Commission desires. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and the petitioner regarding the type of landscaping, and the number of cars taat could be anticipated would use the faci ity in a single day. Mr. Toth felt that between 40-60 per day with perhaps 100 in peak times of the year. One out of every ten customers would probably be a walk-up customer. Commissioner Gustafson questioned whether or not The owners of the center, in view of their recently sub- mitted tota sign plan, expected to add any other accessory uses to the center, with accompanying signs? Mr. Reimer noted that at the time of the submission of their total sign plan, they had not anticipated the inclusion of the Pako Photo Center and had not envision the need for any additional signage. He stated that at this time he would not give a definite "no" but he did not expect to request any addi- tional free standing signs. Mr. Toth noted that there would be a service counter inside the structure to accommodate the walk-up customer. The hours of operation would probably De 9:00 a.m. tO 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. It will be closed on Sunday. Discussion then centered on the employees, the age of the employees, and the number of employees who would be present at a given time. Mention was made of the fact that the facility would be located in a "walk oath" to both a junior and a senior high school and the problems -hat the center had experienced in the past in regard to oitering. Mr. Fernandez noted that there would De a 39 foot turn around area an0 arrows would be painted on the black tOD tO direct traffic. The lighting wi I consist of incandescent fixtures protruding from the building with the light directed down. The petitioners felt that the lighting provided would sufficiently i luminate the building. In a discussion with Commissioner London regarding snow removal and snow piling, Mr. Reimer noted that the area of the parking lot proposed for the phto center qormally does not get heavy use except from ~-~ restaurant customers. The sign on the drive-up side would be 6'8" x 20" and the signs on the other sides of the building would be under 9 square feet. Mr. Fernandez, during a discussion of the suitability of the site, noted that they felt it was satisfac- tory, He added that the business was mainly referral -- once people realized that Pako was located there, they would return. Trash wil be mainly paper and could if necessary be picked up by the delivery man daily. They see no need to install storage containers near the facility. There will be a self contained air conditioning unit on the roof, but it will not be visible from the street. In answer to concerns exDressed Dy Commissioner Ch~stensen, Mr. Fernandez noted that there would be screens over the lights and that the windows would be acrylic not glass. The electrical service will be unoerground. Commissioner Anderson noted that in his opinion no hardship had been proven, other than that the site was a dead corner of the shopping center. Mr. Toth commented that if for some reason the photo service did not Drove to be successful, the lease would Drovide that Pako would return the parking lot to its origina condition. He added that depending upon the weather, they anticipated opening the shop in March. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Case 77-2~ includin~ variances for side and front setbacks and construction approval~ on the basis that the Southwest side of the building be considered the major access to The build, lng for s~gna_g~ and because the building does fit into the Total development of The site. Commissioner GundershauB second. Because he was not convinced that there.was a need =or the seback variance and because he felt there might be an advantage to the Detitioner to table the motion, Commissioner Craigie ameaded the motion to divide the variance 'n setback and final construction approva and table ~ne final construction approval and variance for two weeks. Commissioner Anderson second. Voting on the amendment: In favor: Atchley, Craigie, Anderson Against: Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Absent: London Amendment failed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - . - JANUARY 4~ 1977 5. Commissioner Christeasen suggested that pending Commissioner Gustafson's approval, the oriqinal motion include That there 0e a plan submitted for landscaping. Commissioner Gustafson did not accept this addition, stating he felt it was not advantageous to require shrubbery on this small site. Commissioner Christensen withdrew his addition. Voting on the original motion. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Voting against: Craigie, Anderson Absent: London Motion passed. 6. PLANNING CASE 77-3 - REZONING -VARIANCES - PUD FOR APARTMENT/CONVENIENCE CENTER AT GETTYSBURG/#18, JERRY HARRINGTONt PETITIONER. Mr. Harrington, the petitioner, whose office is located aT 7400 42nd Avenue North, stated they were orc~osing a combination family and elderly apartment complex and service center for the Southeast quadrant of County Road #18 and Rockford Road. ~e is reauesting a change in zoning from LB to GB for the area designated as Tract A. Tracts B and C wil De combined. MR development is a permitted use under the present ordinance. The density would De increase~ under the nresent ordinance and ~ecreased under the proposed ordinance. Under the pre- sen~ ordinance the maximum use of the and with a three story Duitding is 183 units. The area is 10.21 acres x 17.9 units to an acre. At an average of four ~eopte per unit it would total 732 people. If naif of these people drove, the potential numaer of cars would be 366. They propose To go by the new Zoning Ordinance and the Comnrehensive Plan recommendations and build a tl6 unit hign rise for the elderly. Mr. Harrington noted that in the new Comprehensive Plan, Midwest Planning had suggested a 0rooosea 43 units per acre. They plan to use 2.69 acres of the site ~or the nigh rise- leaving 7.528 acres for the family units. This is a density of 13 units to an acre on the family units an~ betweez the 12 minimu~ ~n~ 15 maximum as recommended by Midwest Planning. Midwest had also s~ated there was a neea for elderly housing in the New Hope area. Mr. Harrington then read an article from the Minneapolis Star from October 27, 1976 which indicated tha~ the "suburban supply of elderty nousing was behina the demand"., and mentioned the long waiting lists for entrance into senior citizen residences. They are proposing accommodations for !16 elderly with 42 parking sta Is and 99 family units with 198 parking stalls. They are planning 156 open parking stalls and 104 covered. The 42 elderly parking stalls will De open. There's a provision for 70 additional stalls on the site, if required at a fu- ture time. In answer to a question, Mr. Harrington stated that on the basis of a twin city wide survey, elderly units as a rule, reauire only 35% as much parking space. The drives have been ~esignea mo bring the traffic up along the North #18 ramp and out on to Gettysburg~ with stacking on Gettysburg. The building as designed will require only 13.6% of the land area with th~ ~emainaer o~en space in Tract B. Tract A will have 12.7% land coverage and 87.3 open space. Tract A is the general ~usiness/service center as 0ro~osed. The single s~ory commercial auilding will be 7,860 sauare feet. At the present time they have a tentative commitment from a sunerette and a dis- count drugstore to 800 souare feet eacn. This will give the elderly and family housing a convenient outlet for food and medicine. They also nope to rent space to a laundry, repair shop, insurance company etc. He added that ~n view of the Metro Council criteria, the City of New Hope would be considered a First Priority City for ~ousing a locations. The area is convenient to both major and minor shopping areas, which also meets with Metro Council re- quirements, tt is also convenient ~o medical facilities. There is the possiblity of bus transportation at Gettysburg an~ 42nd ~y the Medicine Lake Lines. Community rooms will be ~rovided on the first, second and ~ou~th floors of the main bui ding. There will be central laundry facilities, s~orage and maintenance supplies, trash removal is provided using a trash chute leading To a compacter. There will Oea separate trash recepticle in the No~th w~ing. Mr. Reyno'td Roberts, the Architect for the project, 0resented a model of the complex and gave a short side presentation w~ich illustrated the anticipamee view of the complex from various directions. The one bedroom elderly units will be 24 x 26 feet. There wi I be 5% handicapped units. The family two bedroom unims are approximate y I000 square feet and the family one bedroom units wi I be 27 x 27 ~eet. The elevators wil nave ocks and the elevators off the lounge will be locked to provide protection for the elderly units. The family units will have access to both stairs and the elevators. There will be three laundry rooms. The security arrangement will 0e on both ends of the building. The main building for the eleerly is on three levels on the Gettysburg side and seven leve s toward #18. The family build- ing is on two levels on t~e East. All buildings will be provided with fire extinguishers, sensors and smoke detectors according to Code. - 6 - PLANNING COMM SSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 1977 n resoonse To a question, the City Manager noted that access in a fire emergency was possible to the roof on the second level. The Fire Department has reviewed the design. The basic construction will be ~ ~-~ concrete and masonry. Additional vehicle access will be provided, but kept chained, to insure use only in an emergency. tn answer to a question from Commissioner London about playground facilities as indicated on the plan, Mr. ~arrington noted that there would be playground equipment provided and that the recreation area would be seoarate from the overflow parking area. In regare to the buffering on the South edge of the parcel between the single family homes, Mr. Harring- ton stated that he hoped to purchase Outlot A. I~ he was able to do.this there would be 150 feet of green area at The South end of the property. There will be berming along the South boundary line~ The final design will be dependent upon the location of the sewer lines and storm sewer, pending the decision on the development plans. Commissioner London commented that the Design and Review Committee had felt that perhaps the overal de- sign was incompatible with the residential neighborhood. He also expressed concern for the parking facili- ties, fee lng -hat the 25% figure as required by HUD was inadequate in the suburbs, where ~ost elderly drive. He also felt that snere should be some opportunity for enclosed parking for the elderly units. ]iscussion followed about the parking facilities and whether or no~ they were sufficient as plannee. Commissioner Loneon ~o~ee for the record that the petitioner was requesting a variance in density, a variance in parki~ng ~acilities, and a rezoning from LB to GB. Security lighting wil be sodium lucalux, of ~ Iow density, on the islands around the builidngs wi. th wash lights on the buildings. The complex will be managed by a company owned by Mr. HarringtOno ~iscussio~ then centered on the traffic problems generated oy the complex in an area where ~raffic is al- ready a problem° The Commissioners noted their concern with the convenience center and the public transportation for the ~ comolex, as well as the scale of ~ne building, The entire complex, both family and elderly, wi I be financed through HUD. Mr. Harrington stated, in res- oonse to qu&stions from the Chairman, that the elderly occupancy ~s controlled by age ane income ane that ?~ere are regular certifications involved to guarantee that the management 0olicies do apt change. If the HUD po icies are no? fbi owed s~rictly, the mortgage coulc 0e bulled and the management of the build- ing taken away from The owner. The final s~ep would be for HUD to take over the entire project. In answer to a questidn from Commissioner Pakonen, Mr. Harrington noted that the only way he could change to an open rental policy would be to pay off the mortgage. Commissioner Pakonen expressed concern for parking facilities as provided, should this occur. Mr. Harring?o~ stated that New ~ope nas a yearly inspection policy and if a~ any time the City determines · ne parking 's inadequate, ne would 0e required to proviee additional ~arking faci ities. Me added that ne could not proceed to a~ply for ~inancing to the State or HUD until SUCh time that he had received approval for the zoning, the site plan, as wel as sewer, water, and a le~er from the utility an~ phone comoanies stating that service was ava'lable. Discussion followed regarding the density of the proposee complex and whether or apt the density as pro- 0osed was not too high ~or this site. The recommendations of Midwest Planning for this parcel had been for ~id-density and this was the next discussion item. t was aoted that this recommendation had not as yet 0een aporoved 0y the Commission ane the City. In a discussion of the commercia portion of ~he development, Mr. Marrington commented that he had in- cluded the commercial mainly as a convenience for the people in the project. Commissioner Christensen questi, oned whether, if the project met HUD standards without the commercial, would Mr. Harrington consieer eliminating this portion? Mr° Harrington noted that he could proceed without commercial development, but restated his feeling that it would be a convenience for the tenants. Commissioner Christensen then commented on the fact that if Mr. Harrington were to eliminate the rezoning that would allow commercial eevelopment, and the area were ?o remain as green area this would reduce the density variance requested. Mr. Harrington noted that he did not expect that Mr. Gordon would return to the City until April and he co~ld not discuss Outlot A with him unti ne returned. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - JANUARY 4, 1977 6. Commissioner London noted that at Design and Review there had been two alternatives discussed in regard to the potential traffic problems in the area: One, making a cul-du-sac at Gettysburg wnere the entrance to the complex would be ocated, which would restrict the exit at 42nd/Gettysburg to the complex; a se- cond alternative woud be to make a cul-du-sac and "emergency crossing only" where Jordan Avenue crosses the creek, which would STOp through traffic from 36th to 42nd; and the other alternative would be to block Flag Avenua at 40½ except for emergency vehicles. Commissioner Anderson requested, that inasmuch as most of the problems had already been raised by the Commissioners, that the publ'c comment portion of the meeting be limited by either time allowed each speaker- or to new comments regarding the proposal. Mr. Dean Ebben, 4108 Gettysburg, asked whether the architect, in preparing the illustrations had taken into consideration the fact that the homes across from the parcel on Gettysburg wereconsiderably higher inlevation than the property to be developed? Mr. Harrington referred to the i lustration noting the elevations as shown, commenting that he felt they would see only the Toa floor. Mr. Ebben then asked for clarification of the income levels of the people who would be tenants, the rents TO be charged and whether the project would in effect be entirely a Iow income project? Mr. Harrington noted that the Type of subsidy was that the tenant could pay up to 25% of their income for rent if they qualified, with the government subsiaizing the rest, rents themselves would not be Iow. me anticipates that it would De 50% subsidized in the family units, but this has not as yet aeen determined By the State. Commissioner Gustafson note¢ that in any case, they would De renting to people. Mr. Ebben then noted that, in his opinion, the Tenants of the complex would turn South on Gettysburg, to avoia the aroblems of exiting on to 42nd. In answer ~o a Question from Commissioner Atchety regarding a potential closing of Gettysburg with a cul-du-sac, Mr. Ebben stated that if this was the last resort, he felt the residents would probably approve. The people on Ensign, however, ~ight find this objectional. Mr. Walter Conley, 4157 Flag AVenue, stated ne was concerned about the project because the commercial de- velopment would De in his back yard, to which ne was naTurally opposed. He then asked whether any in- vestigations had peen conducted as to the increase in crime rate in Golden Valley as a result of the Dover Hil~ project? He statea that he would expect that Iow income rental property would cause an increase in crime rate. Mr. Conley then commented on the fact that he had been under the 'mpression that a Super Valu had been approved for the intersection of 42nd/#18 in Plymouth. He wondered if this were true and if so, what was the need for additiona commercial development? The City Manager noted there was a project proposed but he was not sure of the current status. In response to further questions from Mr. Conley, Mr. Harrington noted tha~ there would be 78 two bedroom an0 21 one bedroom units in the family section and I 6 one bedroom units in the elderly section. Mr. Contey then asked about visitor parking? He felt that there would De a need for more than is proposed. Mr. Jere Gwin-Lenth, 9217 40~, noted that with 90 some family units, this could add 100-200 additional children to the area. The play areas as provided seem to 0e aimed at younger chi dren with no recrea- tional areas in the immediate vicinity for older children. He felt that the problem of what teeqagers woula do, would oe a concern for the residents of the area. Mr. Cecil Pettigrove, 4116 Gettysburg, commented that his mother lived at Dover Hills and that while there is consideraple ~arking space available aT that complex, when he goes to visit he usually has a difficult time finding a place to park. He felt that more than 25% of the people in the elderly complex would be driving cars. Age does apt necessarily eliminate driv'ng. Mr. Mike Malik, 9101 40½ Avenue, noted that he was a member of the Traffic Commission of the City, as we~ as a spokesman for the Hopewood Hills Homeowners Associat'on. He referenced the comments made earlier by Mr. Harrington about the study completed Dy Midwest Planning in which they recommended elderly housing for the CiTy. He added that the specific proposals for this piece of land snowed lesser density than the current zoning allowed. Comm'ssioner Gustafson, 'n response to a further question from Mr. Malik~ noted that this proposed build- ing 'n now way would be 'n variance from the State Building Code. Mr. Malik asked whether the New Hope Code did not require a brick exterior? Mr. Larson, the City Manager, noted that the Sta?e Code did not require this. Mr. Malik then commented that he was concerned that the exterior of the buildings be of a material that would not deteriorate the general ~uality of the single family residential area surrounding the site. He referenced the existing traffic problems in the area and added that the possibility of a cul-du-sac on Gettysburg would be felt to be a Past resort by the residents. The big problem now is the traffic comming through the area that does not belong there. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 1977 Mr. Malik then commented that he did not feel the convenience center was needed and that the eliminatl~o~ of the center from the plans would e iminaTe some of the potential traffic problems. He felt, however, that density was still a ma]or problem. He did not feel the property could support that number of units because of the limited access to the area. Mr. Don Murphy, 7725 45~ Avenue, questioned the bus access and whether this would be the end of the line or just another stop? He added that he felt it was hard to say which would cause the most problems, a bus stopping on 42nd, or the car access, and suggeste~ the possibility of a turn around for the Dus. He also felt that the 6% grade was pretty steep, noting that most cities require about 4% on a City street. Mr. Murphy then questioned the possible need for additional barriers toward #18. He noted that HUD ap- proval usually came far ahead of construction plan approval. He then suggested that the Commissio~ stick with the lowest density possible onthis land and minimize the problems. Commissioner London suggested the possibility of tabling the case, for further consideration by.'the Commissioners and also to a Iow Ur. Harrington to address severa of the problem areas raised at the meeting, specifically in regard to landscaping and buffering the property to the South and what would be none as far as buffering if Outlot A were not acquired. He felt the suggestion to eliminate the com- mercial development should also be considered, with might also have an affect on some of the potential parking ~roblems, as well as some ~nternal traffic manipulation so at ow for an internal ~us stop and additional ~arking'for the elderl.~, H~ suggested that these problems be referred to the Traffic Commis- sion for review. Commissioner Londo~ movee to table Case 77-3 until the Is~ of February~ ~o~allow Mr. Harrin.gton time to address some of The concerns expressee aT The meeting and to allow time for a Traffic Commission meetin~ to be hela reqarding this development. Commissioner PaKonen second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Cra!gie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Voting against: Christense~, Anderson Motio~ passed. 7. PLANNING CASE 77-4 - REQUEST FOR A USE VARIANCE AT 8409 29th AVENUE NORT~ MR. AND MRS. RONALD YOUNG, PETITIONERS. Mr. Ronald Young stated that ne was nOT actually asking for a variance, because that would be a permanent thing. He is asking for an extension of time to allow an acquaintance of Tne family to snare their home. Not realizing that they would u0set everyone 'n the neighborhood and in the City, Mr. Young and his wife had al owed a young couple to share their nome until they located living auarters of their own. He added that they nad not meant to upset the neighbors and did nOT realize they were in violation of cone. It had been a temporary ~hing in the beginning, a young acauaintance had 3een trasferred here from Califor- nia. They were requesting a reasonable ength of Time for him to find another place and get relocated, perhaps 60 days. Discussion of the variance request with concensus being that technically what Mr. Young was requesting was a stay of the ordinance. Mr. Young noted, in response to question from Commissioner Anderson that the couple had 0een with them since August. Mrs. Audrey Johnson, 6310 Markwood. Drive, noted that there was an apartment building in the area that qad vacancies. She addea that she owned a double bungalow on which she paid $1912 a year in taxes and thought that if people were going to use property as douDle residences, they should pay the same kind of Taxes she does. Mr. John Lazar, 8417 North 29th, next door neighbor to the Youngs, stated that the family had been liv- ing with the Youngs for auite some time and he felt that The City of New Hope had been quite reasonable in allowing this violation to exist for this long. The first warning was issued on September 13th. On November 22, The deadline for abatement was extended. The aaTe of abatement had been extended to January I, 1977. From September 9, to January I, was II0 days. ~e auestioned whether another 60 days would reall~ make any ~ifference. Mr. Lazar proposed that the "stay" include that it could not be extended beyond the 60 days. He added that after March I, ne would not support any extension° He then presented a note from Hr. and Mrs. Roger Lind, 8332 29th Avenue North (attached to official minutes) in which they stated they would agree to a 60 day extension, but no longer -- providing the tenants were making an honest effort to find other housing facilities. Mr. Lazar, answer to a question from 1he Chairman, noted that he became aware of the additional family when he came home one day and saw a moving truck there. He had no idea what was happening until the se- cond family appeared. He then inquired from the City as to what was going on. He did not talk to his neighbor. He added, in response to a a~estion from the Chairman, that the second family had two cars an~ in the summer had parked on the street, which ne objected to. He was concern about kids running down driveways and not being seen- He added that since winter the cars had not been a problem. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - JANUARY 4, 1977 7. Commissioner Gustafson inquired whether there were specific nuisances that he was concerned with that would affect a 60 day stay? Mr. Lazar noted that there was nothing he could specifically name, but he did not want it to become a per- manent situation. The present people are of a Iow profile, stay to themselves, and they really do not affect them. He did not fee there would be any particular problem. Mr. Young in answer to a question from the City Manager, noted that there were three people in each family. He agreed with Mr. Lazar that the cars had been a problem but he felt the situation had been rectified. As far as the statement that nothing had been done, he said he had told the couple when he received the final notice that they must move. They had been looking at the situation and attempting to relocatep but the Christmas season had added to the problem. One of the hangups with their finding another place was that the young man needed enough space to conduct some of this business from that ne could afford. He is a salesman, travels and does a lot of business by phone. Mr. Young felt that the young couple had 3een trying to find someplace else to live. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion on Case 77-4 that a stay of enforcement of the Zoning Code be granted until March I~ 1977~ sub,ject to the petitioner assuring that a I of the vehicles~ other than during legal hours~ be parKea in the ~riveway. Commissioner Craigie secona. Commissioner London stated that he felt that more than enough time had been allowed for the petitioner to find a place to live. He had not heard any goo~ reason for having a second family in the home. He sympathize~ with them, but felt that there had already been three months to find a place to live. Mr. Young noted that it was perhaps laxity on his part, but that until November he had not realized they were breaking any aw. Commissioner Pakonen questioned the purpose of an ordinance that did not allow two families in a home. The City Manager noted that in the City of New Hope, you could only have two families 'n a dwelling in an MR aistrict and that the lot must be a minimum of 14,000 square feet, an~ eacn unit must be 1050 square feet. Voting in favor: Bartos, Atchle¥, Gustafson, Gundershaug, P~konen Voting against: London, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson Motion failed for lack of a ma.iority. 8. PLAN~ING CASE 77-5 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL FOR ^ WIND GENERATOR AT 4141 FLAG - MR. AND MRS.ERHARD, PETITIONERS. _ Mr. Grant Merritt noted that he was representing the petitioners and the Minnesota State Geographical Society. They were asking for a 5 foot variance in height to allow them to construct a wind tower/ generator using a Jacobs Wind Electric generator. This is the same Type of generator that was used at the South =ole by Admiral Byrd, which was stil producing energy after 20 years. The project will use 0roven technology. It is a demonstration oroject but there have been similar pro- jects in the Twin Cities. Mr. Merritt noted that the 0roblem of energy has become very apparent in the last few years. This ~rojecm is aimed aT trying to determine whether some of these alternative energy sources are feasible. He notee that there would ce some o0jections but felt that windmills had been arounc for some time. This was new in that they were attempting to determine feasibility in an urban setting. ~e added that Mrs. Erhard had contacted many.neighbors by obone, and there were many that had not raised any objections. Because of the elevation and atmosphere, as we I as the socio-economic condi- tions, they felt this was a good place to conduct one of these demonstrations. There will Oe little if any pollution from the project. Mr. Tom Griffin, Executive Director of the Minnesota Geographical Society, noted that he had been inter- ested in alternative sources of energy for seven years. He used to answer questions sucn as "what are we going To do about energy?" with "Go live in the country". After five years ne realized that people were not going to live in the country and because past generations have functioned with wind energy, and be- cause he was concerned with inflation and the increasing higher cosm of energy, he submitted the proposal to the energy agency. He wants to demonstrate the possibility of using this type of energy for residen- tial or commercial use. He felt they were not going to Know, until they try. Most families use about 2000 kw a year, according to NSP. It has Peen suggeste~ that there is a possibility of generating 7UO0 kw a year through the use of a small Jacobs Winder Generator of 2800 V. This could be a saving of $500 0er year. He noted that while this might not be much, he felt that aeople had to try something different. He felt that it was important to see what kind of wind there was in an average ±erained area. The base of the tower will be eight feet wide, and extend up 48 feet. The wind generator weighs about 300 pounds ant has been measured as to noise and found to ~e comparable TO a "whis0er". The ratio base to height has to be 5 to I. The tower will be a angle iron galvanized tower. In answer to a concern that it might fall down, he noted that the tower at the South Pole had been subjected to winds up to 150 miles per hour and had not fal en down. The tower will be set in concrete. He did not know whether or not the tower would affect television reception, a man with a similar tower had stated to him that there was no interference. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~.10~ JANUARY 4, 1977 The Jacobs system has 0e~n regarded as the most conservative, practical, workable generating system vented. It has proved re iable over and over again, because of its design. He admitted to doubts about ~-~ the feasibility in an urban setting but he did not feel that allowing one wind generator 'n an area would lead to 100 or 1000, because of personal preference. He added that ne felt wind energy would only be supplemental in his lifetime. He intended the project to be modest in scope, outlook and accomplish- ment, but although any experiment could possibly fail, he said they felt obligated in this time Of increas- ing costs to give it a try. Commissioner London questioned whether they had as vet determined the exact location of the windmill on the lot. Mr. Griffin noted that the anonometer recorder, which will recora the wind for a month before they decide on the position of the windmill has not as yet arrived. ^ decision could not be ma~e until they had a chance to gather some data. Discussion then covered t~ possible ocation for the windmill, Mr. Griffin stating that ideally it would not be next to the highest portion of the house, because of the currents and would be ocated 15-25 feet behind the nouse. THe footings will be four feet into the ground, approximately 12 inches in diameter. There will be no guy wires and no connection between the house ann the windmill. He said he would provide a detailed drawing of ~he footing connections. No heavy equipment wil be needed to install the windmit and there will be no infringement on the neigh- boring yards. There will be no additional equipment on the house except small rabbit ears. The power w'll come into the ground and into the house. In response to questions from Commissioner London, Mr, Griffin commented that ne would doubt that the tower could be installed before June, depending upon the weather, ann that he would hope that they could measure data ~or one year with an option to extend for another year, assuming that the experiment worked. The grant will include funds for dismanteling and the society will take full responsibility for removal. Access to neighboring yards will not be necessary, the tower comes unassembled. In response to questions from Commissioner London regarding the noise level~ Mr. Griffin noted that the PCA had measured one windmi I on Monday, together with a gentlemen from the Department of Transportation, and they could hardly near the windmil for the backgrouna noise. The noise expert for the PCA had mea- sured -ne noise in the low 30's DBA. The standard is 60=65 during the day and 50-55 at night. Mr. Griffin noted that he had aeen out to the site, and in a wind of 10-15 miles per hour, you could not hear the windmill unless you put your ear to the structure, then you could hear the humming. He added that Mr. Al Perez, from State Pollution Control, had requested that if anyone, either Commis- sioner or citizen, knew of a noisy windmill, they should let them know ane they would go out and measure the noise. He noted that the windmills need maintenance, oiling, etc. The society would be responsible for this maintenance, along with the Erhards. Commissioner Bartos noted that he had observed a windmill on Sunday, and had been aware of a squeaky noise. He added that he felt that 'n a wind of 25 miles an hour there would be more than a whisper of noise. The windmill speed would be control ed by a governor. Mr. Griffin commented that if the windmill continued to make waves in the neighborhood, it would be re- moved. He noted in response to a question from Commissioner Crai~ie, that there would be small antenna ears on the exterior of the house but that the data would be gathered in the home. There will be no additional equipment, and the governor would limit the blade speed. There was also the possibility of locking the blade if problems should develop. The~ plan to enclose the windmill inside a wooden fence. Once inside the fence it would require a high jump to get to the first rung of the tower. I~ response to a question regarding potential traffic and peo~.e coming to visit the site, Mr. Griffin commented that he felt they should be very cautious around the press and that he did not plan to go out · and invite people to view the tower. It will be a matter of prudence and he would discourage too many visitors, but he felt there would be some people coming to observe its operation. The Society will be responsible for insurance coverage including a rider against unforeseen problems such as the tower falling down. Mr. Griffin noted that he had decided to not use storage batteries. He feels that the real issue in alternative energy is what is the complimentary relationship between alternative energy, i.e. the rela- tion between a residential Or commercial wind generator and Norther States Power. He felt the battery would be practical in the country, but hoped that some arrangement could be worked out with NSP. He wants to see an inter-dependent type of energy. PLANNING C.OMMISSION MINUTES - II - JANUARY 4, 977 Commissioner Anderson questioned the reason for a wind generator in New Hope when there have been others constructed and used during the past ten years. Mr. Griffin answered that the others did not have aninometer recorders -- they hope to collect data and be able to know the differences in wind speed in different months and at different times of day, and the practicality of the wind generator for day to day use. He personally felt that such a project had pessi- bilities, but at The present time theydon.'t have date to support the .feeling. This experiment will pro- vide such data. Mr. Jerry Mahoney, 4149 Flag, questioned why Mr. Griffin could not go to an existing tower and record the information at that location. He would still achieve the data. Mr. Griffin stated that this was a social not only a technical experiment.. He referenced the increase in the cost of electricity to the Erhards between 1967 and 1976. There are at present no alternatives in this country for energy source aha if costs continue to rise he felt that an alternative must be located. Mr. Mahoney then questionec whether the Erhards had taken any steps to reduce their energy consumption? Mr. Erhard noted that since 1967 they have added 16" of insulation in their ceilings, and have added a portable dishwasher, a tv and air condition, which they keep set at a moderate temperature in summer. Mrs. Don Thompson, 4t41 Ensign, questioned what the windmill would do To the value of their home? She noted that it would Be visible from a distance. Discussion about the visibility of the windmill and the temporary nature of the installation. Mr. Klaers, 4149 Ensign,asked about the possibility of lightning striking the tower? Commissioner Bartos commented that he had grown up on a far~ with a 50 foot windmill that had never been struck by lightning although lower buildings on the farm had been. Mr. Klaers expressed his concern that the windmill would destroy the value of his home aha asked about the closeness of neighbors at the existing wind generator sites in the area. Mr. Griffin commented that he wasn't trying to say that everyone was interested in living in a house with a wind generator but that he had personally spoken To a gentlemen in Arizona that had stated he naa more inquiries regarding purchasing his home because of the fact that he had a wind generator. Mr. Klaers noted that he felt this was a project that the taxpayers were going to pay for that would destroy the value of his home. Mr. Griffin commented ~hat if Mr. Klaers could prove that he could not set his home because of the wind- mi I, ne would remove it within two weeks. Mrs. Liz Jones, 4149 Ensign, stated sne felt they should think about the traffic. A lot of people would be driving by to see it. Mr. Me'rritt, commented on the traffic, and his feeling that any increase in traffic would be minimal. In reference To the aesthetics, he did not feel anyone could accurately predict what the windmill would do to property values. It was very difficult TO get an accurate appraisal and it was his feeling there were many s~ructures going up that would be more offensive than the windmill. ~e added that he nas power ines through the back of his yard and they were not very pretty either. He felt the important thing was that a safe structure be built. Safety does come first. Mrs. Marty Conley, asked where the grant came from ano whether or not, before they began construction, there would be some agreement with NSP. Mr. Griffin answered that the grant came from the State of Minnesota, and that if agreement could not be reached with NSP (i.e. grave obstacles) they would not proceed. Mrs. Mary Guernsey, 4133 Ensign, stated she was not sure the windmill was safe. She added that she did not think anyone expected the tower in Shoreview to fall and the same thing could happen here. It will also draw a lot of the neighborhood kids who would attempt to climb the tower. Mr. Griffin noted that he had questioned one owner about this problem, whose tower was in the open and completely unfenced and he had said there had been no problem. The ladder will be ten feet away from the ground. Mr. Walter Conley, 4157 Flag, commented that he had been interested in the discussion of the evening. He stated he had been fairly neutral when he came to the meeting but had been impressed with the pre- sentation and the guarantees for safety, as noted, and now tends to favor the project. He felt it would be an interesting project. PLANNING COMMISS'ION MINUTES -12- JANUARY 4, 1977 Mr. Don Murphy, 7725 45½ Avenue, referred to the approval given To the bubble for the tennis court, even though it was an eyesore, and here we have something that is needed much more and would also provide knowledge. He would oe happy to have it in his yard. He noted that ne was also a representative of the Environmental Commission for the City. Commissioner London expressed his concern about the lack of specific information in regard to the loca- tion in the Erhard yard and whether or not the concept could be approved? The City Manager stated that he felt this would be a.good approach and would enable the request to be sent before the Council so that the petitioner could ascertain whether or not the Council was in favor of the project, with the petitioner returning to the Commission when specifics were available° Commissioner London made a motion to .approve Case 77~5~ R~quest for VaPiance and Construction Approval for a wind generator in concept~ with the understandinq that final plans will be back before the Plannin~ Commission for approval. Commissioner Bartos second. Commissioner Pakonen commented that the organization was a reputable group and questioned what would be gained Dy delaying final approval until the location on the lot were determined? s the Commission eualified to determine the adequacy of, for example, the footings? is there a chance that tne Commission could become liable? The Chairman commented that qe felt that when the final plans were submitted, they should De in great detail and that all questions would Be answered. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: Atchley, Gustafson, Pakonen, Anderson Motion passed. Commissioner Pakonen commented that perhaps some of the "nays" were for the same reason as he voted no, which was simply that ne felt they could have received approval aT the present meeting. Mr. Tom Klaers, requested that he De allowed ~o address the Commission. He stated that ne had just asked Mr. Griffin what would be done with the data when it was collected and turned over to the officials. Ur. Griffin had answered maybe nothing. Mr. Klaers felt the Commission shoula know this because it might have affected their decision. If they didn't know what they were going to do with the data, why collect it at all? The concensus of the Commission was that this was immaterial, although the ~oint was well taken. Commissioner Anderson noted that if the data should prove to be worthless, there was nothing further to De done. Commissioner Anderson made a ~otion to table the remainder of the a~enda until Tuesday~ January I1~ 1977. Commissioner Craigie ,second. The meeting was ad,journed by unanimous consent at 12:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~oyce Boeddeker~ Secretary NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING · ON REQUEST FOR VARIANCE Case No. 77-4 City of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the New Hope Planning Commis- sion will meet at the City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North, in said City on January 4, 1977 at 7:50 p.m, to hold a public hearing on a request for a variance to permit a single family structure to be used as double occupancy for up to 60 days on the following legally described property: Lot 7, Block 4 - Twin Terra Linda 2nd (8409 29th Avenue North, Mrs. Ronald Young, Petitioner) The New Hope City Council will consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding this request for the pur- pose of taking action at its meeting at the City Hall on Jan- uary I0, 1977 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. All interested persons are invited to attend both meetings and to be heard. Dated: December 20, 1976 Betty Poul.~.ot City Clerk~Treasurer , (Pub l ished in the New Hope-Plymouth Post on December 22, 1976). .--Yr. ->-- ~ 4._ / . -,¢" ~ ' . ~.4-~-~ ~-:~-- -~--r,-~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY I1, 1977 I. A sDecia meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday~ January I1, 1977 at the City Hall, 4401Xvlon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p,m. by Chairman Cameron. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Absent: Londen, Bartos (excused), Anderson Commissioner London arrived at 7:52 a.m. The Chairman noted that the meeting would begin at the point on the agenda that the meeting had been adjourned on January 4, 1977. COMMITTEE REPORTS 9. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. lO. The report of ?he Land Use Committee was postponed pending the arrival of Commissioner London. II. Commissioner Gustafson opened the discussion of the proposed Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance. He stated that the Committee, after extensive review, was recommending the adop±ion of the ordinance as modified by the memo from Mark Johnson dated June 28, 1976, with the additional recommendation that commercial and rental property be inspected annually according to a schedule, with private single family dwe ling inspections to De conducted at "point of sale" or upon complaint to the City. Commissioner Gustafson commented that considerable time had spent in committee review of the minimum size of rooms as stated in the ordinance. He referenced a memo he had received from the City Inspec- tion Department which noted that to reduce the 70 square feet required in sleeping rooms (502.3) to 50 square feet would be in violation of the State Builaing Code (Sections 1307 and t407b). Lengthy discussion followed in regard t~ the requirements as stated for sleeping rooms. The feeling Of the Commission was that strict enforcement of this section might cause problems for many of the residents of the City by placing them 'n violation of the Code. The City Manager noted that he personally did not feel this was a problem aT the present time and felt this section should be left as is, since enforcement would be only when there are particular areas of concern, t would serve as a tool to correct current oroblems and it would put newcomers on notice as to space needs. Commissioner Pakonen expressed concern for the restriction in the event of a fire. It for example, there were people other than family members sleeping in a room and a law suit,~ resulted. He questioned whether the owner of the property would be negligent? Commissioner Christensen agreed that the ordinance should not include any provision that would place "x" % of the New Hope residents immediately in violation. Additional discussion then held in regard to the space minimums as stated in the ordinance for both iv- 'ng and sleeping areas and the responsibilities, at time of sale, that these regulations be indicated TO potential purchasers. Reasons for a restriction of this Type were discussed, which inc uded health and safety and a desire to prevent significant overcrowding of dwellings. Feeling of the Commission seemed to De that additiona occuoants in a room (above maximum) would not be a problem, particularly with small children, unless adults were invo ved. t was noted that short of a door to door ins3ection, which was not desireable~ the City would not be aware of most of these violations until a "point of sale" inspection were conducted. Discussion then centered on the regulations in regard to boarders, or other than family members residing in a dwelling. It was noted that this was controlled by the Zoning Ordinance. In regard to informing the citizens of New Hope about the Main+enance and Occupancy Ordinance and its regulations, the City Manager noted that a summary of the regulations as they apply to homeowners could be included in the "New Homeowners Packets". Commissioner Atchle~ recommended that Section 501 be amended to read: "Not m~re than one family,, except for boarders ~[ temporary ~uests~ as controlled by the Zoni.n9 Code, shall occup~ a dwellings" Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION - 2 - JANUARY II, 1977 II. Commissioner Craigie commented that he did not feel the square footage requirement at the point of sale was important and that he felt that additional children in a home, foster children for example, would be supervised by the agency in charge. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion that the Maintenance and Occupanyc Ordinance Draft Version dated May 1976t as updated by the memo from Hark Johnson dated June 28~ 1976 be adopted. Commissioner Atchley second. Discussion then centered on the means of enforcement of the ordinance. The language in Section 601 (page 26) was felt to need clarification. The reference to "Director of Protective nspections" ana the line of authority in enforcemnt proce- dures were then covered. The City Manager noted that the City of New Hone does hav~ a Director of Protective Inspections who was directly responsible for enforcement. Technically, by State Law, the City Manager is responsible for The enforcement of all City ordinances. Commissioner Gustafson amended Section 601 to Read: "The Director of Protective Inspections and/or his designated agents shall administer and enforce the provision of this Ordinance and are hereby authorized To cause inspections on commercial and rental property on a scheduled basis aha on owner occupied residential pro- perties am the point of sale or when reason exists To believe that a violation of the Ordi- nance qas been or is being committed." Commissioner Christenser second. Discussion then centered on the annua inspections as conducted by the City in connection with licenses or certification of rental units and the qeed To indicate aDDroval of an approvea enforcement strategy. It was noted that different types of rental properties are involved, both commercia and residential, and there is a need to establish fees for this inspection. Commissioner Gustafson then revised the. wording of his amendment to read: ~'The Director of Protective Inspections and/or his designated agents snail administer and en- force the provisions of H~is 0rd'nance ana are hereby authorized to cause inspections on commercial and rental dwetl~nm units on al~ classes of property within the City on a scheduled ba~i~.t an~ on owner occupied residential units on al classes of property at the poi.nt of sale or when reason exists To believe that a violation of the Ordinance nas been~or is being~ com- mitted.'' Commissioner Christensen second. The City Manager indicated he felt they should first adopt the ordinance and the~ set enforcement policy. Voting on amended Section 601 Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion p.assed. Further discussion followed regarding the setting of fees, whether it is done by Council~ or staff, the need for a fee schedule to be included in the ordinance, the'meaning of "scheduled" inspections, whe- ther this meant yearly as presently conducted or whether another schedule should be estab ished. Commissioner Craigie amended Section 600 to include: "Section 601.1 - To defray administrative costs of processinq inspections under the ordinance a schedule of fees shall 3e established by the City Council to be paid.b~ those .persons or property being inspected." Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion passed. In-answer t? a question from Commission Pakonen regarding the complications of amending the ordinance in the future, the City Manager noted that it was not difficult if there was agreement on the need. ~-~' Discussion then covered the earlier concern expressed by Commissioner Pakonen regarding liability should non family members be sleeping in a room that was too small and a fire occurred. He questioned whether the owner's insurance carrier cover him -- if ne was in effect breaking the law? Commissioner London stated that it was his feeling that the insurance carrier of the homeowner would cover this. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JANUARY I1, 1977 II. Commission Craigie noted that the Committee had recommended that the ordinance be reviewed after a year. Minimum room size continued to be discussed. Commissioner Gustafson, in answer to a question from Com- missioner Pakonen noted that the main concern regarding size was from a health standpoint. Commissioner ~konenmade a motion that Section 502.3 be deleted from the ordinance. The motion died for lack of a second. Voting on the motion to adopt the Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance.as amended.. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion passed. Commissioner London asked when the Pinball Ordinance would be considered? Commissioner Gustafson noted this would be before the commission at the meeting of January 18, 1977. lb. Commissioner Gustafson turned the meeting over to Commissioner Craigie who was the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on ~oulevard encroachments. Commissioner Craigie began the review of the proposed ordinance on encroachment. During the review, considerable time was spent on Subdivision "3". This included whether there was a , neea to oublish a notice of a petition for an encroachment, and the need to send notification to the neighbors, as well as the cost to the City for the legal notice process, and whether or not these permits would be the same as variances. The City Manager noted that at the present time all requests were not oublished, i.e. special use per~ mits 'in which notices were sent only to neighbors as i~ is nom required by law to publish them. He added that what was actually involved in this type of situation was the accommodation of an individual's preference as to what to do with his property. Commissioner London moved that Section "C" 0e amended to require $100~000 in insurance coverage. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion oassed. The Commissioners felt that Subdivision ?4" should be amended.. C9ncern was expressed about the City's right to terminate the permit, without a hearing. Commissioner London questioned the legality of not affording the homeowner a hearing. Commissioner Craigie felt that the homeowner upon applying for the petition to encroach upon City pro- perty would be forewarned that the City could at any time request that the encroachment be removed if it became a problem. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he felt the City was giving up the use of a portion of their proper- ty,and had every right to request removal, but that the petitioner should be informed that they had the right of appeal. Consideration of the responsibilities of the City in regard to the petitioner and notification of 'poten- tial removal of the encroachment per City reeuest then took place. Commissioner Crai~ie moved that Subdivision "4" be amended to read as follows: "Any permit ~ssued pursuant to this ordinance ~.y be terminated by the City Council within ten ~ys of notice~ .'ith or without .cause~ and without compensation to any property owner whether the original applicant or the successor in ti~l.e~, and no property ri~h.t in any encroachment shat vest in the prop.erty owner. Upon termination of a boulevard encroachment permit, the .~roperty owner shall promptly remove the same. ^ hearing, within 30 days before the City Council through the Planning Commission shall be held .upon the request of the .property owner~'. Commis- sioner Gustafson second. Discussion then coversd the hearing process, whether the amendment should .read "City Council" or "Staff'~ and the fact that once the hemeowner had applied for a permit he would be forewarned of the possibility of the City requesting the removal of the encroachment at a future time. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen. Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - JANUARY II, 1977 lib. Concern was then expressed about a second owner of a property with a permit for encroachment and how the City would be aware of the new owner. Concensus was that the ordinance called for the second owner to meet all of the origina terms of the permit, which included insurance coverage, and the City would suosequently receive notice of this coverage as well as notice of the cancel ation of a policy. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug) regarding existing encroachments, the City Mana- ger noted that ae felt it was very possible that these 0eoDle would Be notified in the spring° Commissioner Craigie moved that Ordinance 77 - "An Ordinance Adding Section 6.120 to the City Cod~ Regulating Encroachment Upon Boulevard Easements and Providing for Permits Therefor" be aaopted as amenaea. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion passed. The Chairman declared a recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9:30 I0. As Chairman of the Land Use Comm]tt~e~ Commissioner London moved that the Subdivision Ordinance be Rdopted. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen~ Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Anderson Motion passed. The City Manager noted that the only major change that was not shown in the memo of amendments was the removal of the section covering the dedication of Dark and. NEW BUSINESS 2. The Council minutes of December t3, 1976 were reviewed~ The City Manager commented that the townhouse/aaartment complex Off Bass Lake Road ha~ been approved with the provision that aaaitional sYorage s~ace be'provided.-.-The re~oni~ng was approved on 1/10/77 and the project has also cleared the Met Council. The City Manager then re~orted that at the meeting of 1/10/77 all of the Planning Commission members had been reappointed. They will be sworn in at the meeting of 1/18/770 The "Y" var'ance was turned down, the request for two families to occupy one dwelling had been extended to March I, 1977, aako aad received approva for the drive-up facility an~ the windmill project had re- ceived concept approval. 13. The Planning Commission minutes of 12/7/76 were approved as written. 14. The City Manager suggested, in resbonse to questions from the Chairman, that the Commission attempt to comolete the review of the district meetings on the Comprehensive alan at the meeting on 1/18/77. The Zoning Code could then be reviewed once again with a I o ok at the oropose~ YexY changes. Mr. Larson sug- gested that the Commission plan to review the Zoning Ordinance on 2/8/77. He.noted that he would prepare a economic scne~u e per Commissioner Gustafson's request for the site in District #1o 15. Elections were then held. Commissioner Cameron and Commissioner Gustafson were reappointed unanimously to the posit~ions of Chairman an~ Assistant Chairman. Concensus of the Commission was that the position of Secretary~reasurer would not Pe filled. 17. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:45 p~mo Respectfully submitted, Ooyce ~oeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 18, 1977 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:37 p.m. on Tuesday, January 18, 1977 at the City Hall, 4401Xylon ~venue North, New Hope, Minnesota. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson AbsenT: London, Pakonen, Craigie Commissioner Craigie arrived at 7:42 p.m. The City Manager then proceeded to"swear in" the Commissioners who were beginning new terms on the Commission. These were: Paul Gustafson, Scott Craigie, Howard Atchley anu Bernie Bartos. The Chairman then directed the meeting to a review of the remaining portion of the proposed Comprehen- sive Plan. 3. District #1 (62nd Avenue/#18) Public Hearing of August 2~.~' '976] The City Manager noted that ~istrict#1 contained one of the major problem areas and that considerable Discussion had resulted at the public hearing for this district. The major concern was in regard to the 9 acre open parce at the Northwest corner of town now zoned RB. The proposal of the Comprehensive Plan would leave the front three acres as commercial and add high den- sity multiples at the rear. There had peen considerable feeling on the part of the citizens at the pub- lic hearing in opposition to the Plan. Commissioner Gundershaug noted that as a resident of this district he felt very strongly that there should not be apartments in this area --- partly because of the policy as established by the Commission to have no more apartments ir the City, but also because he persona ly would ike to see mid-density hous- ing in the entire area, without any commercial. He felt that single family residences would not be fea- sible because of the soil conditions 'n the area. Commissioner Craigie commented on the fact that 38% of the residents in the City were now renters, and That the greatest number of these people are n apartments. He further felt that there should be no apartments on this site because he felt it was a good area for mid-density. He further felt that be- cause of the change in access to #18 from what-had peen anticipated in the 1960 Plan, there was suffi- cient reason to not allow commercial development. Discussion then centered on definite development proposals for the property and whether any had been sub- mitted by the owner; the change in access in relation to the validity of the recommendations of the 1960 Plan; the suitabi ity of the site for mid-density housing~ which density would benefit the City the most (mid-density) and the suitability of the site for a PUD development. Discussion continued about the City's liability in downzoning and how explicit the Planning Commission should be in regard to stating their reasons for the proposed downzoning. Commissioner Craigie commented that deve oping the site as mid-density would improve the City's housing mix and added that he felt the fact that the access to #1.8 had changed should be mentioned as one rea- son for not developing commercial, as well as the proximity to other commercial development, the approved policy of the City to provide a greater housing mix and the fact that a cost benefit analysis had shown that mid-density housing would be of the greatest benefit to the City. Commissioner Christensen. moved that the r6commendations for District # , as stated in the Comprehensive Plan De changed to read: Paragraph 3, page 66, continued on page 68. "In consideration of the poor Development quality peat soils which exist in the Southern and Southwestern portions of the site~ i~ is [ecomm~nded that any Development occur on a planned unit basis. It is further recommended that this planned unit development 'ncorporate mid- density housing. In or~er to .proTecT the pedestrian orientation of Tne district's core, while still providing new residents access to Dark facilities (as we~ as existing residents access to the new commercial facilities) the plan also shows present access to the site from Hillsboro Avenue maintained as a peDesTrian walkway only. As a fina~ note~ the recommended mid-density planne~ unit development is considered compatible with the townhouse development which nas been desiqnated for the open lane across 62nd Avenue in Brooklyn Park." Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 18, 1977 Chairman Cameron noted that he felt the record should show that a letter from Mr. Derrick had been previously received expressing opposition to downzoning the property. District #2 (62nd to Bass Lake ~oad, Boone to Winnetka) The City Manager noted that the problems in this district are primarily maintenance. He added that St. Therese Home had expressed concern (in a letter) about the zoning for two auplexes on Winnetka Ave- hue. This was a problem to consiaer wnen applying the new mapping. Commissioner Craigie mane a motion app£o.v]ng the language as stated in the Comprehensive Plan as it re- ferrea to District ~2. Commissioner Gundershau§ second. Voting in favor: Bartos, ~Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed° .District #3 (Winnetka to West Broadway, 62nd Avenue to Crystal border) The City Manager, in reference to Paragraph #5 of the recommendations regarding this district, noted that the service station at 62nd/West Broadway is now occupied and the new owners were working at clean- ing up the site. Commissioner Gundershauq made a motion approving the language as stated in the Comprehensive Plan as it referred to District #3. Commissioner Craiqie secona. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, ~nderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. District #4 (West Broadway/ 62nd Avenue/ Crystal border The problems in this are are also those of maintenance. ~-~' Commissioner Bartos made a motion approving the language as .stated in the Comprehensive Plan as it re- ferred to District #4. Commissioner Gundershaug second° Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Abstain: Craigie Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. District #6 (54th Avenue - Bass Lake Road~ Boone - Winnetka) Discussion held about the sma I isolated parcels and their zoning as well as the owner's choice o~ zon- ing versus what would oe allowed because of size etc. Commissioner Christensen moved TO approve the language 'n the Comprehensive Plan for District #6~ with the substitution of the following n Paragraph #2~ page 74~ beginnin~ wi~h Sentence 3 to read: "In support of this Ionq range ob,iective~ the largesm of ~he presenT undeveloped parcels in District #6 nas been p]annee for a 4 unit PUD develcament. With respect ~'o the potential for non-residential developmenT the other smal er avai able parcels 3e developed consistent with the intention of the residentia /office district in the updated zoning ordinance", Commissioner Craigie second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Andemson Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. District #7 (Winnetka-Crystal border, Bass Lake Road - RR tracks) Discussion centered on the Jewett property, the existing car wash and the fact that this site had not been officially divided. There are also access problems to Bass Lake Road. The City Manager noted that communication had been received from Ponderosa regarding a different zoning. Discussion also covered the fact 'that the new zoning preferred Oy some of the property owners would not be suitable because of the size of the site. It was noted that the property owner of the South side pro- perty was concerned that he Oe able to sell the property =or the maximum use. Commissioner Craig]e ~oved to adopt the lancuage of the Comprehensive Plan for District #7. Commissioner Gundershaug second, PLANNING COMMISSION'MINUTES - 3 - JANUARY 18, 1977 Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None AbsenT: London, Pakonen Motion passed. District #8 (54th Avenue - RR tracks, Boone ~ Winnetka Avenue) This is an almost totally aevelo~ea industrial area. n response to a question from Commissioner Ander- son regarding the recommendation of the plan that the remaining land be Treated as a second level priority, the City Manager commented that this was because the Planners had felt that the first priority should be the complete development of the Science Center area. Commissioner Christensen recommended that the language in the Comprehensive Plan for District #8 b~ aa0pted. Commissoner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. 4. The Public Hearing of August 31, 1976 and it's citizen input were then reviewed. District #13 (49th Aveaue - 46th AVenue and Rockford Road, Winnetka - Boone) This is a totally developed residential area. Commissioner Anderson recommended that the lanquage of the Plan for District #13 be adopted. Commissioner Gundersnau~ second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Chzistensen, ATchley; Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundersha~g, Anders~n Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. District #17 (City Center area) The City Manager noted that the owners ~f the site for the propose~ shopping center seemed to be ready To move ahead,with leases exaected to be signed shortly. He added that the City Council had authorized the expenditure of funds to enable Midwest Planning and Research to conduct an additiona study of the proposed City Center with contact havin~ been made with the owners and tenants of the area to deve op ~lans for possibly tying The entire area together. This would involve a total design concept with coordinated landscaping, pathways, signing etc. The existing center and the proposed center as wel as the tenants that might be attracted to the new center were also discussed. Commissioner Gustafson move~ that the lanqua~e of the Comprehensive Plan as i+ related to District #17 be aaopted. Commissioner Atchley second. Voti.~g in favor: Bartos, ChrisTensen, A chley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gun~ershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. 5. The Public Hearing held on September 14, 1977 was then reviewed in regard to it's citizen input. Commiss'oner Anderson suggested that inasmuch as Districts 19 and 20 were relatively non controversial, they be reviewe~ first. The Commission agreed. District #19 (Gethsemane Cementary) Commissioner Christense~ moved to adopt the ~an~ua~e of ~ne Comprehensive Plat as ~+ related to District #19. Commissioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen ~ · Motion passed. District #20 (South border of Gethsemane Cemetary to 36th, Boone to Winnetka) This is a totally developed area. Commissioner Gundershau§ recommended that the ~an~ua~e of the Comprehensive Plan for District #20 be adopted. Commissioner Crai~ie second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4 - JANUARY 18, 1977 Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, GQstafson, Gundershaug,.Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. District #28 (Winnetka to the RR T~acks, 27th Avenue to Crfstal border) The City Manager referred to the meeting of November 16, 1976. He stated the review as conducted by the Commission for District #28 naa been omitted from the minutes. He referred to the transcript of these minutesas distributed ?o the Commissioners and requested that this addition be adopted. Commissioner Craigie-moved that the C~mmissi. on adopt the addendum to the minutes of November 16t 1976 in re~ahd To District #28~ in order .that they could ~e includec in the official recor0. The addendum TO read: 4. District #28 The City Manager stated that one of the main problems in this district was that there were exit~ 'n9 proDlems on to Winnetka. Commissioner Gustafson noted that there was not much the Planning Commission cou d do at this time 'n regard to this problem. 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 lanquage as .proposed. for District #28. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Gundersh.au9, Bartos~ Christensen~ Anderson~ Crai~iet Gustafson Votin~ a~ainst: None Absent: London,. Pakonen~ Atohley~. Camerqn. Motion passea. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. .~ District #9 (49th Avenue to RR Tracks, Boone to County #18) Commission recommendation for this district had Oeen tabled previously because one of the property owners aad indicated he would be ~efore the Commission with a development plan. A proposal for a ~ortion of the area North of 49th Avenue shoulc be before the Commission in March. Considerable discussion tot owed regarding the ~ecommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for mid-density housing in this area, the ~ypes of industr'~ YhaY could possibly ocate in the area, whether or not ~id- density housing would be feasible for the area in view of the industrial developmenT to the North, the proximiTy to the #18 access, the existing ~all fiet~, ana the potential traffic problems for a housing development. Comments included the fact that mid-density housing had already been recommended for the open land to the South of 49th Avenue. The concensus seemed TO De that this site to the South, if developed at mid- density, would be a sufficient buffer between the existing single family homes and the industrial. Commissioner Gustafson stated his opinion ThaT there was a definite difference 'n the two pieces of pro- perty'- South ~nd North of 49th Avenue. He did not feel the portion.to the North was conducive to mid- density housing, Discussion followed regarding a PUD development for the site, the problems of children playing etc. Commissioner Gustafson noted his concerns for the wnole balance of the site, the kind of traffic that could be generated back into the Olson Industrial Park along the access road and stated his feeling that they would be putting a foreign type use in that one little spot. Because of the highway access he felt industrial to be ~ better use for The North side of 49th with the mid-density on the Soutn side of 49th providing a buffer betweer, the single family and industrial. Concensus of the Commission was that the City Manager should reward this section of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the.ir recommendations for this site. Commissioner Gustafson recommended that the concensus of the Commission that the one area should not be ~nan~ed to mid-density housin~ shou.ld be adopted~with Mr. Larson ~o develop some specific wording for consideration at the next review of District #9. Commissioner Anderson second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - JANUARY 18~ 1977 5. Commissioner Gustafs~n noted that this revision would be reviewed at the next meeting. Voting in favor: Bartos~ Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: Craigie Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. Chairman Cameron declared a recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9:22 p.m. District #18 (Rockford Road - 36th Avenue, Boone - #18) There are two large undeveloped areas within this district. The major area of controversy is the site at 42nd/Rockford Road. Commissioner Christensen noted that on page 94, there was a recommendation for mixed-density housing at this site. He referencea the fact that the Commission ha~ already been presented with a proposa for a higa rise aevelopment on this site aha felt the recommendation was inconsistent. He was concerned that the petitioner had not been completely discouraged from this potentia development i' certain problem areas were corrected, n his opinion, unless the decision on this district were to be postponed, he did not see qow they could recommend mid-aensity for the site. The Chairman i~dicated his feeling that the two issues could be acted on separately, i.e. the recommen- dations of the Plan for the best use of the site and the Harrington proposal. Considerable discussion followed between the Commissioners regarding their responsibilities in these decisions, on determining the best use of the property and the fact that the petitioner would be return- ing to the Commission with a revisea proposal based on the recommendations of the Commission. Concensus was that it was important that the Commission act 'n a consistent manner. Reference was also made to the fact that Commissioner London had indicated his potential recommendation that the area be zoned single family residential, Concerns were expressed for the fact that the proposal would overdevelop the site, as we I as the strong neighborhood opposition to such a aevelopment. Commissioner Christensen restated his concern that the Commission had not rejected the proposal for the family and high-rise portion, but had only suggested the removal of the commercia portion of the pro~ posal. He feet a comment_naa been made to the aeveldper~ Commissioner Gustafson. noted that, in his opinion, the concept expressed did not eliminate the possi- bility of a high rise somewhere on the site, but spoke to the total density of the area. This total den- sity could change should Mr. Harrington eliminate the commercial and also acquire Outlot A. Commissioner Craigie moved that the 6th line of pa.ragraph #2 on pape 94 be chan~ed to read: "neiqhbor- h~ood, a mid-density residential development is recommended" and that the last three sentences o~ tho_ pa[a~raph be eliminated. Commissioner Anderson second. Commissioner Anderson stated his feeling that all reference to apartment development should be eliminated. Commissioner Christensen stated that he felt that substituting mid-density was not appropriate at this time, in view of the pending planning case. Extensive discussion followed between the Commissioners regarding the density for the site at 42nd/#18. The responsibilities of the Commission to not encourage a petitioner to proceed further and make addi- tional, perhaps expensiye changes on a proposag if they do not intend to act favorably upon the proposal even if alt changes are made as requested, and whether or not a decision on this district should be tabled were also discussed. Commissioner Gustafson commented that he felt that the reference to "mixed density" was more appropriate at this time than "mid density". Voting in favor: Craigie Anderson Voting against: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson,Gundershaug ~ . Absent: London, Pakonen Motion failed. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion that the Commission recommend that the language for District #1~ as written in the Comprehensive Plan be adopted. Commissioner Atchley second. Commissioner Christensen ~oted that the Commissioners had not discussed the other open site in this district (42nd Avenue/Boone Avenue). PLANNING COMMISS ON MINUTES - 6 - JANUARY 18, 1977 5. The City Manager stated that there had been several parties interested in this site in view of the re- commendations as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner CraiB!e amended the motion tQ eliminate the asr three sentences of Paragraph Two on Page 94. Commissioner Anderson second. Commissioner Gustafson noted that ne was against such an amendment because it was inappropriate at this time an~ he felt mixed density was more appropriate. Commissioner Anderson stated that he was in favor of the amendment and that he felt all references to apartments should be removed from the text. Commissioner Anderson called the question° Voting on the amendment~ Voting in favor: Craigie, Cameron, Anderson, Gundershaug Voting against: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Gustafson Absent: London, Pakonen Motion failed for lack of a maiority. Voting on the origina motion. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: Craigie, Anderson Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. Commissioner Anderson move~ that the City Manager should clarify the lanquage 'n this section per the Commission's concerns before the next meetinq. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion ~assed. COMMITTEE REPORTS 6a. Commissioner Gustafson reviewed the history of the Pinball Ordinance, noting that the City Council had requested that the Planning Commission and in turn the Codes and Standards CQmmittee review the existing ordinance. The EDC had also requested a review of the ordinance° The owner of one of fhe establishments operating pinball machines had requested that the age limits be cnangea in the ordinance. There ha~ also been some complaints from parents regarding their children operating the machines. The Codes and Standards Committee had maae a tour of the establishments that they knew operated machines and had observed neoDle o~erating ~hem that did no~ conform mo The restrictions of the ordinance regard+ lng age. The Committee na~ also snent time in trying to determine whether ~he City should ~e in the busi- ness of controlling the ~inball machines. ~e further noted that none of mne surrounding suburbs attempted fo control the aumPer of machines '~ an estab ishment except Richfie d which spoke ~o an Arcade Ordinance. Golden Valley, Crysta and Rosevil e restrict the age of operation to 18. Discussion then centered on the possibility of' limiting the age to allow those 15 an~ under to operate machines if accompanied by a parent or guardian, 16 - 18 without a aarent present up fo the time of curfew, and over 18 at any time. The ~ossibility of limiting the number of machines al owed in one establishment was also discussed, as well as ~ow much time the Commission really wanted the police department to spend on this ~ype of enforcement? Commissioner Christensen commented that he felt that if people were going to have ~inba I machine~ in their establishments then it was up to them to determine whether someone was old enough to operate them according to the ordinance. He felt that the ordinance should include the responsibility of the store owner, as well as penalties - up to losing the operating license if the ordinance were violated. Commissioner Gustafson noted that he felt there were three choices: Leave the age limit at 18, with minimum enforcement. 2 Try and remove the devices from areas where they didn't appear to be a logical extension of the primary business. 3. Alter the age requirement, taking into consideration the fac~ that certain individuals were of an age ?o remove themselves from the jurisdiction of the ordinance. He added his opinion that it was not the Commission's responsibility to determine at what age a kid could operate a pinball machine. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - JANUARY 18, 1977 6a. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to amend the ordinance to include tha?~15 and unaer could o_~oerate sne~nes only when acc~arent or ~16-18 coul~erate machines until curfew~ with a maximum of 5 machines am eacn individual site.. Commissioner Atchley secona. Voting in favor: Atchley, Craigie, Cameron Voting against: Bartos, Christensen, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: London, Bartos Motion failed. Commissioner Gustafson then made a motion stating_that those~15 and under ma,' not operate a inba ] ~i--~-e ~-~]~s~ acc--~-~--~m a~~r~nt or .quaraian and limiting the numOer ~-~aachines to 5%.of the reda I floor space in an establishment or 5 machines~ whichever is less. Commissioner ChrisTensen second. Commissioner Craigie auestioned whether the City could at a future time enact an ordinance restricting pinba I machines 'n any location that was not of a recreational nature or a restaurant? The City Manager answere~ this would be a logical extension. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, ~tchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Pakonen Motion passed. Commissioner Craigie made a motion that the City not a Iow any licenses for pinball machines in any loca- tion other than those primarily used for recreation or in restaurants. Fol owing discussion between the Commissioners, Commissioner Crai~ie withdrew his motion. Cnairman Cameron referred the matter of limiting oinball machines to recreation/restaurant establish- ments TO the Codes and Standards Committee because he felt it was too ser'ous to vote on withou~ further study since the idea of such a restriction had not been considered before. 6b. Commissioner Gustatson noTed that the issue of bench signs was on the Agenda for internal purpoCes. The Codes and Standards Committee would be studying this issue shortly. 7. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 8. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. NEW BUSINESS 9. The Council minutes of January 10, 1977 were reviewed. 10. The Planning Commission minutes of January 4th, and Ilth, 1977 were accepted as printed. 13. The mee±ing was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 1, 1977 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February I, 1977 at the City Ha 1, 4401Xylon'Avenue North~ New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by the Chairman. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, London, Christensen~ Atchley, Craigie, Cameron~ Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson, Pakonen Absent: None Mr. Larry Nelson, Marketing Representative for Texaco asked whether i¢ would be possible for the Commission to near the cases in which he was involvea first on the agenaa because of anoTner commitment he had 'n Dul~uth. The Chairman responded that he aid not feel this would be Oossible, because the 0etitions regardi, ng the sign variances would not necessarily be acted upon quickly, ann because of Tne fact that there might be some citizens WhO would determine their time of attendance at the meeting based on the agenda as printed. 3. PLANNING CASE 77-3 (CONTINUED FROM I-4-77) REQUEST FOR PUD APPROVAL AT 42ND/#18 - JERRY HARRINGTON, PETITIONER. Mr. Harrington distributed revised site plans to the Commissioners. He noTea that in preparing the new site plan he aaa taken into consideration the reQuesTs of the Commission aT Tne meeting one month ago.~ He stated that he had also attended a meeting with HUD regarding the project. ~UD had felt that due to the closeness of the New Mo0e sno0oing center anG because of the proposed center at The corner of 42nd/ #18 in Plymouth, it would be superfluous to include a commercial center in the project, as far as con- venience was concerned. He had, thereto-re, re-routed the road, put in an additional 26 0arking spaces, increas'ng the parking for the elderly to 68. He had also acquired everything exce0t ~he East 200 feet of Outlot A. This will 'ncrease the total land area of the project to 552,000 square feet. The bui ding wi I now cover only I1.1% of the and. There will De 215 units, 99 family ann 16 elderly. Parking has beer exoanded to 355 actual spaces with-space available for another 95 spaces. He is no longer requesting a rezoning. The only variance requested is in the number of parking facilities, covered ann open. He added that HUD requires only 25% parking for elderly housing, but that he was Droviding 50%. There will . be 150 feet of green area behind the single family residences on the South as we I as a row of trees. Mr. Harrington then noted that Mr. Roberts, the architect, was present ane would illustrate through the use of slides, the view of the project from different directions. The s ides also il ustrated the grade differences on the property° tn answer to a question from the chairman,Mr. Harriagton noted that there would be 104 covered garages for the family units as we I as 104 open spaces with 68 open soaces for the elderly. He added that HUD does not finance garages in elderly projects. Mr. 7oberts then gave the slide demonstration with explanations. He stated that the plan before the Com- mission only illustrated the changes mane since the previous meeting with the Commission. n response to a question ~rom Commissioner Atchley, Mr. Roberts stated that the scale on the topographi- cal design was very close to the actual. He addea that the highest portion of the building would be 64 feet high -- there is a 40 foot drop in the property grade. The Chairman no?ed, in response TO a question from Commissioner Pakonen, that the new plan had not been before Design and Review because the Commission had not requested that the petitioner met with them again. Commissioner London stated that the Commission had not seen a fina lanasca0e plan as yet and they could not take final action until they had. A PUD development must include -II details, including numbers of trees, etc, before final approval. Comm'ssioner Christeasen clarified, for the record,that Mr. Harrington was proposing a PUD development consisting of elderly and family units. The elderly units will be one bedroom, 24 x 26 square feet, without garages, only parking stalls. There wil be 116 elderly units and 99 family units. The family units will consist of 21 one bedroom units of approximately 730 square feet ann 78 two bedroom units of approximately 975 square feet. There will be 5% handicabped units. The center section of The project is the elderly housing. This building is three floors at one and and seven floors on the side toward #18. There will be an elderly a~ each end. The front entrance will face the Southwest with directional signs indicating the main entrance. The only other permanent sign wil identify the project as "Hope Ridge Apartments" toward Gettysburg with a tem- porary sign facing #18. Discussion fbi owed about temporary signs, with Commissioner Gustafson noting that the Ordinance allowed the installation of temporary identification signs for one year. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - FEBRUARY 4, 1977 ~ 3. Mr. Harrington noted that there will be 104 coverea parking spaces for the family units and 144 ope. n spaces. He stated the five extra covered spaces cou d be rented to the elderly. Commissioner Gustafson inquired whether Mr. Harrington was aware of the City Sign Ordinance and noted that Mr. Harrington should be aware that any approval of concept did not automatica ly include approval of signs. Mr. Harrington stated that he was aware of this. Commissione~ Christensen asked whether the green area in the soot originally planned for the commercial develo0ment could be used for parking? The architect noted that he did not feel the Commission would want parking on this corner. There is amale space provided on the Northwest side of the auilding as we I as down on the triangle. He would not advise Mr. Harrington to put parking on the corner. n answer to questions from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. HarringTon stated that he planned to leave the Southern portion of the site (Outlot A) in its natural state, but cleaning out ~iae pond. Between ots 6 and 7 there is an overflow area for storms. He stated that in discussions with Mr. Cook, of the engineering staff, it qad been suggested that additional ponding area be 0rovided for water before it gets into the storm sewer. There wi I be green area toward the residences to the South. Mr. Harrington stated he alarmed to push ?he snow toward the green area from the blacktopped areas. He added that they 01an was to use high sodium lucalu× lighting on the islands in the parking lots, noting that the position of the lights was noted on the landscape plan. He further questioned whether with the energy situation previous lighting standards could be maintained, indicating that there wou d probably be governmental controls of this. The playground will include a merr¥-go-rouna, swings, slides, and teeter totters as noted on the site plan. in answer to questions from Commissioner Craigie, Mr. Harrington indicated that fire escapes would be pro- vided, and aointed out the ocations on-the floor plan. The buildings will further have fire protection as required by City Code. The handicapped parking stalls will De ten feet wide and located closest to the entrances. Mr. Harrington anticipated that the handica00ed units would probably 0e located on the first and second floors. In response to further questions from Commissioner Craigie regarding the percentage of Iow income tenants 'n the family units, Mr. Harrington noted that this depended upon HUD financing. They determine the per- centage. He had applied for 50%. The elderly units would all be covered by Section 8. Discussion then centered on the need for enclosed elderly aarking; the need for more parking spaces than Drovided because of the climate, and the fact that elderly people living in the suBuros where there was not as much public transDortation would of necessity nave to drive; whether or not HUD would approve adcitional parking density; how many of the people qualifying for the housing would be able TO afford cars; ane whether recepticle boxes would be provided at the parking stalls for the convenience of the tenants during the winter? Commissioner Christensen noted that ne would feel much more comfortable with the parking situation if 20 covered units could be put aside for the elderly. In response to duestions from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Harrington stated that he had talked to Medi- cine Lake Lines regarding bus stoas, ann they had indicated they woulc stoa on the corner of 42nd/Gettys- burg. MTC does not come out this far with service. He added that it had been mentioned at the Traffic Commission meeting that a reduest be made for a shelter and a sidewalk at that corner, as well as that a request be made of the County -ia lower the grade at the intersection and install a semaphore. The City Manager noted that there is a proposed project that may be operable by Fal that wou d provide transportation through the F~ed Cross for those people WhO could not drive. In answer to a question from Commissioner Londcn, Mr. HarringTon noted that he felt roughly 20 feet in height of the elderly complex would be visible tram Gettysburg standing at ground level. He added thai he felt that while seated in a living room, for example, even though higher up you would see less of the bui ding. If you were standing at the winnow looking down most of the building could, of course, be seen. Mr. Harrington noted that there would be a berm backing up to Lots 10 and II, with drainage area along the South. There wil be 50 feet of green area at the South. The engineers had recommended that there be additional ponding area provided here. Concern was exoressed by Commissioner Christensen about the position of the water and sewer lines. Mr. Harrington stated that ne had to proceed at the direction of the City regarding these lines. The Chairman indicated his opinion was that the sewer and water lines were not a concern of the Planning Camm i ss i on. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - FEBRUARY I, 1977 3. Commissioner Pakonen indicated his concern for the ordinance requirements as written for parking in multiole d~velopment ane his feeling that in approving the lesser number of spaces for this project, the Commission would be approving a parking situation that he had not heard any rationale for approving. Mr. Harrington indicated that he cou d go ahead and blacktop green area to meet the ordinance require- ments but that it was his feeling, based on the fact that only 2/3 of the provided parking aT his other units was now being used, that the required number of spaces was unnecessary. He noted that people were ariv'ng smaller cars and that with the energy situationp no one could predict what would happen in the future, belt tightening would probably result. Chairman Cameron re-ex0ressed his concern for the lack of covered aarking for the elderly. He did not feel any aoartment complex had enough parking space and he did not feel they should build in a problem. Mr. Harrington stated that if he were required to provide 50 additiona covered parking stalls, he would have to expand into the green area. The City Manager stated that the only variance being requested was for the amount of Parking. He added that at a future time Outlot A woula need to be divided, To be joined with Mr. Harrington's property. Discussion then centerea on the broDosed development of the East 200 feet of 0utlot A. The City Manager note~ that two double bungalows ha~ beer suggested for the site. He further stated that the area in Out ot A was zoned TR, so while the area was there it could not support as high a density as the MR. ae added that any sidewalk at 42nd/Gettysburg, as welt as aaus turn around, would have to De the res- aonsibility of and at the expense of Mr. Harrington. Commissioner Gustafson stated it was his feeling tha~ the sidewa k and turn around would be very important for the benefit of the elderly tenants. The City Manager clarified that Mr. Harrington was before the Commission for conce~T approval only. He would come before the Commiss'on at a f~ture time to reauest final plan approval. Chairman Cameron then opened the meeting]to Dub ic comment on The aroposed plan. Mr. Mike Malik, 910 40½ Avenue North, noted that he was a member of the Traffic Commission an~ a spokes- man for the Hopewood Hills Homeowners Association. Mr. Malik referred to the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 4, 977 in which comments had been made regarding the inconsistency of this PUD proDosal against The recommendations of the Compre- hensive Plan, ?he traffic ~roblems for the area ann the feeling of at least one Commissioner that the pro-~ posal was incompatible with the residential neighborhood. He referre~ to the recommendations in the Com- prehensive Plan ~or mid-density aT the greatest on this site. He further reference~ ?ne suggestions for hanaling the traffic problems that had been referred to the Traffic Comm'ssion. Mr. Malik then referened the Planning Commission meeting of 1/18/77 when ~he Comprehensive Plan had been reviewed and a comment mane by Commissioner Gundershaug referring to the establishec policy of the City to have no more apartment aevel0ament. He asked for clarification of this statement, questioning whether it had ~een said by the Planning Commission that the level of apartments or the percentage was sufficient? The Chairman noted that he did not think this had been saic, ~ut it had been the feeling of the Comprehen- sive Plan that the apartments of the type now in the City are sufficient in number and that what the Com- mission felt the City needed was another type of housing choice. Mr. Malik questioned why this feel'ng was not also inherent in the proposal before the Commission, since it was for more apartments? The Chairman noted that it was also a proposal for another type of housing -- elderly. Mr. Malik then referred to Commissioner Christensen's statements at the meeting on 1/18/77 regarding the inconsistency of a recommendation for a mixed density site when a proaosa had already been received by the Commission for a high density development. He further pointed ou~ that before Mr. Harrington ha~ appeared before the Planning Commission, the Comprehensive Pla~ had been unUer consideration that recom- mended changes to the zoning of the property in the area. It was not a ~act that Mr. Harrington was here first. Discussion on entire proceeding of that meeting, with the Chairman noting that he did not feel it fair to take one or two comments out of context and quote them. Mr. Malik commented on the fact that he felt that Mr. Harrington was aware of the changes proposed for the and before h~ came before the Commission, Referring to the Traffic Commission meeting of 1/25/77 Mr. Malik whether the 1000-1400 trips per day noted, referred to the entire intersection at 42nd/Gettysburgo PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - FEBRDARY I, t977 3. The City Manager said this referred to the complex as proposed. Respond to a question regarding the num- ber of trips from 50 single family homes, the City Manager stated that these figures were obtained fr~m ~'~ statistics'that Don Murphy and Peter Fausch had provided. Mr. Malik then referred to the comments made earlier in the meeting regarding the fact that the homes on Gettysburg were above street level. He noted that in his opinion, in the ifetime of the people living in those houses, he doubted whether the trees were ever going to be high enough to block out the view. Mr. Ma ik then auestionea now, after the~zoning of Outlot A had been changed to TR, it could now be in- cluded in the square footage for the property in the PUD? The City Manager stated it could be inc uded in the PUD, there were questions on the square footage and could it be used for density purposes. Mr. Malik stated that he thought that the whole idea of making this Outlot TR was to get townhouses in the area rather than nigh density and now they may end up with part of the land being developed high aensity. He then referred to his comments, made at an earlier meeting requesting that the exterior of the com01ex, snoula it be approved, be compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. In res0onse to a euestion regarding fire protection for the building, Mr. Harrington stated that he would comply with whatever the City Code required. Mr. Malik then ex0ressed his concern that the drainage from the blacktopped areas would go into the storm sewer an~ ultimately into Northwood Pond and ail of the pullutan~s that would get into the pond. He'fur- ther stated that he did not understand why the Commission felt they had To make a decision on this project before The Com0rehensive Plan was adopted, no matter how it goes, if a parcel of land was being considered for cnange under the Comprehensive Plan? Commissioner Gustafson statec that it was his opinion that the City had been involved in this planning 0rocess for over a year now. THe did not think the City could out a moratorium on all building until the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. He added that, in his mind, this project did not go against the current or the mixed density oroposed. Mr. Malik commented that he had also sat in on the meetings and he thought the intent was a downzoning from the oresent MR. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the Comprehensive Plan as written indicates "mixed uses" with high den- sity in the corner. Chairman Cameron stated that the Commission did not feel it was inconsistent To consider development plans before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The City Council still has to consider the Plan before the process is comaleted - it coul~ be some time yet. Why hold up all New Hope building ~or maybe another year? Mr. Malik noted they wouldn't have to hold up all New Hope building, but they di~ have a proposal for a s~eci~ic parcel of land that is under Question as to whether or not the zoning was correct. The Chairman noted that the Commission knew this, that they had been involved in the process ~or over a year now, Put that they did not feel it was 'nconsistent to consider development pans for specific areas. Mr. Malik expressed his disagreement with this position, an~ stated that ~e did not feel enough considera- tion was being given to the input received from the citizens on the Comprehensive Plan recommendations, an~ that it seeme~ to him inconsistent to be considering such a proposal now. Mr. John Mozey, 9225 40~ Avenue North, com~ imented the Commission on their in-depth questions concern- ing a complex plan. ~e added that ne agreed with Mr. Malik. it was difficult for him to see how the Commission could ~e considering, even in concept, ?he development of this projecl when the Comprehensive Plan decisions were still pending. He added that it was his understanding that wnenever anyone represented the City, as the Commission did, it was their responsibility to represent t~e health and welfare of the citizens already in residence. Mr. Mozey stated it was his feeling that before any approval c~uld be given to any plan, problems such as · raffic ha~ ~o ~e resolved. He added added that the Ioca residents were very concerned about this pro- perty, had been willing to come up ann present their views and ne felt that the people werenow ready to be heard loud and clear that they were against this type of project because of the value ~f their homes, the traffic problems, the many oroblems that Iow 'ncome housing coul~ bring. He didn't think they needed Iow income housing in their area and though the proposal, even in concept, should not be approved. Mr. Dean Evans, ~108 Gettysburg, referred to the minutes of the Traffic Commission meeting of 1/25/77~ in which the alternative solutions to the traffic flow were discussed, none of which were acceptable. He then referred to the 8/74 Henne~in County traffic report regarding the area of 40½ - 42nd/Gettysburg, in which the daily traffic totaled 358 cars. He noted the extremely hazardous conditions that the resi- dents have ~o put up with now, stating the proposed project could increase that traffic five-fo d. He stated he could not be ieve that anyone would consider such a project, the traffic is so bad now. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - FEBRUARY I~ 1977 3. couldn't let his children anywhere near the street. The children use 40½ extensively to get fo the pond on the East end -- it's a kid's haven. He then referenced the Traffic Commission minutes report of dis- cussion about types of accidents that might occur anG ne stated it was his feeling that before there were any accidents they would lose some kids. There were no further comments from the audience. Commissioner Anderson noted that he felt the point was well taken about the consideration of the Compre- hensive Plan versus the proposed project. It was his opinion that the Commission was close enough to it that they could make a judgment. He further stated that, in his opinion, traffic cOUnT figures were mean- ingless unless they were related to something. The City Manager noted, in response to a question, that he did not have a comparison but that the present traffic in this area would be considered to be quite slight. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with the City Manager that the findings indicated that there was no way that a signal could be justified based on standard warrents. The projection of 1000-1400 cars per day in addition, still did nOT warrent a signal. The City Manager noted that approval could probably not be obtained through the County Traffic Department. The only way to get a sigaal at that intersection would probably De by po itical action on the aart of the County Board. Mr. Mozey commented that ne had spoken to the County and had been tol~ they had no plans for putting a sign on the corner and if they were To do so, they would need the approval of the City. Commissioner Craigie noted that poth of the requirements -- City approval and approval of the County Board -- nee~ea to be met, before a signal coul¢ be instal ed. Mr. Malik commented that it was his feeling that abso utely no consideration had been given by the Commis- sion to the citizen commented that had peen received on the zoning for this plat. The Chairman stated that he felt this wa~ a very unfair statement -- the Commission had spent much time on the Comprehensive Plan, they had no axes to grind, and they were listening to everyone. Commissioner Pakonen noted that a lot of the discussion that takes alace never gets into the minutes, t may not appear from the minu~es that comments have not Peen ~a~e Dut a tot of statements that have been ma~e nave Oeen heard hundreds of times, especially regarding this pla~. There aas peen a lot of discus- sion not recorded. Commissioner Anderson stated that the Commission does listen, but that every parcel of vacant land dis- cussed has received citizen comment regarding their wanting only single family, It is a commo~ concern -- if the Commission listed only to the citizens the City woulc have to ae bui t all single family. Mr. Ma ik agreed, but 'felt this was not a common piece of land pecause of the access problems. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he felt that the feelings of the citizens had been noted ay all of the Commissioners. He added that the reference to Mr. ~ondon's preference for single family ~or the plat was, he felt, in part a reaction to the citizen comment. He added that ne was sorry that ne had not been able to read the comments of Mr. Malik aha Commissioner London from the Traffic Commission meeting. Commissioner Bartos noted that since the discussion of the Comprehensive Plan had started, resistance had been met on every single pla~ reviewed. He added his opinion that the City would have TO "go" with some type of Comprehensive Plan in a consistent manner. Commissioner Christensen. noted that there had been mixed reaction to the recommendations of the Comprehen- sive Plan from the citizens. He stated that, in his opinion, there were advantages to the ~ro~osed pro- ~ect versus that recommended by the Plan because while a portion was reserved for high density, be- cause it was elderly high density he did not feel the traffic and parking pro01ems would be as intense as in a typical apartment projected located in other sections of the City. Mr. Mozey asked Mr. Harrington if ne had thought of any alternatives to this project for this property? Aisc what would be wrong with building the project for only elderly? Mr. Harrington responded that he felt he was planning a project directed at the future. He further noted that inasmuch as there are just as many families looking for housing as elderly, the only place that the government was approving funding~is when fami y ape elderly are tied ~ogether. He added that he felt that most of the elderly traffic would occur euring the daytime hours when there was little other traffic. Commissioner London stated that in view of the comments made at the last Planning Commission meeting re- garding the inconsistency of encouraging a petitioner to proceed in planning for a project that was contrary to the Plan or might have little chance for approval by the City, Commissioner London made a motion to disapprove Case 77-3 - Request for PUD Approval. Commissioner Gustafson second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - FEBRUARY I, 1977 3. Mr. London stated his reasons for the motion: 1. He felt that sufficient information had been presented regarding the traffic and the problems that would be created by additiona traffic. 2. ne felt that the project was ~nconsistent with the residential area as it now sits -- a 7 story bui ding, with 3 stories exposed on the South and East sides. 3. The project is inconsistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Craigie then read a statement e×oressing his views on the proposed project and why ne felt it snoula be approved. These included the fact ~na? he felt the Commission was sincerely concerned about what was best for the City; the fact that The issue raised goes far beyond the City of New ~ope 0ecause in his opinion The su0urDs have developed a ca Ious disregare for the elderly. He added that New Hope has citizens approaching retirement, but because of the high cost of living many people reduced to retire- merit incomes would not be able to afford to continue living in New Hope. While the project as proposed has some drawbacks, i.e. lack of covere~ parking for Tne elaerly an~ 0otential traffic, iT also ha~ some strengths, space for 1~6 seniors with storage inside an~ security systems. He felt also that the developer. nac gone a significant eistance in satisfying the reeuests made by the Commission at the 0revious meeting. Commissioner Craigie felt this project offered a significant opportunity for diversity in housing for the City as wel as offering elderly housing. Commissioner London stated he agreed with Commissioner Craigie in regard to the elderly housing. He would encourage devlo0ments ~or the elderly but he has problems with This oarTicular development -- the seven stories and its inconsistency with the recommeneations-of the Comprehensive Plan. Voting in ~avor: London, Atchley, Anderson Voting against: Bartos, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson~ Gundershaug, Pakonen Motion failed. Commissioner Craiqie made a motion to give concept approval To Case 77-3 with the fo lowing stipulations: I. Tha~ a ~ore complete aha final landscape plan be ~resenTee to the Commission. 2. That a arger num0er of covered-parking areas be provided. 3. That the County be con?ac?ed in~reqard to Tne signalization of 42nd/Getty~M~r.~. Commissioner Bartos second ..... C~,airman Cameron stated ne was still concerned about the transportation in this area and hcoed that Mr. Harrington would make arrangements for a 0us ?urn-around on his property. Mr. Harrington noted that if Medicine Lake Lines would be willing to come in to the property, he would provide the space. Commissioner Atchley commented that his one big objection to the project was the seven stories° Voting in favor: Bart~s, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pakonen. Voting against: London, Atchley, Anderson Motion passed. Mr. ~arrington requested ~hat his appearance before the City Counci be postponed until Februar~ 28~ 1977 as he would be out of town on the 14th° This request was granted. Chairman Cameron declared a recess. The meeting was reconvened at 10:08 p.m. 4. PLANNIMG CASE 77-6 and 77-9 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FROM SIGN ORDINANCE AT 9456 MEDICINE LAKE ROAD - TEXACO AND MR. W. J. THOMAS~ PETITIONERS. Mr. Larry Nel.son, Marketing Director for Texaco, stated that Texaco was requesting variances to allow the 35 foot high freeway sign an¢ the logo sign that is present ocaTe~ too close to the property line to remain. The logo sign is a standard Texaco logo that is usee throughout the country and it would cost considerable money to move ?he sign a few feet wnen there is no sidewalk involved. The freeway sign is five feet higher than the ordinance atlows. He felt i+ would cost about $1000 to lower the sien and, in his opinion, +here would not be much difference in the way it looked from #18. Commissioner Gustafson commented on the fact that theSigq Ordinance had been adopted five years ago with the date for compliance established as February 1977, To allow 0usinesses time To convert. Mr. ~elson noted that Texaco had two sizes of the logo sign -- a 5' x 7' which is the size of the one in New ~ope and a 7' x I0' like the sign a? #18 and 36th Avenue in Plymouth. He stated he did not know the exact size of the letters on the Texaco Star sign. He stated he had had an opportunity to review the New Hope sign ordinance in relation to the Texaco signs. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - FEBRUARY I, 1977 4. Commissioner Gustafson noted that from the standpoint of the City, the Commission had to look at the station from the total signage view, not just the two Texaco signs. Mr. Thomas stated that he was just the operator of the station. He has a commander board (message board) that has been in place for six years. Commissioner Gustafson noted that all three of the free-standing sisns were 'n violation. The current ordinance allows two ground signs set back from the property line Ten feet. Mr. Thomas stated that the Kendall sisns would De coming down and that the ta0ee up "self service" signs would De uncovered when the pumps had been approvee by the Fire Department. Their operation is con- trolled by City ordinance. The "self service" pumps are a new addition to the station. Commissioner Gustafson commented on the two moveable signs that he had observed at the station before coming to the meeting. In answer to a question from the City Manager, Mr. Thomas noted that Tne signing on the building had been removed. Comm'ssioner Gustafson made a motion to grant the variances in terms of etter sizet height and setback of The moaular freeway sign until such Time as a change to the sign layout is made, at which time it must be broughT into conformance with the then existing sign ordinance. The ~essage board sign and the other accessory signs in front of the sTation ann or the post are TO be removed. Approval for a variance for the 1o~o trademark sign in terms of the setback and height as long as the logo and the letter siz~ on the face of the si~n are ~rought into conformance with the minor arterial classi~icationtwith a stay of enforcement for 180 days. Commissioner Christensen second. Commissioner Christensen noted that he re, ally had noTning ~ainstmost of Tne signs at the various stations. His nangup with most of the stations was with the auxiliary signs around the premises. He felt they would have a difficult time in the f~ture, if they approve a sign variance for one sTation an~ not for others -- they would be setting a precedent. He noted the Comm'ssion was not trying to cause a hardship for anyone, but that from a standpoint of the total ~ity, he felt the motion as made by Commissioner Gustafson was the way to go. Commissioner Gustafson explained that his reasoning regarding the freeway sign was that because of its location so close to #18, this particular size would not be a problem. ChairmaE Cameron reminded the Commission that there were many non-conforming signs in the City at the pre- sent time and that Drece0ents set now wou d be very significant. Commissioner Atcnley commented that he felt the five year 0elay in enforcement of the ordinance had been to offset the financial impacT for the station owners. He saw no reason not to enforce the Sign Ordinance as written, at this time. Considerable discussion followed about the motion, the signs at this station, the neeo for proof of hard- ship in the case of a variance, whether or not additional effort should be made to inform the operators of the stations regarding the criteria required in the granting of variances, the actual definition of a logo, and the importance of a price sign for a gasoline station. Commissioner Craigie commented that he felt the Commission would be wiping out in one felt swoop, the five years of time spent on the Sign Ordinance by granting variances. He felt that the only reason they were doing this was because I) it was expensive to move,and 2) it was there. Chairman Cameron restated his feeling that an important precedent would be set with this motion. Voting in favor: None Voting against: London, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron~ Gustafson, Gundershaug, Pa konen Abstain: Bartos, Anderson Motion failed. Commissioner Craigie wondered whether a case should be made, in a letter or whatever~ that the petitioner needed to present someti~ng more in the way of a rationale for the variance than the fact that it would be costly to move -- that there had to be hardship involved. Commissioner Gustafson commented on his assessment of the particular signs in this case stating his feel- ing.that the Commission should not help structure a pleading for petitioners. However, he personally be- lieved that the Commission was sometimes a little remiss in saying "unless you tell me the accepted reason" they were not going to be reasonable in their decision. Commissioner Atch[ey made a motion to deny the request for variances at Thomas Texaco~ Cases 77-6 and 77-9. Commissioner Pakonen second. Voting in favor: London, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Pakonen Voting against: Bartos, Christensen, Gustafson Absent: Anderson Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - FEBRUARY I, 1977 5. PLANNING CASE 77-7 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT LLOYD'S TEXACO - 7901 BASS LAKE ROAD - TEXACO, PETITIONER. Mr. Nelson noted that the sign on the property line was again the Texaco logo,as discussed in the previous case. He restated that this was the same sign that was used at Texaco stations throughout the Country. The structural sign is par~ of the bui ding and is a design used throughout the United States and the pylon is an integral part of it. To change this sign would require taking part of the roof structure out. Discussion between the Chairman ana Mr. Nelson regarding the being requested and the procedure to be followed. Mr. Nelson noted that the company had removed the roof signs before their application for the variances. He questioned the reauest that Texaco repaint the letters on the logo to conform, just because someone else had done so when the signs were used over the entire country. The Chairman commented that they tried to treat everyone equally. Commissioner Craigie commented that it was not just the three signs, but that there were three variances required in each of The signs -- setback, size and letter size. Commissioner Anderson commented that the Commission had not just "made this ordinance up" but tha+ it fol- Iowea the trena of a ct of cities. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the signs already removed Dy Texaco were in excess of the ordinance ane were ac+ involved in any amortization period. Mr. Nelson, in answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson,noted that the sign at Winnetka and Bass Lake Road was not a typical sign but was classifiee as an experimental sign. They fee this sign works uniquely 'n certain neighborhoods. In this case The sign provides visioility down the street. Mr. Lloyd Thietmann, operator of the station, commented that prior TO his taking over the station the County nae completely messea up the intersection. He addee that if you are coming from Crystal on Bass Lake Road and you don't see the station before Winnetka, you are past. The same thing holds true on Winnetka. ~-~ in answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson Mr. Thielmann stated that he felt this location re- . auired this type of sign. Commissioner Craigie commented that new businesses are required to comply with the ordinance and he felt it was taking an unfair aavantage if the ordinance was not enforce~ equally. Commissioner Gustafson maae a motion To deny the request for variances at Lloyd's Texaco - Case 77-7. Commissioner Craigie second. Commissioner Pakonen stated that ne was having some real problems with this case. He could appreciate the fact that the stations aad had five years to get their signs into conformance but that he felt when a aational company that spends millions of ~ollars on an advertising program has to make cnanges on only three or four signs for the City of New Hope, ~e thought a variance could be granted on the basis of hard- ship. He stated ne thought there was a va id argument for the benefits of standaPdization, and would ike to see a table, and because they were reasonable people see if they couldn't work out something with Texaco. The Chairman commented that small businesses also have to nave their signs changed, why should a large company not do the same. Commissioner Pakonen stated that was one of the hazards of ~eing a sma I businessman. Discussion fol owed between Comm'ssioner Gustafson and Commissioner Pakonen about the report studied from the State of Maryland when the Sign Ordinance was under revision, as well as the definition of a reasonable letter height. Commissioner Gustafson stated that the committee had tried to establish a height size that would Be reason- able and under which most of the signs would come, including the ability of people to read signage directed at appropriate Deoole on the basis of street classification and the miles per hour of The traffic passing. Commissioner Pakonen suggested that perhaps the definition of the word "logo" should be changed. Discussion between Commissioner Pakonen and the Chairman regarding the Sign Ordinance and the fact that ~ many small businessmen had conformed to the ordinance, often at additiona expense. Commissioner Anderson noted that the ordinance did not stand alone but that a lot of cities have similar ordinances. The coming trend is to decrease the number of signs. Voting in favor: Bartos, London, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug~ Anderson, Pakonen. Voting against: None Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - FEBRUARY I, 1977 6. PLANNING CASE 77-8 AND 77-10 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIGN ORDINANCE AT 4201 WINNETKA AVENUE - BRUCE'S TEXACO~ PETITIONER. Mr. Nelson noted that the sign in question was in violation of the setback requirement. He questioned the sense of requiring a businessman to spend thousands of dollars to move a sign two feet. Commissioner Christensen noted that they had had fi%e years to prepare for the moving of the sign. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager stated that under the 1972 Ordinance only one sign could be as close to the lot line as I0 feet, all others had to be I I/2 times the minimum setback. Mr. Nelson stated he had been told that the sign had to be two feet back from the property line. He re- stated that the structural sign was an integral part of the building design. He noted that he could check with his company to see if some of the identification on the pylon itself could be changed. In response to a question from Commissioner London regard a new station desiring to come into the City, Mr. Nelson noted that there were several different station designs that could 0e chosen. Commissioner Atchte¥, questioned whether the Commission was explaining themselves clear y. He felt they were not asking the petitioners to give a little TO get a litt e, they were saying that if the petitioner had a sDecific need a variance could be obtained. Mr. Nelson stated he had Thought that the lettering on the logo sign was exempt because it was a !ogo. He was not asking for a multitude of variances only a variance in setback. Commissioner GLstafson stated that it was not a case of plea bargaining. The Sign Ordinance very defi- nitely talks TO sign variances and The reasons for variances as to when they are appropriate and wnen they are not. Discussion be*ween the Commissioners regarding a table of this case, and the fact that the petitioner al- ready had two weeks before the Council meeting to change his request. Also discussed was whether there was a need for clarificatior of the interpretation of the ordinance. The City Manager noted that the only thing in ~isoute was the definition of logo. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion TO Deny Cases 77-8 and 77-10. Commissioner Pakonen second. Discussion regarding Tne advisability of suggesting these cases be tabled and the dangers of implying that the aecisions might change in the interval. Commissioner Gustafson commented that it seemed to him that reasonable enforcement of the Sign Ordinance in the s0irit it was written in, was im0ortant ann the mere fact that Texaco was the first company t~ ap- 0ear before the Commission should not influence the decision. He added that reasonable peo01e on the Com- mission using their good judgment really, 'n essence, have to fear the fact that all of the fol owing cases would be automatically thrown into the classification of these gas stations. He felt that what was critical 's the advertising copy -- this is where The thrust of the Sign Ordinance was -- not in the position of the pole, or whether the sign hag been there for five years. Commissioner London called for the question. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Anderson, Pakonen Voting againsT: Bartos, Craigie, Gustafson Abstain: Gundershaug Motion passed. 7. PLANNING CASE 77-11 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIGN ORDINANCE AT 7305 42ND AVENUE NORTH -DAVE ANDERSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Anderson stated that he was no longer requesting permission to install a digital price sign at his station. He distributed a picture of a sign from another stat.on, that was similar to what he now wished to install. Mr. Anderson stated that he wou d lose his two billboards, on each side of the station, plus the one in front. What he would be left with was the Dum0s, some lights and a very small building. He added that, in his oainion, without the billboards people would drive past without even seeing his sta- tion. He was pleading, on the case of hardship, for a good sized price sign. He is not requesting an identification sign but merely a price sign on a pylon. The sign would be 44 square feet in size. The City Manager notec that the ordinance now states that a price sign could not exceed 16 square feet. He confirmed, in answer to a question from the Chairman, that if Mr. Anderson were not requesting a price sign but an identification sign~ he would not need a variance. The size, height and setback were not a problem. Mr. Anderson stated that it was his understanding that he would be allowed 91 square feet of sign for an identification sign and a price sign combinec. Ne is asking for only 44 square feet in one sign. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 10 - FEBRUARY I, 1977 7. Commissioner Gustafson clarified that Mr. Anderson was planning to remove the Surf sign and put up one single sign on the free standing pole in the front of the station that would give only the price, and that this sign would measure 44 seuare feet. The two billboards would also be removed. Mr. Anderson said yes, this was what he was doing. He stated the sign would be plastic, illuminated from inside. Discussion held regarding the necessity of always having a price i lustrated ana the need to paint the word "regular" on the face of the sign, as well as whether the sign should oe considered under the "price only" criteria or under the "ground sign" criteria. Commissioner London noted that he felt that the word "regular" would be required because of truth in ad- vertising legislation. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of Case 77-1.t grantin~ the variance on the square footage of the price sign to allow a total of 44 square feet on a free standing si§hr with the condition ~nat the sign advertise only the price an~ that iv be the only s~gn on the premises. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Atchtey, Gundershaug, Anderson, aakonen Voting against: Craigie, Cameron Abstain: London, Christensen, Gustafson Motion passea. 8. PLANNING CASE 77-12 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIGN ORDINANCE AT MIDLAND SHOPPING CENTER - SNYDER DRUG, PETITIONER. Mr. Pointer, the representative of the SNyder Drug Store stated that they were going to remove the coca cola signs an~ also remove the Snyder Drug letters from the pylon. They were requesting ~ermission to leave The "Snvder Drug" letters on The front of the building in place and adc a 2' x 6' sign between the Two words that stated "Restaurant". The ordinance allows a maximum of I00 s~aare feet. With ~ne addition of the new sign they would have a To~al of 140 square feet. They were requesting the addition of the restaurant sign because when the coca cola signs were removed There wi I be no identification stating there was a restaurant on the premises. Discussion fo lowed regarding the methods used to determine the size of a sign, how the square footage is computed eTC. The City Manager noted tha~ a line is drawn around the perimeter of the sign, in this case the rectangle would be 140 square feet. Discussion between the Commissioners ana Mr. Pointer regarding the Snyder Drug sign and it's size in relation to the other signs in the shopping center. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion for denial of the request for a sign variance at the Snyder Drug Store in the Midland Shopping Center. Commissioner Craigie second. Voting in favor: Bartos, London~ Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson, Pakonen. Voting against: None ~otion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS 9. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. I0. There was no re~ort from the Land Use Committee II. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 12. The Council minutes of January 24, 1977 were reviewed. 13. The Commission minutes of January II, an~ 18, 1977 were accepted as printed. 14. Commissioner Craigie questioned whether there should be two commissions, one to deal explicitly with signs and the other to deal with planning. Short discussion held, no conclusion reached. 15. Decision was made to cancel the meeting of February 8, 1977. 16. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at I :55 p.m. Respectfully~bmit~e~, t~.. J J~d eker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 15, 1977 i. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 15, 977 at the 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, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson, Pakonen Absent: London, Craigie, Gustafson London arrived at 7:35 and Craigie arrived at 7:40 p.m. 3. The Chairman aoted for the record that the first item on the agenda was the final review of the Compre- hensive Plan, as revised in the supplemental memo gated 2/4/77, preparatory to sending it forward to the Council for consideration. District #1 Fo lowing discussion reviewin~ the reasons for the amendmen% Commissioner Gundershaug recommended that the text for District #1~ as revise¢ on The memo of 2/4/77 be acceated. Commissioner Pakonen second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson, Pakonen Voting against: None Abstain: Craigie Absent: Gustafson Motion ~ssed. Districts #2~ #3~ #4 The text for these districts had aeen approved at previous meetings -- no recommended changes. District #5 Discussion centered on the recommendation of the text on Page 73, referring to public relations, an~ whether this was an appropriate action for the Commission/City to undertake. Concensus seeme~ to De t~at the promotion of public relations with industry was a function of the Economic Development Commis- sion. Suggestion was made that a statement regarding this issue coul~ perhaps ~e included in the Goals and Policies. Commissioner Christensen made a motion that the first paragraph on Pa~e 73~ beginninR "A further issue... ... an~ endinq - operations in New Hope" be eliminaTe~ from the text. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson, Pakonen Voting against: None Abstain: Craigie Absent: Gustafson Motion passed. Discussion then covered the recommendation of an additional paragraph to the text for District #5, as noted in the memo of 2/4/77. The definition of "gateway" was discussed. The feeling of the Commission was that this was meant to recommend the creation of an image for the area to enhance it's development. Commissioner Bartos made a motion that this paraRraph be accepted as an amendment to the text for Dis- trict #5. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson, ~akonSn Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion passed. District #6 Commissioner Christensen made a motion to adopt the text for District #6~ including the revision am recommended in the memo of 2/4/77~ for the ~inal paragraph of Page 74. Commissioner Gundershaug seconn. District #7 an~ #8 The text for these districts had been previously approved -- no recommended revisions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - FEBRUARY 15, 1977 3. District #9 Discussion centered on the amended text and the reasons behind the changes from the original recommenda- tions of the Plan, as well as the Commission's responsi0ility and whether it was appropriate for the Commission To recommene specific owner development. Feeling was that there was a aeed for neutral recc~n- mendations. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to accept the text for District #9~ with the substitution of the fo lowing amended text for paragraphs two and three. "The. ma,ior issue confronting. District #9 is the developmen~ of remaining open ~and. Based upon access considerations and the desirability of maintaining major streets as boundaries for Tne industrial area and to serve as a dividing point betweer land uses~ it is recommended that a I vacan~ industrial lane De developea for industrial or comaatible business-type use~ as a priority seconG to Tne Science and Industry Cenmer. The open and South of 0 son ndus- trial Park should be entirely devetqped on a PUD basis. Development as a PUD woula enable the maximum utilization of the site whi. le providing .an opportunity to place buildings so as to minimize soil anU access problems~ faci itating aGequate buffering for the residential dis- tricts South of 49th Avenue and resui~ 'n a more compatible land use pattern". Commissioner Craigie second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, ~nderson, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion passed. District #10 Commissioner Atchley recommenue~ that the text for District ~10 be adopted with the substitution of the revision to paragraph three (page 78-79) as statec in the memo of 2/4/77. Commissioner Craigie second. Voting in favor: ~ondon, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion passed. District #11 Text for this district had been previously approved -- no recommended changes. District #12 Discussion hel~ regarding the recommendation of a specific zoning for this district in the text and the density that woula he'permitted in the "R-3" and "R-4" classifications. The differences in the allowe~ density in the classifications as well as the differences 'n the designations "mid density" and "medium density", were also reviewed. Commissioner Craigie maae a motion to adopt the text for District #12 as written and includinq the amend- ment as noted in the memo of 2/4/77. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Craigie, Anderson Voting against: London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug~ Pakonen Absent: Gustafson Motion failed Commissioner Christensen made a motion to approve the text for District #12~ with the second sentence of paragraph two being chart§ed to read: "The open parcel~ which is currently zoned ~or multiple family residentia'l uses~ represents a desirable location for the introduction of medium density~ (R-3) mixed type residential uses". Commissioner Craigie second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion passed. Commissioner Anderson made a motion that a sentence be added to the text statin§ that the terms "mid-density" and "medium-density'~ should be considered as the same. Following discussion, Commissioner Anderson withdrew his motion. He commented that he felt this should be considered at a future time. PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES - 3 - FEBRUARY 15, 1977 3. Districts #13t #14t and #15 The texts for these districts had been previously approved. District #16 Commissioner London made a motion toa~ceptthe text for this district as amended in the memo of 2/4/77. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson ~- Motion passed. District #17 The text for this district had been previously approved. District #18 Considerable discussion was held regarding the recommendations for the district. The areas of concern 'ncluded the feeling of the some of the Commissioners that these recommendations were inconsistent in view of The development proposal that had already been reviewed Dy the Commission for this parcel; the fact that the Comprehensive Plan must be designed with the future of the City 'n mind; the citizen in- put 'regaPding the development of the area; as well as the fact that the total undeveloped area had already somewhat in regard to zoning from what existed when the Plan had been originally proposed. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to adopt the text for District #18, with the second para§raRh on page 94 bein~ amended to read: "The most critical issue confrontinq District #18, is the development of the two remainin~ open sites within the district. The first site is located at 42nd Avenue and County Road #18. In order to properly control and minimize the impact on a~iacent homes and the de- pendence on local streets, it is further recommenced that any oevelopment be mid-density and De undertaken on a planned unit basis. The PUD approach shoul~ be utilized To provide screenin~ bufferin~ aton~ Gettysbur§ for additional protection to exisTin~ single family homes To ~ne EasT. The intersection at 42nd and Gettysbur§ is a Rroolem oecause of its ~esi§n. Both The City ann County in connection with property owners and developers should concentrate efforts To create a more functional intersection in this critica area. Comm'ssioner Bar,os second-. Voting in favor: Bar,os, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson, Pakonen Voting against: London Absent: Gustafson Motion passed. Districts #19~ #20, #21, #22, .#23 The texts for these districts had been previously approved. District #24 Commissioner Christensen noted ffhat in orOer to be consistent with previous recommendations he moved to recommend The approval of the text for District #24 with the second and third sentences of thm third paragraph bein~ amended to reno: 'Although the major portion of the site at 36th Avenue and County Road #18 is presently zoned for commercial use~ in accoroance with the commercia, developmenT framework (paqe 52) it is recommended that this site De designated for mid-density residential development (R-3). A similar development option (R-3) is recommendeo for the site at 30th and Hillsboro". Commissioner Bartos second. Discussion then covered the redundancy of this amendment to the text. Commissioner Christensen withdrew his motion. Discussion then held center'ng on the terms "medium density" versus "mid density" and whether the wording in this regard should De amended in the text. Also discussed were the a Iowaole units per acre in "mid" ano "medium" density, an0 discrepancies were noted between the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. It was the feeling of the Commission that the Zoning Ordinance should include definitions of "mid density" "medium density", "R-2" and "R-3". PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4 - FEBRUARY 15~ 1977 3. Commissioner Craiqie made a motion to approve the text for District #24~ with the addition of "(R-3)" roi owing the wora aevelopmen~ in the second sentence of paragraph three~ the elimination of the word "if" from that sensence¢ and Tne addition of "(R-3)" following the wora option in the third sentence of paragraph three. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion passed. District #25 The text for this district had been previously.approved. District #26 Commissioner Atchiey made a motion to adopt the text for District #26¢ including the amenament of the memo dated 2/4/77. Commissioner Craiqie secona. Discussion followed regarding the amendment and whether it should be included in the text of the Plan or simply implemented at the time of the actual zoning changes? Voting in favor: Atchtey, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Pakonen Voting against: Christensen, Bartos, Anderson, London Absent: Gustafson Motion passed. District #27 Commissioner Christensen moved to adopt the text for District #27 as amended in the memo of 2/4/77. Commissioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, ChrisTensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson, Pakonen voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion passed. District #28 The text for this district had been previously approved. District #29 Commissioner London moved to aaopt the text for District #29 as amended in the memo of 2/4/77. Commis- sioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting Against: Pakonen Pass: Anderson Motion passed. District #30 Text for this district had previously been approved. Commissioner Christensen made a motion that the Community Development ?lan~ Report No. 4~ dated May 1936 De aaopted as amended on 2/15/77 and sen? forward to the City Council for adoption. Commiss'oner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Chpistensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson, Pakonen Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion passed. 4. Commissioner London noted that in his opinion the final review of.fhe Zoning Ordinance and the Use Lists would take a considerable amount of time and that one entire meeting should be devoted to this review. Discussion followed regarding the ordinance and use lists and the aecisions that would have to be made with the concensus being that a special meeting shoul~ be scheduled, hopefully, in March. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - FEBRUARY 15p 1977 4. Commissioner London stated that he would be in touch with the City Manager in regard to placing this item on the agenda of an upcoming meeting. Commissioner Craigie stated that there was a report forthcoming on the Use Lists from the Codes and Standards Committee. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5. There was no report from the ~esign and Review Committee. 6. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 7. There was no report from the Codes and Standard~s. C6mmittee. NEW BUSINESS 8. The Commissioners then discussed the aroposal made by Commissioner Craigie to divide the Commission, add four new members and divide the total responsibilities. Commissioner Craigie stated that in his opinion there was a sufficient amount of work pending, as well as logic supporting the division of the Commission. He felt it might be more practical to nave one group that woula be involved in creating policy decisions, reviewing ordinances ane conducting supplemental studies and a second group to consider actua variances. He stated further that he felt if such a division were to occur, this might oe the best time to ao so. It would also provide some fresh oerspect ve to the review ~rocess. He suggested there be Two groups of seven members each. Discussion then covered the work load, and the fact that the Commission's work on the Comprehensive Plan was drawing to a close which ~ight ~ecrease the resoonsibi ities sufficiently to make ~ division unnecessary. The Chairman noted that, in his ooinion, the amount of work accomplished by the current Commission in re- gard to the Comprehensive Plan and the revisea ordinances far sur0assed any work of previous comm'ssions. He added that under State law, a City was required to have a Planning Commission. He felt that this mat- Tar should be discussed with the City Manager regarding the legalities of sucr a division. Commissioner Christensen commented that in his opinion some of the'work load had beeh easea with the esTa- blishment of the sub-committees--Design and Review, Codes and Standards, and Land Use -- ana that perhaps what was needed was another committee to deal with variances or with signs. Concensus was that the pace of work wou d slow down soon. If it did not~ the suggestion to divide could again be considered. 9. Chairman Cameron noted that on January 26, 1977 the City Council had met with Ur. Bork and Mr. Davenport of the Post papers to discuss the lack of coverage received by the City of New Hope. It had been sug- gested by the aaper that perhaps i~ the Planning Commission meetings were rescheduled to Mondays, it might provide the opportun.ity for greaten coverage of upcoming items on the Council agenda. Discussion between the commissioners with the concensus being that changing the meeting date of the Commission would probably not have any affect on the newspaper coverage and that they did not wish to change the meeting day at this time, particularly since their own schedules had beer, planned ~round the Tuesday evening time slot. The Chairman noted that he felt that changing the meeting day was another matter that must be discussed with the City Manager. He added that he felt it would not be practical to make any changes until after the first of the year because of established schedules. O. The Commission unanimously accepted the City Council challenge for a volleyball game. It was suggested that the game be held in April, sometime after Easter. Commissioner Craigie to arrange for a gym for the game. II. The Counci minutes of January 24, 1977 were reviewed. 12. The Comm'ssion minutes of February I, 1977 were accepted as corrected. Item 3 - paragraph 9 - sentence 5 ~-'Ohang~ "and" to "end". 13. The Chairman then reviewed the Council meeting of February 4, 1977 which he had attended, n regard to the planning.requests regarding signs that had been sent forward to the Council, The Chairman noted that in his opinion, the Council had done their very best to arotect'the integrity of the ordinance in their actions. Commissioner Craigie, who had also attended the meeting, noted that the Counci had required conformance to the '72 Ordinance, but allowed the amortization ]eriod regarding letter size to be fo lowed as stated 'n the new ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 15, 1977 13. Commissioner London asked whether the City Attorney had reviewed the Sign Ordinance prior to its adoption~ especially i~ reference to the billboard issue. ~-~ Chairman Cameron stated that Mr. Shaw, representing Naegele, had appearea at the Council meeting on the 14. He had previously submitted eata to.the Council ana quoted case law in terms of the sign ordi- nance 'n regard to billboards. The Chairman had sent a copy of this material to Commissioner London and requested an opinion in terms of the law in this matter. He stated further that the Naegele represen- tative had simply repeated the fact that if the Council cou d no~ compromise, they would have to go to court. Commissioner London noted that he had conducted some cursory research and felt that perhaps there ~ight be some merit ~o Naegele's claim, tn essence it was'Waking without just comoensation~' This was the reason for his question regarding the City Attorney's review of the Sign Ordinance. Chairman Cameron noted that Mr. Shaw of Naegele had stated they could not legislate someone out o.f busi- ness and billboares were nis business. Commissioner Lonaon noted that his concern was whether or not the ordinance was consitututional -- the proble~ however, is not with future signs but with those signs alreaa¥ 'n existence which ~ecome non- conforming. Perhaps, they could be grandfathered ~n. He stated that the case law he had found indicated They they could require compliance to a sign ordinance purely for esthetic reasons but the cases had also dealt with compensation for removal of the sign. Al of the cases however, pre-date~ the Advertis- 'rig Sign Ac~ where most o~ the new law ~or comoensation came from. He felt it could raise some "hairy" issues as far as the City was concerned. He added that he would hate to see the various smaller companies comply ane remove their signs ana then six to eight months later aave someone test the case and find out ?hat i~.was unconstitutional -- the small businessman who could nOT afford to test the case woul~ have to bear the bru~ of it. Commissioner Loneon the~ aske~ whether it would be possible for the City attorney to conduct some research on this issue to determine whether or not the City does have a strong enough case? The Chairman noted that it was a complicated issue~ but he was not sure whether or not the Planning Commis- sion had a~ything to do about it. He requested that the commissioners all receive copies of the list of non-conforming signs in the City. !a. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 0oyce Boeddeker, Secretary ?~ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH I,.1977 I. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 1, 1977 at the New Hope City Halt, 4401Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was cai ed to order at 7:45 p.m. The Chairman apologized to the assembled citizens for the delayed start of the meeting. He stated that the Commission had Been waiting the arrival.of one member wno had been in a conference, in order that there woulG be a quorem. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: _ondon, Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug Absent: Christensen(excused), Gustafson (excused), Anderson (excused), Pakonen (excused). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 77-1 (CONTINUED FROM I-4-77) - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 71t7 BASS LAKE ROAD - ROBERT HARLFINGER~ PETITIONER. Mr. Robert Harlfinger stated that they were requesting a variance because the McKee Oil Company had sold ou~ to Vickers and that as of February I, 1977 they had been required by Federal Law To remove the McKee name. The name portion of the sign is presently blanked out. The sign is 90 square feet. They only wish to repaint the name portion of the sign. However, the new sign ordinance requires that the sign be brought into conformance when any changes are made. Mr. Milt Anderson of Lawrence Sign Company distributed to the commissioners an illustration of the new lettering as proposed for the blanked out portion of the sign. Mr. Harlfinger stated that this was the same size sign that was used in 27 states. New Hope was the only place that had different requirements. The signs are made in Texas. He felt it would cost about $4,000 to change the sign and noted that the sign had been legal two years ago. Mr. Anderson stated that he did not see why a variance could be required now when the sign had been legal two years ago? The company had applied for a permit to repaint and been informed that the entire sign must be changed to conform to the new ordinance. Chairman Cameron stated that the new ordinance a lowed only 16 square feet of price advertising which this sign exceeded. He added that when a sign was changed for whatever reason, a I signs on the property were required TO come into conformance, including changing the size of the letter'ng. In response TO a comment from Mr. Harlfinger regarding notices regarding the non-conforming signs, the City Manager stated that three notices had peen mailed to the owners -- in '72-'72, about a year ago, and again after the first of the year. Mr. 'Harlfinger stated they had not received any notice regarding sign conformance. Discussion followed regarding the reouirement for no more than 20' in height. Mr. Harlfinger stated he felt this was too iow to allow trucks and Tankers to drive under without damaging the sign. Mr. Anderson stated that the way he understood the ordinance, if the company left the name portion of the sign blanked out, the s'gn could remain as it is for five years. He added that they were asking only for permission to change the name, since ownership had changed.. He expressed concern that leaving the name portion of the sign blank woula chase all of the business away. It was his opinion that the ordi- nance requirements were unreasonable -- this sign could have been gran~fathered in. Chairman Cameron stated that government was required to proceed in a uniform manner. The petitioner had no choice but to bring the sign into conformance or block out the name portion. The ordinance was written for everyone. He then asked the petitioner whether there was a peculiar need that would allow the grant- 'rig of this variance? He noted that cost was not such a need. Discussion continued about the need to prove hardship, whether this need could be proven before the Council meeting of March 14, the legality of leaving the name blanked out during the amortization period included in the new sign ordinance, and the petitioner's option to withdraw. The City Manager stated that they could withdraw their request, but could not have the fee returned because pub ication had already occurred. Commissioner London asked what the hardship would be if they were not allowed to display the name "Vickers"? The answer was that it was brand identification. Vickers is a national company with a credit card business. Without this advertising customers would not realize they were located there. Discussion then covered the fact that the petitioner had been powerless in the name change and needed some identification; the fact that the sign ordinance had been written as a protection to the community and not for the convenience of the merchants who may or may not be residents of the community; and the fact that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - MARCH I~ 1977 3. the sign had been in conformance to the ordinance in effect when erected. The criteria for the granting of a variance, whether or not operating without brand identification womld be an unreasonable hardship, the unusual CircumsTances leading to this request for a variance which in- ~-~ cluded the fact that the petitioner ~ad no control over the change in name were also again reviewed. The parent company's decision to sell had put the station at a definite disadvantage. Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the amortization period would run for five years from August '76. Mr. Anderson re-stated that they had filed for a variance upon direction from the City when they had ap- plied for a permit to repaint the existing sign. In response to a qJestion from the Chairman~ Mr. Harlfinger said that Vickers would pay for the sign since it is a company owned station. Commissioner London commented that, in his opinion, since the sign was relatively new and that all that was being asked was permission to paint the new name on the sign, he felt it would be an unreasonable hardship to not allow them to change the name for the period of amoztization, at which time the sign would deed to be brought into conformance. Chairman Cameron questioned how much leeway the Commission really had in allowing the sign to remain? The City Manager noted that the Commission could rule that this was not a significant change, Commissioner Craigie stated ne felt that the Commission had to determine whether merely changing the'name portion of this sign constituted a major change. He felt that simply adding the name "Vickers" was a small enough change to allow them the five year grace period that had been granted previous petitioners. Commissioner Atchley confirmed with Mr. Harlfinger that they had been required by Federal law to remove the name "McKee" by I February 1977. Commissioner Craigie commented that he would not agree with the granting of any variances in this case. Commissioner Craiqie then moved that it be recommended to the Council that Case 77-1~ Request fo Change the ~ame of McKee to Vickers~ be ruleG as not a ma ior change in the sign~ and secondiy~ that the addition of the word Vickers must conform with Tne 10 inq.h letter size required Dy the present ordinance. Comm'ssioner Gundershaug second. ~ Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Gundershaug, Cameron Voting against: None Absent: Christensen, Gustafson, Anderson, Pakonen Motion passed. 4. PLANNING CASE 77-13 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIGN ORDINANCE AT THE NEW HOPE BOWL - 7107 42ND AVENUE. Mr. Dave Jones represented the New Hope Bowl. He asked whether the need for variances applied only to existing signs or also to new signs? The Chairman answeWed that all new signs being erected must conform to the new Code or obtain a variance. Mr. Jones then stated that their building was situated 220 feet back from 42nd Avenue. Rs you approached from the East there was a home with 25-30 foot trees ~bstructing the view of the bowling alley. From the West, the dairy store and pizza place sat out closer to the road. He noted that in discussing the situa- tion with the sign company it had been felt that the sign as proposed was the absolute minimum size that would do them any good at all. They were requesting a variance on the size of the etters. He added that the sign would be painted, with two spot lights and would be perhaps a third the size of the present sign. n answer to questions from Commissioner Craigie, Mr. Jones stated they they plan to position the sign closer to the West and that the concrete Dost dow 'n the parking lot belongs to Broadway Pizza. He fur- ther noted thet they had been discussion installing only one driveway. He also plans to revise the bui'ld- sign in order TO come into conformance with the code. Commissioner Crai~ie c~nmented that they seemed to be meeting all of the requirements except the size of the letters and did not understand why the letter size of the sign was so uniquely important to them? Mr. Jones stated this was based on the fact that the sign company had told them that if the letters were any smaller, they would not be picked up by passing traffic. Commissioner Crai§ie recommended denial of Case 77-1~- Request for Si~n Variance. Commissioner Atchley ~ second. Commissioner Craigie stated he wished .it to be noted that the main reason for his recommendation for denial was because no specific case had been made for the sign variance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - MARCH I, 1977 4. Voting in favor: London, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: Bartos Absent: Christensen, Gustafson, Anderson, Pakonen Motion passed. 5. PLANNING CASE 77-14 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT THE MINNESOTA-OHIO STATION - 7200 BASS LAKE ROAD. Mr. Terrence Toomey represented Minnesota-Ohio. He stated that they need a variance for their brand identification sign and their price sign. The City Code requires a ten foot setback and the sign is now 'four feet from the property line. There is no other place, in their opinion, to place the sign that would be suitable. Ten feet from the property line would put the sign in the midd e of the driveway. He addea that he believed that the station also had some other signs that did not comply with the ordinance an~ they would be removing them. Chairman Cameron confirmed with Mr. Toomey that he intended to remove all non-conforming signs if he were granted the requested variance. Mr. Toomey stated that their ma'n concern was the FINA identification sign and the price sign. Comm'ssioner Craigie confirmed that they were requesting variances of height, setback, lettersize and overall size of the one sign. Mr. Toomey noted that this was the size that the signs were made -- by a company in Texas. In response to Commissioner Craigie!s request for reasons for granting the variances, Mr. Toomey stated that they had complied for the last 8 or 9 years. When the sidewalks had been put in they had taken the FINA sign down -- had originally moved it to the canopy which had nOT worked, add then been told by the City that it could be positioned four feet from the property line. They feel they must nave the height because the price sign is mounted on the identification sign and aropping it eown any lower would cause it to be too close to the line of traffic, particularly in the case of trucks. They further fee that this is the only place for the price sign because of the view obstruction on the ends of the property. In regard to the size of the price sign, 'these also are purchased from Texas and are standard sizes. In regard to the letter size, Mr. Toomey stated that people could see it a lot better and in pricing gasoline this made a big difference. The City Manager clarified that the letter size restriction applied to the ground sign. As far as the price sign was concerned you only needed to conform to the 16 square feet. Mr. Tommey noted that the brand sign was a national identification and they could not change this. The Chairman noted that the company could purchase a conforming sign from a local company. In response to a comment from Mr. Toomey regarding notification of the new sign ordinance, Commissioner Craigie noted that the ordinance had been in effect for five years, which he felt provided ample time to bring the signs into conformance. Mr. Toomey stated that the station Was owned by Minnesota-Ohio. Commissioner Bartos asked whether it would not b~ possible to move the FINA sign to the East end of the driveway? · Mr. Toomey answered that it was felt it would not have the same effect as having it right in the middle of the property. The s.ign has been in this spot with some variations for about 12 years. The lot is 160 feet across the front. The present Sign is 23 feet high, the price sign is 9-10 feet above the ground and is 4' x 4'. Discussion then covered the alternative of lowering the pole three feet and eliminating the gap between the identification sign and the price sign as a possible solution. Mr. Loren Schiebe, Director of the NorthweSt Chamber of Commerce, expressed his concern regarding comments that had been made regarding the relative hardship to a corporation versus that to an individual. He felt that the same consideration should be given to a corporation as to a small businessman. They should have equal rights. Chairman Cameron stated that he had been merely trying to establish who would foot the bill for required changes in signs. He felt that a corporation had larger resources than the small businessman. He did not mean to cast any aspersions on large corporations. Commissioner Craigie noted that there had not been any difference demonstrated in the granting of variances for either individuals or corporations. Commissioner Craiqie made a motion to recommend denial of Case 77-14. Commissioner Atchley second. Commissioner Craigie stated that he felt that the setback was a major issue. He noted that the petitioner PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - MARCH I, 1977 5. claimed hardship in requesting that the sign remain in the center of the lot. He did not see any reason why the sign could not be moved to the side. He saw no significant hardship for the petitioner in mov- ing the sign to the corner. Mr. Toomey stated that if the sign were to be set in ten feet on each side it would interfere with the driveway -- people would run into the signp i.e. gasoline transports, trucks etc, Commissioner London commented that if the petitioner could prove the disadvantages of moving the sign to the corner he could perhaps make a case ~or leaving the s'gn where it was. He felt that he should look into this ane 0e prepared to present reasons to the Council -- perhaps he could come in with a stream ined pro0osal that the Council could approve. The City Manager noted that no ground sign could 0e located closer than ten feet to any property line without a variance. Chairman Cameron questioned whether a two week table would be beneficial to the petitioner? He cpu d ?hen perha0s ex01ore a differen~ request that would demonstrate the hardship. Mr. Toomey indicated that would be a possibility. In response to a comment that a motion was alrea0y on the floor, the Chairman stated that a motion to table took precedence over any other motion. Commissioner London move~ to table Case 77-14 until the meeting of March 15~ 19_77. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Christensen, Gustafson, Anderson, Pakonen Motion passed. Commissioner Craigie noted that the tab e aid not guarantee approval of any future proposal· 6. PLANNING CASE 77-15 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VAR ANCE FOR 8615 BASS LAKE ROAD - MONTESSOR SCHOOL - MARSHALL EVERSON~ PET!TIO~ER. There was no one in attendance representing the petitioner. Commissioner Craiqie moved to table consideration of this case until the aeeting of March 15~ 1977. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie~ Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: London Absent: Chri~tensen, Gustafson, Anderson, Pakonen Motion passed. 7. PLANNING CASE 77-16 - REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE AT 8908 NORTHWOOD PARKWAY - WAYNE AND KAREN ANDERSON, PETITIONERS. Mr. Anderson stated he was requesting the variance because he wanted to change his single garage into a double garage. The variance would give him an extra foot and make the property more appealing should he ever sell nis aouse, since another 2erson would not necessarily have two compact cars as he did. He alans to use the same siding and have a 16 foot door instead of a 9 foot door. ~e added that Commissioner London had pointed out to him that there was a right-of-way on the property. He had been unaware of this. The City Manager noted that there was an easement on the East side. Mr. Anderson asked whether it would be possible for the variance to be approved, conditiona upon his obtaining the utility easements? The City Manager, in answer to a question from the Chairman, stated that the length of time involved in obtain'ng easements varied, but it was possible it could be accomplished before the Council meeting, cer- tainly before the next comm'ssion meeting. He suggested that this would be a good solution, if the com- mission approved the variance request. Commissioner London confirmed that the petitioner planned to use the same shingles, except he will eli- minate them directly above the garage door. There are no w'ndows or doors on the neighbors home on the side facing the addition, and the garage will be used 'strictly for storage and the parking of vehicles. Commissioner London made a motion for approval of Case 77-16 - Request for a Variance in Sideyard Setback from 5 feet to 4 fee%.s, ubject to the petitioner obtaining the approval of the City Engineer with regard to arainaqe and obtaining .any releases from the utility companies reqarding easements. Commissioner Craiqie second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - MARCH It 1977 7. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Christensen, Gustafson, Anderson~ Pakonen Motion passed. 8. PLANNING CASE 77-17 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 7100 BASS LAKE ROAD - ZANTIGO RESTAURANT~ PETITIONER. Mr. Charles Peugn, representing Signcrafters, and Mr. Dave Haltquist of Zantigo were present. Mr. Peugn noted that they had received a notice stating that the sign was not in conformance because it extended above the roof line. They fee this is a matter of interpretation. Mr. Peugh then illustrated the position of the sign on the building for the Commissioners. In answer to a question from Commissioner Craigie, Mr. Peugh stated that the decision had been made by the corporation in December to move the ocation of the sign because of vandalism. All of the ZanTigo stores in the City had relocated their signs. They had not obtained a permit because they did not feel one was required, since it was the same wa I. He further stated that the sign looked better in the new location, was out of the reach of k!ds, and that its puKpose was identification for the building. The City Manager noted that the petitioner raised an interesting point. A roof sign projects into the air space over the roof. He stated thai if in fact this sign Goes not project over the roof, and the Commis- sion agrees, the gentleman ought to receive his money back. Commissioner Bartos moved that Case 77-17 be withdrawn and the fee refunded because the sign does conform with the ordinance. Commissioner Atchley asked whether this was a decision for the Commission to make, or if it should be a Council decision? The City Manager stated that it was obviously the decision of the building inspector. Following discussion, and with the consen~ of the second, Commissioner Bartos amended his motion to read: Commissioner Bartos moved that Case 77-17 De withdrawn and the fee refunded~ if it is determined by the Buildina Inspector th~-~ the sign is in conformance with the Ordinance~ Commissioner Gundershauq second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Christensen, Gustafson, Anderson, Pakonen Mot'on_passed. 9. PLANNING CASE 77-18 - REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A MUSIC SCHOOL IN A RETAIL OUTLET AT THE NEW HOPE SHOPPING CENTER - THOMAS PEETS, PETITIONER. Mr. Peets noted that he was presently located at 7412 42nd Avenue North. His business has expanded to the point that sales have exceeded his student income. He would like to change the outlook of his busi- qess to primarily a store, with music instruction.being given basically only in guitar, bass and banjo. 4e wou d se I not only instruments, but sheet music, books, and other accessory items pertaining to the music business. In the Ma I location he woulc have the opportunity to operate six eays a week. Teach- ing would not be the bulk of the business. He would arovide only individual instruction -- no group classes, and no recitals or anything involving large numbers of people at one time. He intends basically to have one corner set aside for the instruction. In resDonse to a question from Commissioner London regarding the percentage of sales and instruction, Mr. Pe'ets noted that at present !t was about 50/50. He would anticipate that in the new location it would be 15/85. The area he hopes to rent is 560 square feet. He would instal some sound proof booths in the corner of the space, perhaps 60 square feet. The hours of operation would be noon to seven or eight, and all day on Saturday. This wou d vary with the time of the year. He stated that the people from Draper and Kra- mer had indicated he wo,;.Id have no parking problems at all, since the lot was in excess of parking re- quirements. Mr. Peets stated that he felt that the maximum students would be three coming and going every thirty minutes. He anticipated that the maximum students at any one time would be three, with perhaps a maxi- mum of I00 per week. Commissioner London made a motion to recommend approval of Case 77-18 - Request for a ~pecial Use Permit to Allow Music Instruction in a Retail Sales Store~ restrictinq the lessons to strinq instruments and to thr~e booths~ all sound proofed to eliminate noise disturbance to the other tenants of the center. Commissioner Bartos second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - MARCH I, 1977 9. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Craigie~ Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Cameron, Christensen, Gustafson, Anderson~ Pakonen Motion passed. I0. PLANNING CASE 77-19 - REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM SF TO MR AT 2900 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - JAMES AND MARIE LAMPHERE~ PETITIONERS. Mr. Lamphere stated that their present home is located at the North of a 140' x 160' loot. They wish to build a 26' x 28' addition on the South end. This would al Iow them to convert the house to a double dwelling. He added that since they have lived in their home Winnetka Avenue has become a high traffic area. Their house was built 27 years ago. He felt that the house, with the addition, would convert very easily to a double bungalow. Commissioner London commented on the fact that the new Zoning Ordinance would break down the zoning into additional classifications. He expressed concern that rezoning the property to MR would allow more de- velopment on the property than a double bungalow. He suggested proceeding along the lines of concept ap- proval, so that the petitioner could be aware of the Commission's feelings and if the Commission were favorable, in essence to table the case until the Zoning Ordinance had been adopted with it's new classi- fications, which would limit the property to double d~vellings. He stated that they are looking only at a rezoning, not a specific development plan. The Commission has to be concerned with what is al lowed in an MR zone. Mr. Lamphere noted that one of the reasons they wish to add on to their home is because the property is becoming too much for them to keep up by themselves. He stated that they have lived in the neighborhood for 27 years and did not realty wish to leave, which was another reason for the addition. If they were not able to expand, they would probably decide to move. Mr. Lamphere further noted that he had been waiting for about six-twelve months for the Zoning Ordinance to be adopted. He did wonder how much further "down the road" the adoption of the.new ordinance would be? He added that he had had an architect draw up some plans and ideally would like to begin construction as soon as possible this spring. He felt that the potential increased building costs would be a hardship and would like to begin as soon as possible. · He anticipated that all prices for building materials would rise. He anticipated that the addition would be between twenty and thirty thousand dollars in value. Commissioner London noted that there were two criteria for a rezoning: 1) that there had been a mistake in the original zoning, and 2) that there had been a change in the area. The City Manager noted that because of the size of the property it would have to be developed PUD and so would be before the Commission one more time. Mr. Lamphere stated that 27 years ago, Winnetka was a one lane dirt road. It is now a busy street. He thinks the circumstances - particularly the traffic patterns -- have changed. There is now business lo- cated across the street and further to the South is Midland Center. He felt the property more suited to a double bungalow tt~an to a single family residence. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that he was.not,opposed to a duplex but that the straight MR zoning worried him. Commissioner Craigie commented that essentially ~his was the same thing that,had been 'requested with the duplexes on Winnetka. It seemed to him contradictory to have allowed the previous builder this rezoning and not to extend the same trust to a long time resident that intends to remain on the property. Commissioner'London noted that the plans would have to come before the Commission under PUD development. The petitioner would require a variance because of the sqpare footage for a double bungalow. Mr. Lamphere re-stated their desire to remain in the neighborhood and that he did not intend to build an apartment on the property. He presented an illustration of what he proposes for the site for the Commissioners to view. Discussion followed regarding when Mr. Lamphere hoped to begin construction; how far along he was with his planning and financing and whether a table would al Iow Mr. Lamphere enough time to return to the Commission with completed plans, so that the plans and rezoning could be handled at the same time. Mrs. Florence Johnson, 2909 Sumter Avenue, stated that they objected to any multiple being developed on the property, especially a double bungalow. There would be families moving in and out, and the higher level toward her backyard would give them less privacy. There would be strangers there that they would not get to know. She stated that she believed that it would add to the maintenance problems rather than subtracting from them. She did not feel there was any guarantee that a renter would keep up their half of the home. There also is not guarantee that the homeowner would always live on the property. Dr. Paul Wrob~l, 7901 28th Avenue, stated that from Medicine Lake Road to about 44th Avenue almost every- thing on the East side of Winnetka was multiple or commercial. It seemed to him that eventually that entire side would be considered multiple or commercial -- this seemed to be the trend. He further com- mented that the area had all changed in character since the original zoning -- Winnetka had been widened, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - MARCH I~ 1977 I0. and it seemed to him that this was a legitimate request. Mr. Lamphere stated that he had discussed his proposal with the neighbors before coming before the Commis- sion. Mrs. Johnson had expressed her objections at That time, but the majority of the neighbors seemed to have ab objections, He then presented a survey he had taken of the neighbors regarding his request to the Chairman (attached to official minutes). Mrs. Johnson stated that she had called her rea estate agent regarding this situation. He had stated that definitely there would be a problem in the resale of her property because a double bungalow does decrease the value of the SF dwellings. Commissioner London made a motion to table Case 77-19 - Request for a Rezoninq from SF to MR - until the meeting of April 5~ to allow the petitioner to include a request for PUD with his request for rezonin§~ so that the two could 0e considered at the same time. Commissioner Craiqie second. Voting i.n favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: None AbsenT: Christensen, Gustafson, Anderson, Pakonen Motion passed. Chairman Cameron declared a recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9:55 p.m. II. PLANNING CASE 77-20 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VAR ANCE AT 9400 36TH AVENUE NORTH - SHELL OIL COMPANY~ PETITIONER. Mr. Archie Mosher, owner of the station, stated he was requesting a variance TO allow him TO keep his high- way sign. He stated he felt it was absolutely necessary for him to have the sign TO survive in business. He estimated about 40% of his gasoline business came from the highway. He also fel~ it was 'mportant be- cause he stayed open until 1:00 o'clock at night and the sign was the only way that citizens driving down #18 could know where he was located. It is almost impossible to buy gasoline from Hopkins to Osseo at night. This is also true on Sunday and Sunday evening. Mr. Mosher owns the signs and a new sign would cost about $15,000. The hardship would be the lack of busi- ness for the station without the sign. He felt if the sign were down, it would be impossible to tel that there was a service station in the location from ~18. Mr. Lloyd Toutant, of the Shell Oil Company, stated that with a controlled access highway, there were many ~roblems in obta!ning identification. The visibility from the highway is important to the station. The Chairman questioned what the conditions were when the sign was originally installed? He recalled lengthy discussion at the time. Mr. Toutant noted that the company spent a good deal of time with the officials of the community when signs were originally installed and they tried to work wtihin the ordinances. They realize that setbacks are im- portant but he felt That the company mUST nave worked with the City wnen the signs were originally installed. He did not feel the si'gn could be any lower than it is now. In answer to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Toutant stated that the $15,000 figure represented the loss to the station owner if the sign had to 0e removed. Mr. Mosher stated he had purchased the signs frpm Shell. He further indicated that they intend to move the sign on 36th Avenue -- the company to pay the expense. Mr. Mosher then reviewed his site plan with the Commissioners. Discussion centered on the requirements as they apply to letter size, the amortization schedule regarding lettering and conformance to the Sign Ordi- nance, and the recent Council decisions on Texaco. Additional discussion covered the actual size of the size, the letter sizes, and the fact that the Commis- sion did not have all of this information. Mr. Toutant indicated that he Thought this information had been forwarded to the City. The City Manager indicated that the sign was forty feet high, square footage figures of the sign were not available at this time. Mr. Toutant ~tated that they would submit a detailed drawing of the sign. Commissioner Craigie indicated that this information should have been mane available for the present meet- ing -- he noted that this was the biggest sign in the City. He further indicated that, in his opinion, based on persona observation, the s'gn would be just as visible if it were dropped ten feet. Mr. Toutant questioned whether this would be true when the trees had leaves, even if it were true now. Chairman Cameron euestioned why, when other services stations on #18 did not have such large freeway signs, Shell felt they could justify one? Mr. Toutant stated he felt that Archie wanted to have as much exposure as possible to ensure his livelihood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - MARCH I, 1977 II. He indicated that the signing had been approved at the time of original station construction. Based on the expenditures made in the construction of the station, Mr. Toutant fel~ that this was the type of signing that was essential to recovering their investment. The Chairman indicated that situations have changed since that time. Mr. Toutant responded that he understood that, but that the company also had to justify their expenditure. Mr. Kirby, also of the Shell Company, stated that he did not know why the other stations did not have such freeway signs and Shel felt one necessary, but ne did feel that in the five years that Archie had been in the ocation, he had grown dependent upon the sign, and that 40% of this gaso ine sales came from the high- way. Losing the sign could cut his business by at least 40%. He also felt that the sign could be a great help to a stranded motorist. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Mosher stated that the 40% had been estimated by him. He indicated that he always tried TO watch wnere his business was coming from. The Chairman indicated his feeling that the business was primarily a-neighborhood business and that #18 could not De classed with an interstate in regard to potential business. He felT Archie's reputation was what made aim a successful neighborhood business. Commissioner Craigie indicated that it was his ooinion that it was the setback variance that would most seriously hurt the effect of The sign. The other requirements, as long as the sign continued to be lighted, would not destroy the sign. It was his feeling that it would be more constructive to discuss bringing the sign into conformance in all areas except perhaps the setback. He stated that the sign could be 200 square feet in size with 20" letters as it faced the highway. The 8" requirement applies to 36th Avenue. Mr. Mosher indicated that he did feel it was also a service because he stayed open unti II o'clock and had had many customers indicate how glad they were to see his sign, since there was WOT much opportunity to purchase gas late at night along #18. Commissioner Craigie indicated his feeling that the only legitimate hardship they were talking about was the setback requirement. Mr. Toutant stated he felt the letter size was also important because of the speed of the traffic on #18. Discussion then c~¥ered the size of ?he letters on the ~resent sign, the visibility of the sign when ap- proaching from the North, the petitioner's opinion that in spring an~ summer it wouia be difficult to see a lowered siga and whether or not a hardship did exist regarding the variances as requested. Mr. Toutant indicated that the roof sign was part of fhe architectural ~esign, as well as standard brand identification. In a~swer TO a auestion from the City Manager, Mr. Toutant indicated that to remove the roof sign, which was fastened into the steel girder, would leave a hole all the way through the structure. Additional discussion about the variances as requested, with Commissioner Craigie noting that they were asking for four vari-ances ~or the one sign as well as the others. The Chairman questigned whether it ~ight not be advisable to table this request, to give the petitioner a little more time to look further into the existing signs, and obtain actual measurements of these signs. Mr. Kirby indicated that a table would be fine.. Commissioner London noted that the sign on 36th Avenue also should be reviewed in relation to the height of the sign and the etter size. He suggested that Shell get a copy of the sign ordinance and find out exactly what was allowed on both 36th Avenue and County Road #18. Commissioner Craigie moved to table Case 77-20 until the meetin~ of Ap[il 19~ 1977. Commissioner Gund- dershaug second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: Christensen, Gustafson, Anderson, Pakonen Motion passed. 12. PLANNING CASE 77-2 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 5600 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH - SHELL OIL COMPANY~ PETITIONER. Mr. Toutant noted that the dealer of this station had been unable to be present for the meeting. ~hey were talking about a sight corner and they felt they could move the sign back 'n accordance with the ordinance. Commissioner Craigie noted that the sign was also not in conformance in regard to tota. size, height and letter size. P~ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - MARCH 1, 977 13. Mr. Toutant noted that perhaps this request could ~lso be +abled. Commissioner Crai~ie made a motion to table Case 77-21' until April 19t 1977. Commissioner Gundershaug seconQ. Voting in ~avor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent; Christensen, Gustafson, Anderson, ~akonen Motion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS 3. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 4. There was no re0ort from the Land Use Committee. Commissioner London indicated That the committee would shortly review the Zoning Ordinance and present it to the entire Commission, including the revised use list. This should be before the Commission on t5 March. 5, There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW ~USINESS t6. The Council minutes of February 14, were reviewed. The City Manager noted that Mr. Shaw of Naegele had re- quested that the whole question of bi lboards ae reviewed. This will be before the Council at their meet- ing on the 14th March. At the meeting of February 28, the Council had moved to deny the request for the apartment project at 42nd/#18 and reeuested the attorney To present findings of fact for this denial; had placed a four week moratorium on any multiple development; and airected the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on rezonin9 the property to SF. Short discussion on rezoning. Concensus was that this item should be on the agenda for discussion on March 15, 1977. Dave Anderson had received approval for his new sign on 42nd Avenue and will now have a 48 square foot sign that includes the word Surf and the price. In answer to a question from the'Chairman, the Cit~ Manager noted tha? as he understood them, the reasons for denial of the Harrington 0roposat were the traffic problems and the overall scale of the project. 7. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 15, were accepted as priated. 19. The City Manager reminded the Commission of ~he meeting a~ 4:00 Wednesday March 2~ 1977 regarding the City Center development. 20. The meeting was adjournea by unan'mous consent at 11:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary .TO: NEW MOPE PLANWING CO~V~4ISSI0N NEW MOPE CITY COUNCIL WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, WISH TO STATE OUR PEELINGS ON JIM & MARIA LAMPMERE'S REOUEST FOR RE*ZOOmING OF TMEIR PROPERTY AT 2900 Wi-~NETKA AVE NO TO MULTIPLE DWELLING. THE REASON FOR THIS REOUEST IS SO THEY CAN REMODEL THEIR PRESENT HOME TO A DOUBLE BUNGELOW BY ADDING 28 FT TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF T__~!EIR PRESENT HOME. I ~3~ IN I HAVE NO OBJECTION I OBJF. CT TO FAVOR OF TO T~IS REQUEST T~IS EEOUE~'T DATE ": .% "?< ADDRESS THIS REQUEST PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 15, 1977 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 15, 1977 at the City Hall, 4401 Xglon Avenue North, New Nope,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, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: Craigie, Pakonen(excused) Commissioner Craigle arrived at 7:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 77-14 (CONTINUED FROM 3-1-77) - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 7200 BASS LAKE ROAD - MINNESOTA-OHIO OIL COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Joe Berglove represented Minnesota-Ohio. He noted that on March 1, 1977 his colleague, Mr. Toomey, had appeared before the Commission in regard to the signs at the station. The ground sign is presently located only four feet from the property line and is 23 feet high. The letters on the sign are also larger than permitted by the ordinance. Mr. Berglove commented on the need for sign visibility in the gasoline business, and the amount of money involved in the moving of a sign. Mr. Berglove distributed copies of a new site plan, noting that they were proposing to move the sign in question to the East end of the property and would observe the ten foot setback requirements from each property line. They were further requesting a variance on the height. The sign is 23 feet high with a price sign suspended below the brand identification sign. They will, however, install a new price sign four feet by four feet. They would like a 12'-13' clearance beneath the sign because, in their opinion, this height is necessary to allow trucks and vans to clear. They are also requesting a variance on the slze of the letters of the brand sign, which are approximately 15" in height. He noted that the sign is an internally illuminated sign with plastic face on two sides. The sign is accepted in this size in 26 states. Ail other signs on the property that are non conforming will be removed, including the wall brand sign. The City Manager pointed out to the petitioner that the ten foot setback required by the Ordinance is to the leading edge of the sign, not the pole as indicated on the site plan. Mr. Berglove indicated that they would conform to the Ordinance in this respect. Discussion followed between Mr. Berglove and Commissioner Craigie regarding the parking stalls in the area proposed for the .sign. Mr. Berglove indicated he would hope that they could still maintain the parking there. He'felt that the spaces provided (i0-12) were usually filled at the station. Commissioner Craigie noted that if only automobiles were parked in these stalls, there would be no pro- blem, in his opinion, in regard to the height of the sign. Mr. Berglove commented that it has been his experience that it was amazing what people could hit and how they could misjudge distance. The company was interested in avoiding this problem and felt that the 12-13 feet in height to the bottom of the sign would provide this clearance and keep the trucks from hit- ting the sign~ Commissioner Craigte noted that under the terms of the new sign ordinance the letter size on the brand identification sign could remain as it is, through the amortization period of the new Ordinance (five years from 8/76). Mr. Berglove indicated that he had not been aware of the sign ordinance until recently. Commissioner Craigie commented on the fact that notices had been mailed to those concerned on three occa- sions regarding the Sign Ordinance and the need to conform to ft's requirements. In response to a comment from Mr. Berglove regarding the cost involved in changing the sign, Chairman Cameron noted that it was his opinion that the cost of sign changes to a national company with standar- dized signs did not justify a variance, since there many small businessmen in the City that had to ab- sorb the entire cost of the sign changes by themselves and did so. Mr. Berglove noted that they were not a national corporation but a jobber. The signs were supplied b~ American Petro-Fina. They liked to identify themselves by using their signs. In response to a question from Commlssioner Gustafson, Mr. B erglove commented that there were usually three or four sizes of signs to choose from, as well as the high rise signs. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 '- MAR~H 15, 1977 3. Commissioner Craigie made a motion that in Case 77-14, the existing letter size on the brand identifica- ~-~ tion sign be allowed to remain unti2 the amortization schedule of the present ordinance expired, provid- ing that the height of the ground sign be reduced to 20 feet and the sign moved to the site indicated and installed within setback requirements and that all other non conforming signs on the property be removed, commissioner Atchleg second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Abseht: Pakonen Motion passed. 4. PLANNING CASE 77-15 - REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT MONTESSORI SCHOOL AT 8615 BASS LAKE ROAD - MARSHALL EVERSON, PETITIONER. The City Manager stated that the City had been informed by Mr. Everson that the school would be leaving the church location and, therefore, did not need the slgn variance. He suggested that the Commission deny the request for the variance. Com~issloner Craigie made a motion that Case 77-15 be denied. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Pakonen Motion passed. OLD BUSINESS 5. Commissioner London noted that because he had been out of town he had not had a meeting with his commit- tee and the others who were concerned with the Zoning Ordinance. chairman Cameron stated that he felt it was too serious an issue to be acted upon without proper review and discussion. ~ Discussion followed between the commissioners about scheduling this review. Inasmuch as three of the mem- bers of the Commission would probably no~ be in attendance on the 5th April, the concensus was that this discussion of the Zoning Code should be scheduled for 19th April. A meeting of the Land Use Committee and other interested parties was then scheduled for the evening of Tuesday, March 29, 1977 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall for the purpose of a work session on the Zoning Code. 6. In regard to the m6ratorium on fast food restaurants, the City Manager stated that the Council, at their meeting on March 14, 1977 had extended the moratorium until January 22, 1978. In response to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager noted that the Council had requested that the Commission take a look at the entire question of fast food restaurants and their control in terms of land use but had not given specific instruction as to certain controls. Concensus of the Commissioners seemed to be that this issue should be discussed along with the Zoning Code and the Use Lists. COMMITTEE REPORTS 7. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 8. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 9. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 10. The City Manager stated that the City Council, at it's meeting on February 28th, had requested that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on a rezgning to SR of the property at 42nd/#18. The Chairman questioned whether or not there was any additional background for the Commission in regard to this request? Commissioner London asked whether this was a directive or a request? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 '- MARCH 15, 1977 10. The City Manager stated that the Council had the right under the Zoning Ordinance to order a rezoning hearing. He added that if the Commission did not wish to hold such a hearing, they should put in writ- ing their reasons. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the hearing would be to deal specifically with a proposed rezoning of this one property to SR. Chairman Cameron stated that this bothered him -- the fact that the Commission had been directed to hold a rezoning hearing for a specific classification. He stated that he felt that the public had been heard more than once during the last several months regarding this particular piece of property and it had recently been incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan and forwarded to the Council. It seemed to him that the Commission needed more direction from the Council on this issue and proposed that he write a letter to the Mayor and Council stating that the Commission desired more direction and calling attention to the fact that the Commission .had already reviewed this property and it's zoning. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether these facts could not be included in any motion made as a result of the public hearing, i.e. stating that while SR might be acceptable for the neighbors, the Comprehen- sive Plan previously approved by the Planning Commission did have certain classifications attached to it, and that the Commission did not know of anything new, or of any overwhelming evidence that would call for a change, and that the Commission approved of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan as they had been sent forward. Commissioner London stated that he had problems with the need for holding a public hearing. He felt that this particular property had been reviewed by the Commission several different times. There had been three or four hearings on that particular property; when the Comprehensive Plan had been reviewed, as well as when Mr. Harrington's proposal had been before the Commission. It was his feeling that it would be tremendously inconsistent with what had already been done, to now hold another hearing and even consider a rezoning. The Commission had looked at the property and decided that they would like to have a mix of zoning and had passed this on through the Comprehensive Plan. Now the Council is requesting that the Commission jump ahead and set a pattern for rezoning the entire City on a direct basis, instead of considering rezoning on a case by c~se basis when someone come before the Commission. This pre-sup- poses that this is what will be done -- that in every case the Commission would make a direct re-zoning. The Commission may decide not to proceed in this manner and if they do so on one particular piece of property, a precedent would be seT. He was also concerned about holding another public hearing on an area that had been reviewed on several different occasions. Chairman Cameron noted that this was essentially why he felt the Con~ission should ask for more particu- lar direction from the Council. He added that he felt the Council owed the Commission a little more in the way of explanation as to why there was justification for this specific request. Commissioner Gustafson stated that in the end, what the Commission would be doing in holding another public hearing, would be to double check their review of the Comprehensive Plan and the recommendations of the Plan, which had been already passed through the Commission but is not yet official policy, he saw no problem. Holding a public hearing to fact find -- i.e. is it gconomically feasible? what the alter- natives are? seemed to h~%.to be open and if the Commission recommendations' were the same, then they would stand. ~" The Chairman commented that the Commission had. not done it's job properly if within a month after the Plan had been sent to the Council, they sent a major piece of property back to the Commission and said "look at it again". Commissioner London then commented that the underlying premise of the entire study behind the Comprehen- sive Plan was based on an economic study -- return on investment -- the land itself -- whether or not it was suitable for certain types of construction. In essence, the Commission would have to call someone in and ask for those same evaluations again -- was it feasible to build only single family housing on the property or is the return not great enough. He felt that what would happen was that they would read right back out of the inventory and say that based on cost factors, return on investments and such and such, and the same figures would be juggled right ba~k to the Commission. Commissioner Gustafson stated that then at least those figures would represent something that was real and Mr. Harrington would have to react to those figures. Commissioner London stated that should a public hearing be held and for whatever reason the recommenda- tions for the property were to change -- what then would the procedure be? Would the Comprehensive Plan need to be changed? He stated that he felt that there was a great need for the Commission to be consistent. He added that when the public hearings had been held on this property when the Comprehen- sive Plan was reviewed, Mr. Harrington had been present and presented his case for multiples and the homeowners of the area had also presented their case. He felt that the Commission had considered both sides of the issue and that another public hearing would be simply a repeat of previous hearings -- the same information all over again. Commissioner Atchtey stated that unless there was some new fact to be considered, he felt that the Commission had considered everything possible in regard to this property -- why go into it again? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - MARCH 15, 1977 10. The Chairman indicated that if the Council said they must, the Commission would hold a public hearing. ~.~. He did think, however, that the Council owed the Commission an explanation as to why they were doing this -- with a little further direction as to what they were supposed to accomplish, how this would re- late to the Comprehensive Plan, why just the one rezonlng concept and that they should further give the Commission a time schedule in regard to the issue. Commissioner Bartos questioned what the legal ramifications would be -- changing the zoning on a property owner and legally tying his hands? The City Manager noted that a rezonlng could be made if it related to the findings of the Comprehensive Plan but the zoning could not be simply changed -- there must be facts backing the decision. Commissioner Bartos asked whether the City could anticipate a law suit should such a rezoning occur? The City Manager answered that should the property be downgraded~obviously someone would go through at least District Court to challenge the decision. This is why the facts had to be good -- there had to be justification for any down zoning. Commissioner Craigie questioned whether it would be possible to hold a fair public hearing because the Commission would be faced with making an objective decision on the Comprehensive Plan that they had al- ready recommended for the City. He questioned whether an alternative would be to hold a joint public hearing,Commission and Council, hear the citizen input, make no decisions but discuss the input so that both bodies could share some of the thoughts. He further noted that should a public hearing be held, it was his feeling that as little as possible should be mentioned about the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner London agreed that reference to the Comprehensive Plan would be Imprope~ at the public hearing, since arguments were to be made solely on the basis of whether the land should be single family. It would be up to the Commission to make this decision -- but not to defend the Comprehensive Plano Commissioner Anderson stated that it might be that t~ey only had to sit and listen but he could not think of any good reason to sit and listen to the same testimony again, unless someone could come forward with new information. Commissioner Gustafson referred to the minutes of the public hearing on Mr. Harrington's proposal noting ~--~ that at this point the homeowners association objected to Mr. Harrlngton's proposal because it was not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that it seemed to him that if the Commission held the public hearing, they would in essence be giving the citizens the additional time to comment. They could then make a decision, and send it right back to the Council and the task would be completed a lot faster than by sending a letter to the Council and hoping for a retraction of their request for a public hearing. Perhaps the Commission should make a recommendation now that they saw no reason for another public hear- ing and that the Comprehensive Plan as stated should stand. Commissioner London commented that in spite of all of the pro and con discussion of the use for this property, the homeowners, as much as they pushed for SR, had commented that they did not think it would come about. He indicated that he would be in favor of sending a message to the Council stating that the Commission felt it had considered this property sufficiently and that a sufficient number of hear- ~ngs had been held and that unless there was any new information to be considered, the Commission felt they had considered this property often enough. Commissioner Craigie commented that he felt the Council should give the Commission a list of specific objectives that they wished responded to. Discussion followed regarding a date for the public hearing and a letter to be sent to the Council re- questing objectives as well as the time sequence for these two items. Commissioner Bartos questioned the Council's request for a specific zoning rather than a request for the Commission to reconsider the general zoning for the property. Commissioner Anderson made a motion that the Chairman send a letter to the Ma.yor and Council indicating that the Planning Commission had reviewed this site in depth w~ile reviewinc the Comprehensive Plan and found that there was no compelling reason, or any new information that would be forthcoming from a new public hearing. The Commission, therefore, requests that Council respond~more specifically as to tne information they expect the Commission ~o respond to and the criteria that they expect the Commission to follow in looking at the SR zoning. He felt that the Commission should not schedule a public hear- ing until the Council responded to this request. Commissioner London second. Commissioner Craigie stated that he felt that the matter should be expedited not delayed. ~--~ The City Manager noted that if the co~ission ordered a public hearing at the present meeting, it could be held on April 19th. Commissioner London called for the question. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - MARCH 15, 1977 10. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchle~, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: Craigie Absent: Pakonen Motion passed. 1i. The Council Minutes of 2-38-77 were reviewed. The Cit~ Manager noted that at the Council meeting of March 14th, the Council had agreed with the recom- mendations of the Commission in regard to the Vickers station on Bass Lake Road. The petitioner from the New Hope Bowl had not appeared and the Council also agreed with the recommendation on this case. In regard to billboards, the Council had ruled that the ordinance should not be changed now. The~ had suggested that Naegele could appt~ for a rezoning of the proper~g with the present billboards. Theg also indicated that Naegele was welcome to bring in anything they wished that might appl~ to standards for signs, etc. and the~ would at least look at it, but would not do additional studE on their own. 12. The Commission minutes of 3/1/77 were reviewed and accepted as corrected. Corrections are to be made as follows: Page 2 - Paragraph #3 -- Add -- Voting in favor: Cameron Page 4 - Item 5 -- Change - "tabled to March 15, 1977" Item 6 -- Change - "tabled to March 15, 1977" 13. The Volle~bai1 game between the Council and the Commission was scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on A~r~l 14~ 1977 at the New Ho~e Elementar~ School. The Cit~ Manager stated that Mr. Lamphere (Case 77-19) had been in to See him and that if the Commission were agreeable, it had been suggested that instead of applging for a PUD, which would require that Mr. Lamphere hire a surveyor and spend considerabl~ more mone~, that he request a variance on the square footage required for a double bungalowl Discussion followed regarding the control that a PUD would g~ve the cit~, the fact that Mr. Lamphere's property was a!read~ well landscaped, ~he ~act that he must have an M~ zoQing regardless of what he built, and the fact that in reg~iv£~g a $a~iance he would be c6mpelled to' ~ui~d.t~e addi'tion one.the building at this time. If h~ ~d not do this he would lose the variahce. Concensus was that Mr. Lamphere could proceed with his request for a variance instead of a PUD with no commitments from the Commission at this time. 14. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:50 p.m. Respectfull~ submitted, ~Joyce Boeddeker, Secretar~ PLANNING COZ4MISSION MINUTES APRIL 5, 1977 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the City Hall, 440i~.~1on Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota on Tuesday, April 5, 1977. The meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: Bartos(excused, Pakonen(excused),Craigieexcused), Atchley PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 77~19 (CONTINUED FROM 3-1-77) REZONING SR TO MR, AND PLANNING CASE 77-22--REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN LOT SIZE AT 2900 WINNETKA AVENUE - JAMES AND MARIE LAMPHERE, PETITIONERS. Mr. Lamphere stated that at the 3-1-77 meeting they had requested the rezoning from SR to MR to allow them to build an addition to their home and convert the home to a double bungalow. They are further requesting a variance on square footage to allow them the double bungalow and eliminate the need to go PUD. Mr. Lamphere stated that they had built their home in 1950 when Winnetka was a single lane dirt road~ In his opinion, with the addition of the apartments, the shopping center, and the dentist and chiroprac- tor offices across the street, sufficient change had occurred that the MR zoning was not inappropriate for this lot. He further noted that the traffic and classification of Winnetka Avenue had changed con- siderably. He added that they felt that a double bungalow was in line with the surrounding development of Winnetka in that area. The lot is 140 x 160 and they do not intend to change the present landscaping of the property. The addi- tion would be to the South of the existing home with a tuck-under garage. In response to questions from Commissioner London regarding the control the City wouldlhave of develop- ment once the property were rezoned, the City Manager stated that there would be no more or less control than with a PUD. In either case the petitioner would have to build what had been approved or come back before the Commission with a new proposal. The building materials on the addition would match the existing structure and the addition would be 26' x 28', with two bedrooms. Mr. Lamphere intends to live in the new addition and rent the existing home. He noted that they had lived in the house for 27 years and planned to remain for many more. Mrs. Paul Johnson, 2909 Sumter, stated that she and her husband do not approve of the rezonlng or of the variance. They feel that the addition will affect their property value, will take away some of their pri. vacy and they do not wish to have rental property next to them. In her opinion there was already a sufficient number of multiple dwellings in the area. She stated that she had a letter from her husband with her, agreeing with her views, as well as a letter from her real estate agmnt. They would lJke to keep the area residential, feeling there was enough commercial in the area now. Mrs. Johnson stated she had talked to other neighbors and one neighbor supported her views, but had been unable to attend the meeting. Chairman Cameron noted that at the 3-1-77 meeting Mr. Lamphere had presented a statement to the Commission signed by several of the neighbors stating no objection to the addition. Mrs. Johnson questioned whether all of these people who signed were in~ediate neighbors. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug regarding the zoning of this property under the new classifications, the City Manager stated that this property would be classified as R-2. Mr. Lamphere noted that he would not be interested in asking for anything but a double bungalow on the property. ~e Chairman noted that, in his opinion, there were enough safeguards built in to the system to prevent any serious disruption to the neighborhood because of this rezoning. Commissioner Anderson commentbd on th~ fact that he f~lt a hardship had not been proven in requesting the variance. The Chairman commented that, in his opinion, considering the development across Winnetka and with the shopping center and apartments in the area, rezoning this property to allow a double bungalow would not be creating any problem for the neighborhood and was not an unreasonable request. In response to a question from Commissioner London, Mr. Lamphere stated that he intended to install a turn-around driveway so there would be no need to attempt to back out on to Winnetka. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - .APRIL 5, 1977 3. Commissioner London made a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 77-19 - Request for Rezonin~ from SR to MR at 2900 Winnetka and approval of Case 77-22 - Request for Variance In Lot Size to Allow a Double Bungalow at 2900 Winnetka Avenue. Commissioner Gundershaug second. ~--~ Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, G~ndershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen Motion ~assed. 5. PLANNING CASE 77-23 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 8711 BASS LAKE ROAD - RCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER. Mr. Richard Ernst distributed revised site plans to the Commissioners. He noted that he had appeared before the Commission last summer with a similar request. That request was denied and they now feel they have solved all of the problems and he would address the reasons for denial in relation to the new proposal. The building is designed to be an office building on the upper level with the lower level to be limited warehouse and storage facilities. He then referred to the resolution denying his previous request, dated 7-12-76. #1 -- Building ~s now to be enclosed with brick and glass on the upper level, brick, glass and split face block on the lower level and is completely enclosed. #2 -- He felt that the plans were now complete and adequate for reviewalo #3 -- Felt that ideal use of the site had been made in regard to the terrain and traffic patterns of the area. The building is designed to be built to grade on Bass Lake Road and accommodate the slope Southerly of the lot and allowing for reasonable development of the lower level of the building. Mr. Ernst stated, in answer to a Question from the Chairman, that the design of the building had not changed since his previous proposal. #4 -- They have added screening in the way of shrubbery along Bass Lake Road and also along Boone Avenue with some additional redwood fencing along Boone, screening the parking lot. #5 -- Drainage plan has been updated, drainage toward Bass Lake Road would go into a catch basin in the driveway and then underground in a pipe to the existing sanitary sewer. The drainage to the rear of the building would go to the Southwest corner of the property, into a 20' easement that would handle the drainage from both this property and the Post Publishing property and carry it into a pending area lying Southwest of the site. #6 -- Drawings of the exterior elevation have been provided. #7 -- They have provided a driveway easement from the Boone Avenue driveway (25 feet) across their rear driveway to the Post Publishing building. This they feel will accommodate the delivery trucks to the lower level also. They feel truck delivery will consist of small panel trucks to the upper level and access to this level can be obtained from the Bass Lake Road access. #8 -- A total of six handicapped parking spaces have been provided and there will be two center halls leading through the building and out to the front. #9 -- He indicated the hallway 3ayout. The driveway will be 24 feet rather than 22 feet. They are providing a center median with direc- tional arrows on the Boone Avenue driveway. They have eliminated a section of parking toward Bass Lake Road and are providing 24 parking spaces along the building which will be posted for "no employee parking". In response to a question from the C_Sairm~n, Mr. Ernst noted that these particular plans had not been seen by the Design and Review Committee. .. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that the Design and Review Committee had not reviewed these plans.. The Chairman stated that he would entertain a motion that this case be returned to the Design and Review Committee to be reviewed, in particular regarding landscaping and parking. ~ The Chairman noted for the benefit of the assembled citizens that the plan they had reviewed was the the final plan, and requested that if they had comments, they be brief, since there might still be changes in the plan. Mr. Elmer ~yer, 5832 Caveil, stated he was concerned about additional access to Bass Lake Road. He noted that the traffic from the Post had already created additional problems. He further questioned whether a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - APRIL 5, 1977 5. a catch basin connected to a sanitarg sewer was legal? He also commented on the fact that this was the third time around for this proposal. How long did they have to keep doing this with no improvement~ It is the same thing and he felt they were wasting not only the people's time but the Commission an~ Council time. Mr. Dennis Holland, 8716 Bass Lake Road, stated he too was getting tired of coming to hear the same proposal. He further wished to reinforce the fact that there was a/ready a traffic problem on Bass Lake ~ Road. The traffic is only going to get worse, not better. He further expressed concern with the park- ing spaces on the North and the fact that the building is still the same outside dimensions and seemed suitable for a retail establishment as long as there is adequate parking in front of the building. He felt this was a temptation to put in a higher revenue earning retail establishment in the future. The Chairman noted that the Commission would probably be hearing this Case again in four weeks (May 3rd) and that while the comments made at this meeting would go into the record, the citizens should return to that meeting. Additional notices would not be sent unless there was a change in the date. Mrs. Shannon Crosenheider,5816 Ensign,asked whether if the request were approved, this meant that there could be no deviation of the plan on the inside? The Chairman noted that the design was meant to be flexible. The Commission was responsible for review of the exterior, parking, etc. but the inside could be developed to meet the needs° Mr. Meyer asked whether the building was going to be strictly an office why there needed to be parking on the North near Bass Lake Road. If there was not some plan in someone's mind to change the use? Commissioner Christensen noted that the top floor was to be office and the bottom level warehouse° Commissioner Christensen made a motion to table Case 77-23 until the meeting of Mag 3rd, providing that the petitioner met with the Design and Review Committee before that meeting. Commissioner London second. The City Manager stated that if for any .reason this planning case was not included on the agenda for May 3rd, the citizens would be notified. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Cundershaug, Anderson Voting ~galnst: None Absent: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen Motion passed. 6. PLANNING CASE 77-24 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE - 7601 42ND AVENUE NORTH - JUNIOR ACHIEVE- MENT OF CREATER MINNEAPOLIS, PETITIONER. Mr. Ron Cody, Executive Director of Junior Achievement, requested permission to establish a separate identity for the Junior Achievement Center, located to the rear of the YMCA building. The building is attached to the "Y" building, using their main plant of utilities, which will be metered for JA. This resulted in a substantial savings in construction costs for JA. There is no affiliation between the two organizations other than location. The two organizations have separate programming, separate staff, and separate fund raising. They feel it is important for Junior Achievement to establish their own identity. Theg are requesting permission for two signs -- one at the~intersection of Rockford Road and Quebec, not to exceed 20 square feet and meeting the setback requirements of the Ordinance. This sign would be a lighted plastic sign in a black aluminum frame, set three feet off the ground to identify the location of the JA center to traffic and to the public. The second sign would be attached to the building, located at the rear of the site, to identify the entrance, which faces South. They want to help people find the JA parking area and locate the entrance which is separate from the YMCA entrance. This would also be lighted, of plastic, not to exceed 20 square feet. In answer to a question from Commissioner Custafson regarding the relationship of"JA 'to the'Y,' Mr. Cody said that~JA"had paid for the facility construction but it was YMCA land. 'JA"will control exclusive use of the facility for 50 years, at which time it will revert to th~ Y'~nd they assume ownership. "JA'owns the building, not the property. Mr. Cod~ noted that their concern was in establishing a separate identity within the community b~cause it was felt their existence could be ea~lg confused with that of the~Y~and support of one did not support the other. The ma~ling address'of.JA~will be on Quebec. Their entrance to the building is off Quebec and their parking will be confined to the Southern lot. Mr. Cody, in response to a question regarding the possibility of combining the location of the two signs (JA and the Y) stated that he felt it was even more important for the Y to have a separate identifica- tion and JA would be reluctant to infringe. Discussion then centered on the proposed YMCA sign, the time table that JA was working under in regard to their sign and the possibility of tabling the JA request until the two signs could be considered to- gether. Also reviewed was the material to be used for the JA sign and its durability. Mr. Cod~ noted that the question of the longevity of the sign was a good point and something they would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - APRIL 5, 1977 6. consider. He added that their program would not begin until October but that they would need to order the signs within a month. He added that their concern was that if the "Y" were to use up the entire ~-~ sign allotment, JA would have no identification. Additional discussion followed regarding the advisability of considering the JA sign request and the YMCA sign request at the same time. Commissioner Christensen stated ~e resented the idea that the Commission was considering tabling the re- quest of JA just because a representative of the YMCA did not appear. He felt that a decision should be made on the JA request. Whg should the JA representative have to return another time, merely because the Y was not represented? The Chairman agreed that this request could be considered separately but he was concerned because they were joint tenants of the property. Discussion regarding the possibility of a decision on the Y sign without a representative in attendance at the Commission meeting. Commissioner ~ustafson made a motion to approve the second sign for the JA building on 42nd Avenue, with- in the setback requirements of 42nd Avenue and Quebec Avenue, and that the sign would be 20.square fee~ ~n size. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Discussion followed on the ~A building sign -- concensus was this this sign was within ordinance restric- tions. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Craigie, Atchley, Pakonen Motion passed° 7. PLANNINC CASE 77-25- REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE AT 7601 42ND AVENUE NORTH - YMCA, PETITIONER. There was no one present to speak for the YMCA. Commissioner Gustafson clarified the fact that the YMCA was proposing to re-install the "Y" logo, but within setback requirements. He stated that he felt he would like to have the opportunity for the "Y" to speak to the sign request~ In his opinion, because of the signage and the position of the surrounding businesses and the "Y" relation to them, he would make a motion for approval of the variance in the "Y" si.gn, to allow the logo sign to be installed within setback requirements. Commissioner Christensen second. Commis$loner Christensen stated that;in his opinio~ the logo sign was too large (90 square feet;. Commissioner Gustafson clarified that 42nd Avenue is classified as a minor arterial and that a commercial establishment located on that street would be allowed 75 square feet in ground signage. He noted that he did not find the size of the proposed logo s~gn offensive. He felt that the position of the building perhaps made the size of the sign appropriate. Commissioner London commented on the fact that from the time that construction had been started on the "Y" building, the petitioner knew that the building site was not in clear view while driving East on 42nd. The Commission had, on mang occasions, indicated to them that there was a Sign Ordinance that must be com- plied with and ~hey still went ahead and erected a sign that was totall~ in violation of the Sign Ordi- nance and now they came before the Commission requesting a variance. He added that he had some real pro- blems with the "Y" attempting to circumvent the Ordinance that the City insisted other businesses compl~ with. Commissioner Anderson stated he felt that the request should be tabled until a representative of the "Y" was in attendance. Commissioner Anderson made a motion to table further consideration of Case 77-25 until May 3, 1977. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: Lo~don, Christensen% Custafson, Gun~ershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Atchle~, Craigie, Pakonen, Cameron Motion passed. 8. PI~NNINC CASE 77-26 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AND VARIANCE IN PARKINC SPACES AT GETTYSBUR~ AND BASS LAKE ROAD - PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. John Lackens, Architect with the Architectural Alliance, noted that he was accompanied by Mr. Chuck Liddy, also of the Alliance and Mr. Art Lyman and Mr. Stu Kvalheim, of Prudential. Mr. Lackens stated they were requesting construction approval and a variance to permit them to provide · PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5 - APRIL 5, 1977 8. fewer parking spaces than required bg Code. He stated that they had met with the Design and Review Committee on the 22nd, and the adjacent homeowners on the 30th in regard to this proposed addition. Mr. Lackens stated that the facility is used for the storage of records. The proposed addition is a two story structure but because of the land contours, the roof line will not vary from the existing building. The existing parking and service road is off Gettysburg and they are suggesting an extension of this roadway around the side of the building with an additional ten parking stalls. The adjacent'residents would be entirely screened from the roadway. They further propose to use the same type of building materials on the structure -- brick, facia material, window treatment. The landscaping would be extended and continued around the entire structure. The Code requirements for this structure if it were classi- fied as office would be for 500 parking stalls, if classified as a warehouse it would require 120. The9 are requesting that they be allowed to add only ten parking spaces because the building population will not exceed what it is now. The employee population at present is 55-50 and they expect this figure to drop to 45. It will never exceed 65 employees, even with the addition. They, therefore, feel that it would not be apprpriate to pave any more of the property. He indicated the area on the site plan that could provide additional parking if it proved to be necessary. They have also provided handicapped park- ing stalls. Discussion then centered on the two loading docks, the fact that there will be no windows to the North, the type of lighting on the addition, the area that will be used in the building for temporary storage, and the fact that there are two zones on the property -- GB and LB. Commissioner Christensen commented on the fact that the new building is to be located on the land now zoned LB and that warehousing is not permitted in LB. He expressed concern about the length of time that the space would be used for storage and the type of materials to be stored. Mr. Lgman, of Prudential, noted that the company would be handling some new records and 20,000 square feet of space would be allotted for this. The rest would be to allow for expansion. They anticipate needing alllof the space by 1979 when the new facility in Plymouth opens. Until that time they plan to the the space .f~r office supplies, furniture and equipment not currently being used. Commissioner Christense~ noted that one 'of the concerns of the Commission was that the proposed storage area would cause increased semi-trailer traffice into the area. Mr. Lyman stated he did not anticipate that there would be more than one large truck a week at the site° Mr. Liddy commented that the two docks had been included because this is what the Ordinance requires. He added that the existing docks could not handle semi-trailer trucks. Mr. Lyman noted that the truck traffic was primarily van and courier mail routing material between the Prudential outlets. Discussion followed ab to whether Prudential needed four docks and whether it might not be practical for them to request a variance to eliminate at least one. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the material to be stored consisted of paper stock, computer stock, an~ surplus desks and chairs that are stored only until offices are re-established and they are needed. Ail materials stored are Prudential owned and for their own use. Mr. Lyman noted that they also use the record center as a back up for the magnetic tapes for the computer. He further commented on the facility to be built in Plymouth, stating that the size of the addition seemed to be an expedient decision, because they anticipated that they would need additional storage in a few gears and it would then be available. The purpose of the building is for record storage and within four or five years it will be used entirely for such storage. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Lyman stated there was no anticipated expansion for this site, following the proposed addition. He further stated that they had not considered request- ing that the CB zone be changed although it could be studied. In response to a further question Mr. Lyman stated that the existing building had been designed to allow for an addition. How6. er, there is no built-in accommodation to allow the building to be expanded to additional stories. Mr. Liddg commented that at the meeting held with the neighbors, the residents had expressed the desire for the vacant area to be landscaped in a similar fashion to the present landscaping. Mr. Lgman stated that eventually it is Prudential's intention to use the Wayzata Boulevard facility for storage of surplus materials. In answer to a question from Chairman Cameron, Mr. Lyman stated that he felt the future possibility of the storage center being converted into a warehouse with the subsequent truck traffic was extremely remote. The building had been designed as a record center and that it what they expect it to remain. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - APRIL 5, 1977 8. Mr. George Daly, 9315 59th Avenue, stated he had not been contacted about this proposal. He stated he was ver~ concerned with how far the building would come to the West. He did not like the idea of rip- ping out all of the trees and felt the wooded area should be preserved. He had moved'into his home on the 30th March. He noted, however, that he had received notification from the Cit~ about the proposed addition later. Mr. Lidd~ commented that the question of the trees had been discussed with the neighbors but because this seems to be an area that also accumulates trash, most of the residents had felt it would be prefer- able to have the area landscaped. Mr. Dal~ stated that he felt the existing trees gave him some protection from the noise of the highway and wished consideration would be given to preserving them. The Chairman noted that it appeared that the conclusions from the neighborhood meeting had been the op- posite of Mr. Date's. 14r. Lidd~ stated that the intention was not to wipe out all of the existing trees on the site -- there will be a number of Russian Olives along the border of the neighboring properties, some Austrian Pine and some seedless Marshall Ash under the landscape plan. They did .not plan'to continue the poplars be- cause they were a ver~ short lived tree. Commissioner Christensen questioned whether Prudential would consider rezoning the property and whether they might also consider eliminating the two docks on the one side of the building or putti,ng in only one dock on the addition? ;4r. Kvalheim, Associate Counsel for Prudential, noted that these items could be considered, but ~hat theg were not the type of issue that could be considered in a short time in a corporate structure. He would not like these issues to infringe upon Prudential's abilities to go forward with this addition. He noted that he felt that Prudential had exhibited good corporate citizenship in the treatment of the property, but that he would hope that the Commission would look at the proposal as it now sets, so that in terms of time constraints they could proceed. Prudential could consider these items but the Design Committee was located in Newark. He felt the suggestion was reasonable but he could not speak to the rezoning at the present time. Commissioner Gustafson agreed that Prudential had been a good corporate neighbor and that corporate wheels turned ver~ slowly, but he was also aware from personal experience that decisions could also be made quickly. He added that personally he was not opposed to the project without the rezoning. How- ever, he did ~hink that Prudential could come slowly forward on their own and propose, at some future time, that the property be rezoned. The Chairman asked whether it would be possible for the Commission to have a commitment that Prudential would investigate this issue? Mr. Kvalheim noted that he would like to have a copy of the minutes of the meeting concerning the discus- sion of the rezoning. Commissioner Christensen asked whether it was Prudentiai's intention to close the two docks on the East side of .the building when the other two docks were installed, and whether they needed two docks? The answer ~as "No" in regard to closing the docks, but that including onl~ one dock could be considered. Commissioner Christensen rs~uested that they look at the problem, recognizing that it could mean something to the neighborhood. The City Manager noted that it was the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan that this entire parcel be zoned R-O. He suggested that it might be easier for Prudential to approach this problem by submitting a letter stating they would not object to this zoning. In response to a question from Mr. Kvalheim regarding the status of the Comprehensive Plan, the City Manager noted that it had been approved by the Planning Commission and sent forward to the Council for consideration. The Planning Commission is at present working on the implementation document for the Few Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Liddy commented that at the neighborhood meeting, no opposition had been expressed i~ regard to the reduction in parking facilities as proposed. Commlssioner Christensen recommended approval of Planning Case 77-26 - Request for Construction Plan Approval and variance an Parking Requirements to 68 pa~king stalls subject to future parking being limited to a maximum of 140 stalls, at Bass Lake Road and Gettysburg. Commissioner Gun~ershauq second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - APRIL 5, 1977 9. PLANNING CASE 77-27 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AND VARIANCE IN PARKING AT 4950 COUNTY ROAD #18 - INLAND DEVELOPMENT, PETITIONER. Mr. Darel Anderson represented the petitioner. He stated that he was an employee of Douglas A. Moe Architects. Inland Development is proposing to build a speculation office/warehouse type structure, fronting on the service road in the NE section of the intersection of County #18 and 49th Avenue. It is zoned pro- perly. The building proposed will be 30,000 square feet, 25% office and 71% warehouse space with 4~ circulation and will cover 18% of the site. This building is an attempt to accommodate the ~maller tenant. They will rent spaces that are less than 2000 square feet. There is a central corridor, there will be one sign identifying the building and there will be some spaces at the West end of the structure with outside entrances. Chairman Cameron questioned whether the petitioner was aware of the number of vacant buildings in the industrial area of the City~ f4r. Anderson noted that he felt that the problem that existed today was that you could rent large spaces but in th e 900-100 square foot size, warehouse space was not available for rental. They feel there ls a definite market in this area~ In answer to a question from the Chairman regarding the high percentage of vacancies in New Hope, Mr. Anderson stated there could be many reasons -- a long lease tenant who is not willing to give up his lease, or someone not actively going after tenants. He also felt there was probably a high turnover of tenants. Chairman Cameron noted his concern that a slum warehouse district not be created in New Hope. Mr. Anderson stated that he felt that the view of the building would be the courtyard they have designed for the front of the building, the diamond shaped area. He felt this would be the point of attraction to this site. Commissioner Anderson confirmed with Mr. Anderson that the building will be located on the service drive facing County Road #18. The entrance will be on the Southwest part of the building, facing #18, but tilted slightly to the West. There will be four foot high docks on the North part of the building (the back side of the structure). Mr. Anderson noted that they had surveyed local trucking companies and that most firms operated with forty foot trucks. Their reaction was that there would probably not be any need for 80 feet of space for turning if there was 12-14 feet between loading docks, because there would not be than many 55 foot trucks at the facility. He then noted that the trucks would come off #18 .at 49th to the service road, come around the structure to gain access to the back. They would drive in and back up. Commissioner Christensen questioned how a semi would be able to maneuver if another truck was already there? Mr. Anderson indicated that in his experience in office/warehouse use there were limited numbers of large trucks in operation. Mr. Anderson stated that the heating equipment on the roof would be fenced with a non-maintenance type of material -- cedar or redwood. The building will be painted, concrete block. They would like to have one major sign between the two entrance drives. He noted that he had not as yet read the ordinance and would prefer to come back to the Commission in regard to the sign'at apother time. There will be handi-. capped stalls provided. They plan to have eleven parking stalls, ten of them will be nine foot stalls. There will be a 15 foot green strip at the rear of the building,concrete curbs around the building and . no outside refuse containers. Lighting will be as indicated on the plan with shielded flood lights in' the parking area. Discussion then centered on the landscaping plan and the size of the trees to be planted. Commissioner Christensen noted that the ordinance requires a 2%" tree and that the Commission would not yield on this point. Mr. Anderson indicated that if 2%" trees were required, he would then be changing the type of tree to be planted. Commissioner Christensen noted that the Design and Review Committee had been concerned with the large amount of blacktopped area. He referenced the fact that the area indicated for expansion included only 25% green area. The City requires that there be 35% green area. Mr. Anderson indicated their intention to use maples, green ash and berm in front of the building from the load level of 901 to a height of 908. The building will not be visible from County Road #18, and will be identified by signage from the service road. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - APRIL 5, 1977 9. Commissioner Christensen then commented on the employee parking on the West side of the building, stat- ing that this would require more landscaping and again questioned whether some of the blacktop could not be eliminated. Commissioner Gustafson asked why this site had to be developed so extensively, that they would wind up with only 25% green area? How is the site different, that it required this intensity? Mr. Nelson, of Inland Development, indicated that with loading docks on both sides of the structure more blacktop was required. He indicated that they were not using the entire area for the building allow- ance, but that they would prefer a 60 foot drive. In response to Commissioner Christensen's concern about the blacktop, Mr. Nelson stated that it was the nature of this type of building to have a lot of blacktop. He indicated that this type of warehouse was a new concept with a large demand for the smaller spaces. Commissioner Gustafson noted that he felt it would be more important to include additional green area toa ward the service road and 49th Avenue, than at the rear of the site. Mr. Anderson noted that there was another site between their's and 49th Avenue° They intend to sod on the East side. Commissioner Christensen noted that they were requesting a variance to allow parking in the front of the building~ but in his opinion a hardship had not been shown to justify the variance. Mr. Anderson noted that the hardship was that the owner had come to them and said this was what he wanted on the property. They had attempted to work to the Ordinance and his first duuy was to attempt to get 35% coverage by building on the site. In this particular case, they are at 18% of the coverage of the site and when they reach the ultimate it will be 32%. Their hardship, as the architects, is that the type of business the owner wants, requires this much asphalt, which brings the percentage up very high. They had attempted to address themselves to providing the most convenient parking for the people who w~shed to get into the structure. Commissioner Christensen noted that the Planning Commission point of view was to look at the situation in terms of "this is our communfty", not from the business point of view. The land has to be developed from a total concept. In his opinion, a hardship had not been proven. He noted that at the Design and Review Committee meeting, landscaping had been discussed a great deal, and the landscape plan had not been changed since that meeting. Additional discussion followed about the proposed landscaping, and the small area of green space that would remain after expansion, and the variance that had been requested for parking. The Chairman noted thzt the record should show that the Commission would have serious reservations about future expansion in regard to the percent of green area that would then remain. Commissioner Gustafson noted that even in terms of future development he would not move away from the required 35% green area. Mr. Anderson stated that, it was his opinion, that there was no other place to position the parking to accommodate the clients. The other location would be 400 feet away. He noted that they could not touch the front side of the hill, but could dress up the rear side of the hill. In response to a question from the Chairman regarding the position of the loading docks and the possi- bility of angling them, rather than providing a 90 degree turn, Mr. Anderson noted that it was his ex- perience that if you could work 'with 90 degree turns, it was the best situation. Angling works bebt with one-way traffic. He did not feel it would be very safe for this building. Mr. Anderson further stated that the position of the building on the site had seemed to be the best solution. Commissioner Christens~.~ recommended denial of Case 77-27 for the reasons that no hardship had been proven to permit granting of the variance in parking; that there was an inadequate landscape .plan; too much blacktop provided, particularly since this development will set the pattern for other business in the area; plus his concern about the movement of truck traffic around the building. Commissioner ~ustafson second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - APRIL 5, 1977 i0. PLANNING CASE 77-28 - SPECIAL USE PERMIT/PARKING VARIANCE - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WISCONSIN/BASS LAKE ROAD ROAD - DR. GARY GIBBONS, PETITIONER. Mr. Jay Pallet, architect for the petitioner, noted that they wish to develop the site at Wisconsin and Bass Lake Road into a small animal pot clinic, not a pot hospital. There will be no holding facilities. Dr. Gibbons oporates on an appointment basis. There will be three examining rooms with a very small waiting area. They are requesting a variance in the parking requirements because they feel the require- ments are excessive in terms of ground cover and the total development of the site. They are requesting only ten stalls. The building will be 1873 square feet and the materials will consist of brick with an asphalt shingle roof. There are numerous trees on the Eastern section of the site, which they propose to relocate on the site in addition to adding new plant materials along Wisconsin Avenue as well as the Southern property line. They are asking for the special use permit because of the use. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Pallet stated he felt that the maximum number of people at one time would be three, with a maximum number of cars to be five-s~x including staff. They anticipate one animal technician and the doctor at a given time. In the event that one of the animals had to be retained, it would be transported to the other facility at the close of the day. There will be no sale of animals from the site. The hours of operation will be approximately 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., five days a week; 8:00 - 12:00 noon on Saturday. The technician will be on duty all day -- the doctor perhaps 4-5 hours per day. The storage area will be fenced.' The only lighting will be security lighting. There will not be any noxious fumes from the facility. The exterior of the building will be of masonry construction and it was the opinion of the architect that any noise generated would be contained within the building. The only entrance will be off Wisconsin Avenue. Commissioner London reminded the petitioner that the City of New Hope had a Sign Ordinance and suggested that he consult this ordinance before proceeding with any sign plan. In answer to a question from Commissioner Anderson, Dr. Gibbons stated that the animals would be trans- ported in a van by himself. Commissioner Gustafson made a motiQn to give concept approval for the Special Use Permit and the Vari- ance in parking requirements requested in Case 77-28. At the time that the final plans are submitted, formal approval could be given. Commissioner Anderson second. Commissioner Christensen noted that this was not a guarantee of approval because the petitioner would have to reappoar before the Design and Review Committee and the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen Motion passed. 11. PLANNING CASE 77-29 - REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL ON 52ND AVENUE - STABEN COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Bob Olson representing the Staben Company stated that they were submitting a preliminary plat for a previously platted outlot. This will complete .the road system in the industrial park. Commissioner London confirmed with Mr. Olson that there was no problem with the lot sizes. The sewer and water lines will have to be extended into the cul-du-sac and Mr. Olson stated that he be- lieved the Consulting Engineer had reviewed the proposal. The City Manager noted that there would have to be a ponding easement over the East 140 feet of Lot 3, and the building elevation would have to be approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Olson raised the possibility of moving the lot line 25-40 feet to the East, between Lots 1 and 2.. Commissioner London made a motion to approve Planning Case 77-29, Request for a Preliminary Plat, at 52nd Avenue, subject to the granting of drainage, utility and podding easements and approval of.the building elevations by the City Engineer. Commissioner Christensen second. · Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen .~tion passed. 12. PLANNrNG CASE 77-30 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY - J.K.H. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ~ETITIONER. Mr. Jeff Howe, the general contractor, distributed new plans to the Commissioners. He stated that they were requesting a variance to reduce the number of parking stalls from 26 to 10, with the unused portion of the site to be green area. Farmers Steel employs only 7-8 people and the parking stalls required PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10 ~ APRIL' 5, 1977 12. by Ordinance would be unnecessary. The building will be split face block, will be an open structure on the inside, with a clear space of 26'8" from floor to ceiling. The front faces North and there /--~ will be no roof top equipment. Commissioner christensen cautioned Mr. Howe to be sure to review the Sign Ordinance before he decided on a sign for the building. There will be no refuse containers and they intend to screen the back with cyclone fencing with wood batting. There will be no manufacturing, no electrical shearing or fabrication but only saw cutting. During a discussion on the landscaping, Mr. Howe noted that there would be 20 honeysuckle bushes and five green ash trees. Discussion about the parking stalls as requested and the fact that there was adequate space for expansion parking if it were needed. Also discussed was the fact that there should not be any more blacktopping than was absolutely necessary. Commissioner Christensen noted that should they need refusD containers, the Ordinance required that they be screened. Mr. Fiterman, owner of the company, noted that Fa~ners Steel was presently located at 2300 North 2nd Street. The hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and per.haps 8:00 - 12:00 on Saturday. Lighting on the building will be wall-pack lighting units. Mr. Fiterman noted that he had been consi-- dering the golden type of night light for security lighting. Paper trash would be in a container in the warehouse bay. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Fiterman noted that they used no overhead cranes, but a four-wheel drive crane. During a discussion on the landscaping, Mr. Howe stated they would be sodding the entire front area. C~issioner Christensen recon%~cnded approval of Case 77-30, Request for Variance in Parking Spaces from ~ 26 to t0 and Approval of Construction Plans, subject to the entire i~ront of the lot beinq sodded. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, CAmeron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Pakonen Motion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS 13. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. There will be a special meeting of the Committee on Tuesday, April 12, at 4:00 p.m. at the City Hall. 14. There was no report from the Land Use Con~ittee~ 15. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 16. The City Manager reviewed the minutes of the Council Meeting of March 28, 1977. 17. The Commission minutes of March 15, 1977 were approved as printed. 18. The volleyball game between the Commission and the Council is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 14, 1977 at New Hope Elementary School. 20. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. by unanimous consent. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary ~-~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , APRIL 19, 1977 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 19, 1977 at the Citg Hall, 440~ Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The. meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. bg Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Christensen, Craigie, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: Bartos (excused), Gustafson, Pakonen 3. PLANNING CASE 77-20 (CONTINUED FROM 3-1-77) - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE AT 9000 36TH AVENUE NORTH .- SHELL OIL COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Hal Reardon, District Engineer for Shell Oil Company, stated that he believed the violation in the case of the pylon signs was their projection over the roof of the station. He stated that the~ felt these signs were an architectural feature of the building and removing them would, in their opinion, leave a complete void. They were also requesting a variance for the large modular sign facing the free- wag. This sign is approximatel~ 40 feet high with letters approximately 5 feet high. This sign exceeds the maximum height limits and the maximum cover size. The~ were requesting a variance on this sign on the letter size. Shell feels this size letter is most necessary on a County Road because this was the only visibility that a motorist would have from County #18. Chairman Cameron noted that he had traveled on County #18 recently and that this particular station was the only one with a sign of this size -- he questioned why the~ needed such a large sig~? He further noted tha~ to grant the variance, the Commission needed to have a rational reason. Mr. Reardon stated that the pylon roof signs were an architectural feature of the station and that the large modular sign, in their opinion, was needed for exposure from Countg #18. Discussion then covered the position of the modular sign and the free standing sign on 36th Avenue. Commissioner Craigie noted that the 36th Avenue ground sign was also an issue because it was too close to the street, too tall, the square footage was too high, and the letters were too large. Mr. Reardon stated that the~ could change this sign to a 6' x 6' sign and use a shorter pole. It was his understanding that they could have 20' feet of height on this sign. .Discussion on this sign and the fact that a logo was still considered to be a sign, even without letters. Mr. Reardon ~tated they would bring this sign into confirmance with the Ordinance. COmmissioner Craigie commented that what the City was trying to get at, was the sign proliferation of the station. Further discussion regarding the free standing sign on 36th and the street designation of 36th Avenue. The petitioners repeated that the~ had understood they were allowed 20 feet in height. The City Manager confirmed that 36th Avenue was classed as a collector street and that the sign could onlg be 15 feet high. Commissioner London confirmed that if the free standing sign was brought into conformance, the onl~ vari- ances being requested were for the roof top signs and the modular freeway sign on #18. In response to a question, the City Manager stated that the allowable square footage for the highwa~ sign depended upon ~hether the Commission considered the location of the sign to be #15/36th Avenue or Jordan/ 36th Avenue. If it was #18/36~h Avenue the sign could be 200 square feet in size and 30 feet high. During a discussion of the smaller temporary signs at the station, the City Manager stated that the "self service" signs were required by regulation. Commissioner Craigie made a motion that the variance for letter size on the freewa~ sign, requested in Case 77-20, be granted subject to ~he following: 1. That the pulon sign on 36th Avenue be brought into conformance. 2. That the two roof top signs are removed. 3. That the large modular freeway sign be reduced ~o 30 feet in height to the top of the sign but that the present sign be allowed to remain. Commissioner London second. Commissioner Craigie commented that he felt the character of the sign fit the location b~ County #18. He added that at the time had been installed it was a legal sign. Commissioner London stated he agreed with Co~m~issioner Craigie regarding the freeway sign but felt it' was .implicit that the record show that the motion was based on the consideration that the station was PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - APRIL 19, 1977 3. located at 36th Avenue~#18. Following additional discussion Commissioner Craigie requested that the motion include that the Commis~ sion had interpreted the station location to be 36th Avenue~#18. Commissioner Anderson questioned how this request for a variance was any different from those requested at earlier meetings by other gasoline companies, i.e. Texaco? Discussion continued regarding the need to be consistent in the granting of variances, irregardless of traffic patterns and whether one sign was more aesthetic than another. Chairman Cameron stated that he felt it important for the Commission to maintain a form of uniform judg~ ment and justice in the handling of variance requests. Commissioner Christensen stated his feeling that the same restrictions should be placed on all stations, To act otherwise would be inconsistent, especially in regard to amortizing letter size. Commissioner Craigie moved that the letter size on the freewav sign be placed under the amortization schedule -- which would allow them 84 months to comply because of the cost of the sign. Commissioner Atchley second. The City Manager stated that the 84 months was from August 1976, the date of adoption of the Ordinance. Voting on the Amendment: Voting in favor: Christensen, Atchley, Anderson Voting against: London, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug Absent: Bartos, Gustafson, Pakonen Amendment failed. voting on the original motion: Voting in favor: London, Craigie, Gundershaug Voting against: Atchley, Cameron, Chr~stensen, Anderson Motion failed. The Chairman stated that the petitioner should also present the same arguments for the variance reques~ to the City Council at their meeting on Monday, April 25, 1977. 4. PLANNING CASE 77-21 (CONTINUED FROM 3-1-77) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE AT 5600 WINNETKA AVENUE - SHELL OIL COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Reardon commented that at this station it was the roof sign that was not in conformance with the Ordi- nance and requested confirmation of the height requirements in regard to the pylon sign on the corner. He added that Shell would agree to move the pylon sign to meet ordinance requirements. It was clarified that both Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake Road were classified as minor arterials and that the height of the sign could be up to 20 feet. Chairman Cameron confirmed with Mr. Reardon that the pylon sign would be changed to conform to the Ordi- nance and inquired about all of the other signs at the station. Mr. Reardon noted that these signs, including the message board, were the dealer's responsibility. Commissioner Craigie made a motion that the request for variance for the roof signs in Case 77-21 be denied. Commissioner Anderson second. Vdting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Anderson Voting against: Gundershaug Absent: Bartos, Gustafson, Pakonen Motion passed. 5. PLANNING CASE 77-33- REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN PARKING SETBACK AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 8611 54TH AVENUE NORTH - FRANK PATTEE, PETITIONER. Mr. Charles Thompson, Administrator of the New Hope Nursing Home, stated that the proposed addition was the final stage in a three phase building plan. They had originally p~posed this addition in 1975 but had been turned down by the Metro Council. They have now received a Certificate of Need from the Council, as of November 1, 1976. The addition will be a "sheltered living" complex, 104,000 square feet in size, built on three levels. They intend to begin construction as soon as a building permit can be obtained. Mrs. Schram, of the nursing home staff, then reviewed the services to be provided in the complex. The second floor will consist of 128 nursing home and day care beds and the first and third floors will PLANNINC COMMISSION MINUTES 3 APRIL 19, 1977 5. consist of 60 sheltered living units (30 one bedroom and 30 efficiency). The sheltered living units will have access to a main dining room on the third floor and barber and beauty shop services, a gift shop, coffee shop and other supplementary services on the first floor. There will be a security system and an emergency call system in each apartment. A receptionist will be on duty 16 hours per day. The units are also less than the required square footage for regular apart- ment units. The tenants will be required to take their main meal in the dining room. Acceptance for occupancy in the sheltered living units will be based on the regular need for some nursing home service. Transporta- tion will be available for routine doctor visits and OT, PT and consulting nursing service will be avail- able as needed. Additional living space for entertainment of family and friends will also be available on each floor. The addition has been planned to preserve all but nine of the existing 52 trees on the property. Mr. Pattee, the architect, and Mr. Casmey, the engineer,.were also present to answer questions. Commissioner Christensen confirmed with Mr. Thompson that the building will face 'to the West and will be connected to the existing building by means of a skyway from the main floor of the present home to the second story of the new addition. Mr. Thompson stated that, in his opinion, approximately 90% of the tenants would require some ancilary service of the nursing home. Rents will be $325 for the efficiency and $425 for the one bedroom units. ,Mr. Thompson stated that they intend to have some type of identification on the building but do not plan large signs. Commissioner Christensen urged Mr. Thompson to consult the City Sign Ordinance before proceeding with any identification signs. During a discussion regarding the screeing of roof top equipment, Mr. Thompson stated that after considera- tion they felt that to screen everything on the roof of the present building would produce a monstrosity. They propose to screen the core equipment at some later date. Refuse will be handled by a compactor. The new structure will be of brick but of a darker shade than the exterior of the present nursing home. The addition, however, will be taller than the home and so a two tone effect will be avoided. Mr. Thompson stated that the parking lots will be on 54th and 55th and Boone and will be posted for one- way traffic. There will be walking paths around the facility. They are requesting a variance for the parking lots on 54th and 55th avenues to allow them to come with- in three feet of the lot line. One reasons for this variance request is to prserve existing trees. Lighting will be provided along the path by small mushroom type lights. Mr. Pattee distributed an updated landscaping plan for the Commissioners. Cos~issioner Christensen suggested that Mr. Pattee chart on the landscape plan the trees that are to be added, before the presentation to the Council. ;4r. Thompson indicated that the living units were designed so that if it proved to be necessary, they could be converted to conventional nursing hoi~ units. In response to questions from Mr. Gundershaug, Mr. Thompson indicated that deliveries would be made to the existing building on Zealand and to the new structure off 55th Avenue. During a discussion as to whether the sheltered living units were apartments or should be considered as merely extensions of nursing home care, Mr. Thompson noted that they anticipated that the average age of the tenants would be 78 and that alone would remove them from competition with other apartment units. In answer to questions from Commissioner Craigie, Mr. Thompson noted that at the present time the units would not be subsidized. Following discussion, it was the concensus of the Commission that the sheltered living units were one form of rest/nursing home care and were not apartment units. Mrs. Schram noted that they had been working with the Governor's Council on Aging and that it is antici- pated that there will be legislation within a year or two that would provide for financing of an alterna- tive living facility if id could be proved that the cost would be half of what a full care nursing home would be. The only similar facility they were aware of is the complex at Ebenezer Towers in Minneapolis. The addition has been designed to provide for the people who require some type of health care services PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - APRIL 19, 1977 5. but wish to retain a degree of independence in their lives. The City Manager confirmed that there was no way that the units in the nursing home could be converted to regular apartments in the future, without certification from the City. commissioner Craigie commented that, in his opinion, this was a very innovative program. Commissioner Christensen stated that in the three years he had served on the Planning Commission, the presentation for this complex by the representatives of the nursing home and Mr. Pattee was one of the top ones he had seen. He commended them for their efforts in providing the information needed by the Commi s si on. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Planning Case 77-33- - Approval of Construction Plans with Variances in the parking lots on 54th and 55th Avenues, to allow parking within three feet of the property line and to provide an Amendment to the Special Use Permit to allow the addition to the nursing home in a SR zone. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Craigie, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Gustafson, Pakonen ;Iotion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner London noted that there had been a special meeting of the Design and Review Committee on Tuesday, April 12, and a regular meeting on April 19, adding that Commissioner Christensen had been the only committee member, at both meetings. He commended Commissioner Christensen for his efforts on behalf of the committee, above and beyond the call. Chairman Cameron stated that he felt it was an unfair burden to place on one person, particularly when a meeting extended from 3:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. as it had on April t9th. He too commended Commissioner Christensen for his efforts in carrying ~out the Design and Review duties. Discussion then held regarding the possibility _of delaying some cases, or putting a limit on the number of cases to be reviewed at one meeting. Concensus seemed to be that this would present problems and that as a rule, the build up of planning cases occurred only in the spring of the year. 7. Commissioner London noted that the Commission had been scheduled to review the Zoning Ordinance. The Land Use Committee was prepared to review the Ordinance with the group and Commissioner Craigie had prepared a handout on the changes in use lists the committee was suggesting° Commissioner Craigie stated that he felt the Commission should review the use lists at the present meet- ing with a final vote when the Commissioner had made their final review of the Ordinance. Chairman Cameron suggested that the remainder of the agenda be finished first, and then return to the Zoning Ordinance as the last item. 8. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee° NEW BUSINESS 9. The Council Minutes of April 11, 1977 were reviewed. 10. Commissioner Atchley requested that his absence from the 4/5/77 meeting be recorded as excused as he was out of town and had requested an excused absence several weeks ago. The Planning Commission Minutes of April 5, 1977 were then accepted as printed.. i1. Chairman Cameron read a letter of resignation he had received from Commissioner Pakonen. ~lis resignation was accepted by the Commission, and appreciation expressed for his service. The Chairman noted that this resignation left a vacancy on the Design and Review Committee. Commissioner Gundershaug volunteered to serve on the Committee. It was noted that a letter had been received from Mrs. Natalie Stuhr in relation to the commercial sign on her property, which should have been removed by 2/1/77. The City Manager asked whether the Commission wished to cancel the second meeting of the month during June, July and August. The concensus was that this was a good ideaj with the Manager to call a meeting if needed to handle any important issue. The Planning Commission victory over the Council in the Volleyball Game was then reviewed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 19, 1977 7. The discussion then returned to th~Zoning Code and the Use List with its revisions as recommended by the Land Use Committee. Commissioner Craigie stated that the Conm~ttee had been most concerned with the use lists as they re- lated to the existing shopping centers, i.e. Midland, and the need to preserve the intentions for the City Center area. It was the Committee's recommendation that the principal uses for the B-2 zone become all of the B-4 permitted uses, but on a smaller scale (restricted in size to 3,500 square feet). In determining this figure, the Committee had referred to the tactical studg and had attempted to find a solution that fit the existing situation. Further, theg had att~npted to assure that the B-2 classification would be basically retail and serve a local clientel. The asterisked items in the B-4 classification were in- tended to be for onlg City Center development. Discussion then centered on the classifications and in particular, where banks and lending institutions as well as electrical appliance stores should be listed. Further consideration was also given to the stated size restriction for B-2 and whether this figure should be smaller or larger and the possible use of Industrial PUD for shopping centers. Commissioner Craigie moved that the square footage requirement be introduced to the use list so that the B-2 and B-4 lists could be combined. Commissioner Anderson second. Further discussion. The Chairman commented that he felt the C~mmittee should recommend the direction the Commission should take on this issue. Commissioner Craiqie withdrew his motion. Commissioner London stated that in his opinion the proposed change in B-2 and B-4 uses in the Zoning Or- dinance was a serious enough issue and complex enough to warrent more attention on the part of the entire Commission. He felt time should be taken for one last review of the Ordinance by the Commissioners in relation to the Committee recommendations, with final discussion and action to be held on May 17th. The Cit~ Manager noted that the public hearing on the Ordinance had already been held and that this was a final review before the Ordinance was forwarded to the Council. After additional discussion, it was the concensus of the Commission that theg would review the Ordinance, the Use Lists, and the Inventor~ individually and also ascertain the size of the establishments now in existence, to aid in their establishment of a size restriction for the B-2 district. Special attention is to be given to the square footage requirement for businesses in the B-2 district, as this had been an area of much discussion and some disagreement during the Committee deliberations. The Chairman then instructed the members to conduct a review as they felt needed so as to be ready for a final vote on May 17, 1977. 12. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mag 3, 1977 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 3, 1977 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was Called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: London, Gustafson Gustafson arrived at 7:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 77-23 (CONTINUED FROM 4-5-77) REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 8711 BASS LAKE ROAD - RCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER. Mr. Richard Ernst, President of RCE Corporation, stated that he felt that the present plans incorpor- ated all of the suggestions made by the Planning Commission and the Council when his request was denied previously. He had met with the County regarding the driveway to Bass Lake Road. It has now been posi- tioned directly opposite Cavell Avenue and he has provided the County with additional right-of-way. The entire development has been shifted to the South 17 feet to allow for this right-of-way. He will share the drive to Bass Lake Road with the Post Publishing Company and Post will share the southern drive, allowing them to gain access to the rear. of their property. He intends to construct a two level building, with the upper floor being used for offices and the lower level for limited warehousing and storage. The building meets all of the building code requirements and Mr. Ernst felt he had met all of the problems regarding the site. He feels it will be an asset to the community and to the neighborhood. In response to a question from Commissioner Christensen regarding any changes made to the plan since the Design and Review meeting on 4/19/77 Mr. Ernst stated he had shifted the building 17 feet to the South. The building layout is the same. They have 15 feet less green area but they still meet the City require- ments of 35% green area. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that Mr. Ernst still plans to rent the lower level to manufacturer's reps with storage and that the ceiling is to be ten feet high. In response to a question from Commissioner Christensen rggarding the marketability of such a facility, Mr. Ernst stated he presently has his offices in a many storied warehouse facility in New Brighton, that leases 200'-450' warehouse space as well as office space. This facility is always full. In his opinion, there was a demand for this type of space. He added that he also had other rental property that was full. Discussion followed between Commissioner Christensen and Mr. Ernst regarding the type of truck traffic that could be expected at the facility. Mr. Ernst noted that while there could be some semi traffic, he anticipated that deliv~ries would be made mostly by smaller trucks. The driveways, however, have been designed to accommodate semi truck trailers. The parking at the upper level would be for the guests of the tenants, and would be posted "no employee parking". He is anticipating his tenants will be of the professional office type, real estate, insurance, architects, engineers. He noted that many changes had been made to the exterior design to accommodate professional offices. They feel it is a good transitional use from the industrisl to the residential area to the North. During continuing discUssion regarding the marketability of this type of facility, Mr. Ernst noted that he owned a building on 27th and #18 that had been occupied since the day it opened. They are now in the process of adding an addition to this building. He felt that he had a handle for the rental market in this area° The only tenant he has at this time for the lower level is one for 4000 square feet to be used for ware- housing of dry cleaning equipment. In response to a question from Commissioner Atchley, Mr. Ernst stated that the warehouse area would be rented for about $2.00 per square foot and the office space would rent for $6.00 - $6.50 per square foot. He further stated that he would partition the facility based upon the needs of the tenants. Mr. Ernst noted that in his other rental facility the tenants included a beauty shop, a doctor, a res- taurant and a food store (7-11). In answer to questions from the Chairman, the City Manager noted that the City Code prevented space in this facility being rented to a convenience store or a dry cleaner under the present zoning. He further stated that the only way that the City could control employee parking in the front of the facility would be to make this a condition of the occupancy permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - MAY 3, 1977 3. Mr. Dennis Holland, 8716 Bass Lake Road, questioned whether there was still space provided for addi- tional parking? Mr. Ernst noted that there was space, but it was not required at this time. The City Manager stated that the petitioner would be required to maintain a 35% green area by City Ordi- nance and as a practical matter there was no space for additional parking. Mr. Holland, noting that this was the 6-7th trip he had made to City meetings on this matter, stated he felt they were still looking at the same identical plan with a few details enhancing it each time it reappears. He stated that since the Post had begun operation the traffic problems had increased consi- derably on Bass Lake Road. It is very difficult to turn in to or off of Bass Lake Road in that area be- cause of the high speed traffic and the density of the traffic. He felt that doubling the width of the driveway would mare it even worse. He found it incredible that the County would have ever authorized a curb cut on to Bass Lake Road in this area. He felt that the access should be closed off entirely. He then asked that all of the people in the audience who were in opposition to this request raise their hands -- 15-20 people did so. Mt.Holland stated that the neighborhood was still very concerned that eventually this facility would be- come a retail establishment, particularly with parking in the front of the building. He added that, frankly, they were getting tired of coming to City Hall in regard to this plan, although they would con- tinue to do so. The Chairman noted that the plans that were submitted to the City were the plans that would be built. Mr. Elroy Meyer, 5832 Cavell, questioned'the ten foot high warehousing. It was in his opinion, that the trend was to using height in warehousing. He referred to the history of the building plans for this site noting that from the beginning there had not been much change in the basic design of the building. He stated that he hoped that when the Commission looked at what was best for the neighborhood and the commu- nity they would consider the past record. Mr. Dennis Wilder,5824 Cavell, expressed his concern that if the City kept going the way it was, it would end up just like Crystal. This type of development just promotes more hazards for children. He suggested that they get this thing killed now and get on to more important things. Discussion then covered the uses permitted in an LI zone; the proposed shared driveway with Post Publish- ing -~ Mr. Ernst stating that the driveway was being lined up with Cavell Avenue, per County request, making it in reality a cross intersection~ Mr. Ernst further stated that his agreement with Post Publish- ing was that he would pay for the closing of their existing driveway and pay for the cost of installing the new driveway. They will further grant the Post an easement across the south of the property, to allow them access to Boone Avenue during the rush hour on Bass Lake Road. Also reviewed were the potential truck traffic, and the movement around the building and the possibility of moving the Bass Lake Road park- ing area to the rear of the building. Commissioner Craigie commented that he felt that Mr. Ernst had come a long way with his plans but that he was still concerned about the driveway on Bass Lake Road being a problem. In response to questions, Mr. Ernst noted that there would be a row of green ash and mint julep along the parking area on Bass Lake Road and on Boone AVenue, with some flowering crab trees. He planned to seed the green area. There will be two hanidcapped parking spaces at the front of the structure and two at the rear. In answer to questions from Commissioner Anderson, the City Manager noted that there was no time schedule for updating Bass Lake Road by the County at the present time. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 77-23 - Request for Construc- tion Approval at 8711 Bass Lake Road - for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use of the building is not compatible with the traffic pattern either on Bass Lake Road or Boone Avenue. 2. The building design is not suitable for its potential use of warehousing. 3. The overall traffic generated by the building, would put an even heavier burden on Bass Lake Road and the shared driveway is unsafe. 4. The traffic flow around the structure would not be safe or adequate and the pro- ~osed Bass Lake Road access is not suitable for truck traffic. 5. The handicapped parking on the south side of the building -- how would people gain access to the building since using the stairs would be unsafe: 6. The parking on the north side of the structure would have to. be considered as available for employee parking and that posting signs would not have the desired result. Commissioner Craigie .second. The Chairman noted that, in his opinion, Mr. Ernst had made a genuine effort and tried to modify his original plan according to the objections expressed by the City Council, but he could still not feel PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - MAY 3, 1977 3. comfortable with the traffic situation, the two level building or the employee parking in the front, as being adequate use of the property. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: Anderson Absent: London Motion passed. 4~ PLANNING CASE 77-25 (CONTINUED FROM 4-5-77) REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AT 7601 42nd AVENUE NORTH - YMCA, PETITIONER. Mr. Douglas Herron represented the YMCA. He noted that he was present because of his concern that the ¥ have a proper sign to identify the building. ' They have experienced, since their opening, a lot of people who have missed finding the Y. They are asking for the variance to allow them to erect the ori- ginal 12 foot high logo. It is made of steel and does not have any lettering. They are asking for the variance because it is unique to this particular parcel of land, the purpose of the variance is not based entirely on income or business but because they are trying to service the people that are currently members as well as one time visitors. They do not feel it will increase congestion in the area, because the Y is already there and the sign will enable people to identify the location. They would like to re- install the original sign but within setback requirements. The sign is approximately 90 square feet. Brief discussion followed regarding th~ alternative sign for the Y, which would also be over sized, as proposed. The City Manager noted that they would be allowed 20 square feet according to code. Mr. Herron stated that there will be a great many visitors to the facility since it is a community center as well as a local YMCA and they serve a wide region. Discussion followed regarding the proposed sign and the existing footings for the first sign, which would have to be moved and the need for the sign to be positioned within setback requirements. Mrs. Judy Schulte, a New Hope resident, proposed that the original sign be put back because she felt it was a good looking sign and that the Y facility is something for the entire area to be proud of. As a resident of New Hope it was a point of pride for her, and she though it should be for everyone. Dean Mastonen, 3843 Oregon, stated he had been involved with the Y as a volunteer and in programs. He felt that many people had been disappointed when the sign was taken down and he would like to see it re- installed in a proper place. He felt it was a good work of sculpture and does identify the program, as well as the building. Mrs. Karen Karges, 3317 Ensign, stated she was a new member of the Y Board and was perhaps prejudiced, but she too would like to have the original sign approved. The Chairman noted that he felt the entire commission was proud to have the Y in New Hope and wish it great success, and that most of them had worked for it, but that they were hoping that they would obey the City rules. In response to a question from the Chairman regarding payment of the costs of moving the electrical work to an approved location, Mr. Herron noted that he felt it would probably involve litigation. Commissioner Gustafson stated that because of the location of the site, and the competition from the busi- nesses in the area, and the amount of signage they are allowed, it seemed to him appropriate to make a Alotion for a variance on the size of the YMCA sign at 7601 42nd Avenue North. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London Motion passed. 5. PLANNING CASE 77-27 (REFERRED BACK FROM COUNCIL MEETING OF 4-11-77) CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL - 4950 COUNTY ROAD #18 - INLAND DEVELOPMENT, PETITIONER. Mr. Doug Moe, architect for the project stated that they had revised the project in light of the comments that had been made ~t the Planning Commission and Council meetings. They have increased the green area, relocated the parking and moved the employee parking to the rear. They have changed the design of the building to accommodate the concerns~ It is a two phase project. They are asking for approval of both phases. Each section will be 27,000 square feet. When the two phases are completed, there will be 36% green area. Commissioner Christensen stated that they had made major changes from their original plan and that the changes looked good. He reminded Mr. Moe that when they were ready to decide on signs for the site, they should be sure to consult the City Sign Ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - MAY 3, 1977 5. Truck traffic will be one-way around the structure and the corners and the areas at the entries will be protected by curbing. In answer to a question from Commissioner Bartos, Mr. Nelson, the contractor for the project, stated that the drainage goes to the East of the property. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that there will be a 24 foot driveway going around the site; the trucks will be angled into the docks; and the lighting will consist of four lights in the back, two on the side, and three on the front, with canopy lighting. Ail lights will be building mounted with the light cast down. They will use 2%" caliper trees and will relocate the handicapped parking to be js-t to the east of the north door. In response to a question from Commmissioner Gundershaug Mr. Nelson stated that they hoped to begin construction on phase two within 9 months from the final approval of phase one. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 77-27 - Construction Approval - with the following stipulations: 1. That the second phase begin by June of 1978 or the approval will be voided. 2. That handicapped parking be provided directly to the east of the east door of the structure. 3. That curbing be provided around the green areas, against the buildings and around the corners of the buildings. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Abstain: Craigie Absent: London Motion pa~s~. 6. PLANNING CASE 77-28 (CONTINUED FROM 4-5-77) SPECIAL USE PERMIT/PARKING VARIANCE/CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL - WISCONSIN AVENUE - DR. GARY GIBBONS, PETITIONER. Dr. Gibbons stated that his architect, Dave Hallett,would speak and that he would answer any other ques- ~-~ tions if necessary. Mr. Hallett noted that they had received concept approval for the pet clinic at the meeting of 4/5/77. They were now presenting construction plans and requesting a variance in the number of parking spaces from 15 to 10 because Dr. Gibbons did not feel his business volume required 15 spaces. Dr. Gibbons provides "by appointment only" service and the anticipated number of clients and the staff count does not warrent the additional parking. They have provided additional parking space should the use of the building ever change and it be required. The plantings shown on the landscape plan are illustrated as mature species. Trees will meet the 2%" caliper requirement of the code. In response to a requewt from Commissioner Christensen, Dr. Gibbons stated that he felt the size of the building was one factor in reducing the number of parking stalls. He will have only three examining rooms amd he felt that on a busy day there would be a total of 20-25 people coming to the clinic. They plan to open at 8:00 a.m. and stay open until about 6:00 p.m. Evening hours would be by appointment only. They feel the traffic flow into the area will be controlled by the appointment schedule. The maximum employees will probably be two, plus one doctor and in the beginning, probably only one employee. The structure will be one story, slab on grade, with equipment screened on the ground with greenery. There should be no problem with sound as there are no intentions of boarding animals. The finish will look like brick and the lighting will be of a soffit type, down lighting. There will be some safety lighting ~- one down light concealed fixture type at the entrance and one located at the southwest corner of the parking area. There will be soffit lighting in the eaves on the north side of the build- ing for security and they intend to sod on the west and the north. There is existing plant material on Dr. Gibbons property which will be maintained. They would like to maintain a natural ground cover in the area of the trees at the southeast corner and preserve as many of the trees as possible. Dr. Gibbons stated that he had visited with the residents directly to the south of his property who had stated they did not care if additional screenings were planted. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 77-28, Special Use Permit, Variance in Parking from 15 to 10 and Construction Approval with the occupancy permit conditional on the fact that more ~arking would be provided if necessary. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent~ London Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - MAY 3, 1977 7. PLANNING CASE 77-31 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 5801 CAVELL AVENUE - ROY WALDRON, PETITIONER. Mr. Waldron Stated that he was requesting a ten foot variance at the rear setback to allow him to in- crease the size of his garage. He intends to add two more feet to the driveway but will not change the curb cut. In answer to questions from the commissioners Mr. Waldron stated that he intended to use the garage only for storage and his vehicles and that the trailer would be parked in basically the same place as now, but a few feet back. Discussion briefly covered the County's plans for improving Bass Lake Road. Mr. Waldron noted that the County had already taken 33 feet of easement and he would hope that they would widen on the South side of the road in the future. Mr. Waldron stated that he intended to replace the siding but that the house and garage would be the same. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion for approval of case 77-31 - Request for Ten Foot Rearyard Variance at 5801 Cavell Avenue, subject to the siding on the garage being of the same texture and color as on the balance of the property. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Christensen Motion passed. · 8. PLANNING CASE 77-32 - REQUEST FOR PARKING VARIANCE AT 8801 EAST RESEARCH CENTER ROAD - LYLE'S HEATING/ AIR CONDITIONING, PETITIONER. There was no one present in regard to this case. Commissioner Craigie recommended tabling this case until the meeting of May 17, 1977. Commissioner Atchley, second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Christensen Motion passed. 9. PI~%NNING CASE 77-34 - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR HOME OCCUPATION AT 5808 GETTYSBURG - STANLEY E. NELSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Nelson stated that he was a Shaklee distributor. He noted that he had moved to New Hope from Litch- field and had been unaware of regulations requiring permits for work done on the home. He has converted 274 square feet into office and storage space for his products.in the basement, in the southwest corner of his home. He apologized for breaking the ordinance. Commissioner Gustafson asked whether Mr. Nelson would be willing to sign a letter stating that proper footings had been installed. Mr. Nelson stated that he had hired a contractor to install the footings, he did not observe the work. He had asked the contractor who had informed him they were properly installed. He and the contractor will submit a letter. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. NUlson noted that deliveries were made by UPS or trucks of a similar size. He does not conduct retail sales from his home, or conduct meetings in the home. He occasionally transports products in his car to his distributors. He further stated that his business created no more traffic at his home than in normal residence. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion for approval of Case 77-34 - Request for a Special Use Permit to allow a Home-Occupation at 5808 Gettysburg, subject to the owner of the home providing a statement that the footings had been installed according to code. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Commissic~ers who lived in the same neighborhood as Mr. Nelson testified to the fact that this business did not cause excessive traffic. Voting in favor: Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Abstain: Craigie Absent: London, Christensen Motion,passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6 - MAY 3, 1977 10. PI~NNING CASE 77~35 ~ REQUEST FOR DUPLEX AND VARIANCE IN SETBCK AT 4033-35 JORDAN - THOMAS WILDER, PETITIONER. Mr, Wilder presented a PUD development proposal for a duplex in the Marvin Gordon plat. Mr. Wilder stated that he was requesting construction approval and a variance on the setback of the garage because it is a four stall garage and there could be a parking problem for the occupants if it were next to the building. The double bungalow is of Spanish design and will sell for $86,000. They are also building homes in the area and he noted that probably half of them will also tie in with this design. The dwelling will be owner occupied on both sides. There will be a six foot fence on the boundary line facing Highway #18 of cedar shakes. Discussion covered the sidewalks around the 'dwellings, in both the front and the rear, and the proposed width of three feet. The builder intends to save as many of the existing trees as possible and add shrubbery in the front of the structure. Mr. Wilder stated that this dwelling is already sold and had been custom designed for the tenants. In answer to a question from the Chairman regarding the plans stating a redwood fence, Mr. Wilder said this would be a cedar fence. He is also adding fireplaces to the structure, which were not shown on the plan, the chimneys to be on the outside. Commissioner Christensen cautioned Mr. Wilder on the fact that with a PUD it must be completed exactly as indicated on the plan and suggested he make sure the plans were changed before the Council meeting. Comn~issioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 77-35 - PUD for a duplex with a garage setback variance, noting that the plans will show two fireplaces, one on each duples. The plans are to be . corrected to indicate cedar fencing. Commissioner Anderson second. Commissioner Atchley amended the motion to provide for a four foot walkway around the structure. Com- missioner Craigie second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron Voting against: Christensen, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: London Motion failed for lack of a majority. Voting on the original motion: Voting in favor: Bartos, christensen, Atchley, Cameron,.Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London Motion passed. 11. PLANNING CASE 77-36 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN REARYARD SETBACK AT 4548 WINNETKA AVENUE - BRUCE BOGEMA, PETITIONER. Mr. Bogema stated that he needed a larger garage, to be used for storage purposes and parking of his two cars. He would like to build a 24' x 24' garage. He is requesting a seven foot variance in the rear yard setback. The siding will be the same as on the home. He plans to remove the existing garage and build a completely new structure. The driveway will lead directly to the garage door. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of the request for a seven foot rearyard setback at 4548 Winnetka Avenue. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London Motion passed. 12o PLANNING CASE 77-37 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO PUD - WISCONSIN AND BASS LAKE ROAD - BOISCLAIR CORPORA- TION, PETITIONER. Mr. Frank Dunbar represented Boisclair Corporation. Mr. Dunbar noted that the corporation had received approval for a 47 unit PUD complex in January. They have discovered that the site has worse soil con- ditions than they had originally supposed and this is the reason they are requesting the amendments2 He then reviewed the requested amendments to the PUD: A. The first request is to be allowed 41 underground garages in lieu of the 41 on-site garages. There is 8-15 feet of bad soil that would have to be removed and replaced with engineered soil if the garages were to be constructed as originally proposed. The soil engineers had advised them not to put a floating slab under the garages. They feel that this will also improve the overall site. The garage will be security locked and lighted. The garage will be sprinkled also. There will be. a one story elevator for the benefit of any handicapped people. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - MAy 3, 1977 12. B. The second request is to reduce the required number of outside parking stalls from 82 to 41. They will still have the space for 82, but this request is as a result of the State Agency's experience as well as their own, that a ratio of 3 to 1 is not necessary for this type of project, because it is not a typical market rate apartment but a family type of complex. They will provide the City with a letter of credit or bond to insure that if it is demonstrated at any time that additional parking is required, they would come in and install it. They propose to work this out with the City, to run for a period of from 3 to 5 years. C. The third request is to allow postponement of the topping material. The reason for this is because they feel there will be a great amount of settlement on the site. They feel that at least one and perhaps two growing seasons would help to stabilize the soil. They again would provide a letter of credit or bond stating that the topping would be completed when it is most feasible. Mr. Dunbar noted that their general contractor and soil engineer had recommended that they put a four inch bituminous matting down, with a lesser percentage of asphalt mix than the topping would normally have to control dust. The same surface but containing a lesser degree of asphalt. This would allow the soil to move and settle and when this had completed the cycle, they would come in and level the matting, patch it up and install the topping mat. D. The fourth request, is a proposal that the lighting now come off the buildings and reflect out into the site. This will minimize any dark spots and opens up the site very freely. They will install adjustable hooded fixtures which would control the light and direct it do~n so that it would not im- pose on any of the surrounding properties. Commissioner Christensen questioned why, if the driveway will crack during the settling process, why the entire complex would not? Mr. Dunbar stated that he felt the actual wear and tear of the vehicles would cause this increased cracking. He noted that on all of the tbotings they would take out all of the bad material and replace it with engineered fill. The reasons for changing the garages was that they would have to replace 15 feet of poor soil with engineered fill. They will put a concrete wall in the area of the garages, as a safeguard. The asphalt mixture will control the dust of the area until the final matting is installed. The garages will be heated, have sprinkling and be lighted. In answer~to a question from Commissioner Christensen, the City Manager noted that the City had not as yet determied whether they want a performance bond or a letter of credit. Mr. Dunbar said they propose that the amount be established at the time of actual construction, as well as the time period for which the bond will be on call by the City. Commissioner Christensen noted that the project had been ~pproved before, and that Boisclar was now re- questing only four amendments as stated. In response to a question, Mr. Dunbar stated that engineered fill was a denser material, containing more gravel that could be compacted, in contrast to peat or other organic type of material that had a greater tendency to move. Discussion then covered the determination of when or if additional parking were required and who would make this decision~ Mr. Dunbar noted that they would be the management corporation and would have figures regarding the . number of vehicles available whenever the City requested them. They would anticipate further that the tenants themselves would let them know when they felt parking was inadequate. He stated that inasmuch as the money would be readily available he did not foress any hassels whenever the City decided more parking should be provided. Commissioner Gustafson expressed his concern about .the temporary curbing, feeling that in the event the additional parking were not required, the temporary curbing weuld be replaced by permanent curbing. Commissioner Christensen agreed with this concern, but noted that as yet they did not know what the City would require -- a bond or letter of credit. He requested that the minutes note that if the City goes with the bond it be included that at the termination of the bond/letter of credit the curbing be permanent. Discussion about the 50% reduction in exterior parking requested. Discussion covered the alternatives and how this figure had been determined and whether any apartment complex ever had a sufficient number of parking spaces. Commissoner Gustafson stated that he would prefer that they provide the green area first and then add parking spaces if needed, rather than parking spaces to be replaced with green area. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Requests A and D as' submitted by Mr. Dunbar. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Crhsitensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - MAY 3, 1977 12. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to approve Request D, the section reducing the exterior parkin~ from 82 to 41, with the stipulation that by the Council meeting the City would have determined whether they preferred a bond or a letter of credit. Commissioner Gustafson second. Commissioner Anderson stated he would like to see it specified somewhere, who would decide that more parking was required. He added that perhaps it would be more appropriateto specify this in the bond. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustfson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absemt: London Motion Pa~se4. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Request C, relating to the parking lot surfacinq being postponed for a one year cycle. Commissioner Craiqie second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London Motion passed. 13. PLANNING CASE 77-38 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL - 4630 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH - K.G. BENSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Benson distributed plans of the proposed addition to the Twin City Monorail building to the Commis- sioners. He stated he was requesting no variances and felt that the addition would do nothing but make the premises look better. Commissioner Christensen confirmed with Mr. Benson that the structure will be used for manufacturing, will consist of one big room plus storage. There will be no refuse containers outside. In answer to questions from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Benson stated that they were not sure if there would be roof top equipment, but if there were, it would be screened. They plan to sod the entire area West of the structure. Commissioner Christensen expressed his concern for the present upkeep of the lot and hoped that the maintenance of the property would be upgraded. Discussion regarding the proposed landscaping. Com~is- ~ sioner Craigie expressing his amazement at the limited amount of landscaping that was proposed. It was his feeling that this should be increased, perhaps tripled. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 77-38 - Construction Approval at 4630 Quebec Avenue North, with the sitpulation that the roof top equipment be coordinated with the City staff so that if equipment were installed justifying fencing, it would be done. Commissioner Atchley second. Commissioner Craigie 'amended the motion to state that the landscaping be increased by a total of ten 2%" caliper green ash trees. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting on the amendment: Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None AbSent: London Amendment passed. Voting on the original motion: Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London Motion passed° 14. PLANNING CASE 77-39 - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT/CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL/AND VARIANCE IN BUILDING SIZE - GEORGE HEBERT/COUNTRY'KITCHEN, PETITIONER. Mr. Hebert referred to the fact that he had previously received permission to construct a Country Kitchen restaurant on 42nd Avenue at the end of the K-Mart property. This approval had been contingent upon his receiving reciprocal parking rights from K-Mart. Kresge Company had been unable to.provide this because of problems between them and the land holding company. He is now requesting approval to allow him to construct the same sized restaurant on the property be- tween the school district Administration Building and the City of New Hope public works building. They are requesting a variance on the size of the structure, because the building is smaller than re- quired by code. The green area will be 40% and the parking spaces exceed the requirement. It is their intention to use the entrance of the public works building to eliminate an additional curb cut on 42nd Avenue. This is done at the recommendation of the City of New Hope and Hennepin County. Northwestern Bell and Northern States Power are willing to move a pole ten feet so as to permit a better alignment of the driveway and the County has agreed to allow three feet additional width in the curb' cut, giving them 40 feet. This will allow them three lanes, two exit and one in. PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - MAY 3, 1977 14. Commissioner Christensen clarified that the restaurant will have 104 seats and 56 parking spaces. There will be curbing on the east and west sides. They plan to install mercury vapor lights with spot lights on the building. They will all be down lights. They will sod except for the area south of the parking lot. The entrance will be striped, with arrows pointing direction. Discussion then centered on the parking area at the public works building and the potential for cus- tomers to use this space; whether or not a fence should be positioned between the two sites; the proximity to the school district parking lot and the fact that there is an exit directly to Winnetka from the #281 lot; and the potential for carry-out business -- almost none; and potential traffic patterns. Mr. Hebert noted that he felt the heavy traffic times would be before noon, before six o'clock and from seven to eight-thirty. Commissioner Christensen advised Mr. Hebert to consult the City Sign Ordinance before installing signs. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson regarding the City Center planning, the City Mana- ger noted that at this time the planning had not extended past the commercial block from 42nd-45th. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 76-39 - Special Use Permit for a Countr~ Kitchen in an LI Zone, Construction Approval and a Variance in Building Size, on the condition that there will be a fence constructed between the restaurant site and the garage site and that the fence will be of a suitable quality and at least three feet tall. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: Cameron, Gustafson Absent: London Motion passed. 15. PI~NNING CASE 77-29 - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - 52nd AVENUE - STABEN COMPANY, PETITIONER. The City Manager stated that the preliminary plat previously approved had been amended and that was why it was again on the agenda. Mr. Bob Olson apologized for returning to the commission with his plat but stated that they had them- selves pulled it out of the Council agenda when they had discovered that economically they should reduce the plat to two lots. They have changed the ponding easement to correspond more with the existing pond edge. The City Manager stated that there were no real problems with this, the easements are to be on the plat. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat on 52nd Avenue for the STaben Company, subject to the granting of drainage, utility and ponding easements and approval of the building elevations bY the City Engineer. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London, Craigie Motion passed. 16. PLANNING CASE 77-40 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL - 52nd AVENUE (OLSON INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND) - STABEN COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Olson stated they were propdsing a i0,000 square foot industrial building on the north lot of the plat. Industrial Tool Company would be the occupant of the building. He noted that Mr. Ed McDonald of Industrial Tool was present to answer questions. They have increased the parking requirements by 25 spaces to meet the code. They are providing a screened area for the refuse containers and there are no variance involved. The lot is adequate for future expansion beth to the east and to the west° Mr. McDonald stated that they were primarily a'contract oool and die company that does general machin- ing and fabrication, building of tools, dies, etc. He stated that generally there is not a lot of large truck traffic. There is an occasional delivery by a big freight company but usually there are only two or three trucks a day. The type of machinery they build takes many hours and months to construct. Phase one will be a 10,000 square foot building with a 1300 square foot office in the southwest corner. There will be two truck docks, to acommodate 40 foot trailers and occasional semis. Comuissioner Christensen stated that Mr. Olson should consult the Sign Ordinancebefore installing any signs. He pointed out that a sign could be installed within Code by applying for a permit. Any sign contrary to code would have to be brought before the Planning Commission for review. The building will be of concrete block and the roof top equipment will be screened with redwood. The refuse containers will be screened with the same type of redwood material. The portion north of the cul-du-sac and to the east of the structure will be sodded. They plan to leave the natural material around the pond. There will be concrete curbs except on the east side. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 10 - MAY 3, 1977 16. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 77-40 - Construction Approval for the Staben Company. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, ATchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent= London, Craigie Motion passed. 17. PLANNING CASE 77-41 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL - WEST OF WINNETKA, SOUTH OF SOO LINE - RAUENHORST CORPORATION, P~TITIONER. Mr. Gene Haugland and Mr. Ray Rausch represented the Rauenhorst Corporation. Mr. Haugland state~ they were proposing to construct one phase of their overall plan for the property° This building will be located the furthest back on their property - toward Tool Products. They plan access off Winnetka with the parking in the front of the building. He noted that the site plan indi- cates by use of a dotted line, the proposed access to Boone Avenue, should it become necessary. They plan 108 parking spaces and there will be one handicapped chair lift stall° Mr. Haugland, using an illustration of the elevation, explained how they intend to berm and landscape the top of the berm to protect the single family residents from the property. They will landscape with Norway Pine and Norbush cranberry bushes. The highest floor elevation of the homes is 929, the top of the berm is about 938. The bushes will have an initial height of four feet and the Norway Pine a height of seven. The bushes will grow to a height of eight feet and the Norway Pine to about 27 feet. The floor height on the ~uilding is about 922 - the top of the building is 928. There is 360 feet from the South property line to the front of the proposed building. Commissioner Christensen clarified that this was a three phase development with this building the first phase. It will be 96,000 square feet and a warehouse. It will be constructed of precast concrete, sprinklered and there will be no equipment on the roof. If there should be any equipment installed on the roof at a future time, it will be screened. Commissioner Christensen reminded Mr. Haugland that signs that did not conform to the City Ordinance would require a variance and an appearance before the Planning Commission. Mr. Haugland noted that he understood the restrictions regarding signs. Mr. Haugland stated that they plan to use 250 watt mercury vapor, down light fixtures, hooded to the parking lot. Commissioner Christensen reminded Mr. Haugland that the road from Winnetka would have ~o be screened if it were within 15 feet of the single family residences. Discussion then covered the road and whether as Phase 2 and 3 were developed, it would prove adequate for the traffic. Mr. Haugland indicated this would be reviewed at a later time as traffic developed, to determine whether the road needed to be opened to Boone. Mr. Alan Jones, 8316 50th Avenue North, stated he was not wild about anything being built there. He was concerned with the location of the road because of his children and he would like to see the road built toward the south side of the railroad tracks, in the middle of the section. He was also con- cerned about the drainage and felt they should perhaps allow for some kind of drain tile. The City Manager stated he would have the City Engineer take a look at the properties to determine what might be needed. Mr. Roger Storkamp, 8320 50th Avenue North, questioned there being only one exit to the property. Mr. Haugland stated that for the first phase at least, there would be only one road. He added that they were also concerned about the traffic that would be generated if people were to turn off Boone and use this road as a through street. In answer to a question from Mr. Jones, Mr. Haugland stated that all three buildings were intended to have access to the railroad tracks. Mr. Jones expressed his concern again for the many kids and the road. Commissioner Christensen questioned whether Mr. Jones had been aware that the land was zoned industrial when he moved in? He then referenced the public hearing at the time of the Comprehensive Plan review, at which the neighborhood near this property expressed their concern and wish that it remain industrial. The City Manager noted that this property had been zoned industrial since 1954. Commissioner christensen recommended approval of Case 77-41 -Construction Approval for Rauenhorst, with the stipulation that if equipment does go on the roof, it will be screened and that there will be a five foot screen on the property line as designated on the plan, and that the drainage plan will be reviewed by the City .Engineer. Commissioner Craigie second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 11 - MAY 3, 1977 17. Commissioner Gustafson commented that he would have rather preferred to see people on that site, no matter what type they had been, to industrial development. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: London Motion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS 18. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 19. There was no report from the Land Use Committee 20. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 21. The Council minutes of April 25, 1977 were reviewed. 22. The Commission minutes of April 19, 1977 were accepted as printed. 23. Chairman Cameron stated he felt the Commission should be commended for the expeditious manner in which the long meeting had been conducted. 25. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 17, 1977 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, was held on Tuesday, May 17,~1977 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City. The meeting was called to order ~t 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug Absent: Bartos, Atchley, Gustafson, Anderson. Chairman Cameron stated that Mr. Bartos, Mr. Gustafson and Mr. Anderson were to be excused, but he had not heard from Mr. Atchley. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. The continuation of Planninq Case No. 77-32, (from the meeting of May 3, 1977), request from_Ly]_le_'6 ~eatin§ and Air Conditioninq, 8801 East Research Center Road, for a parkinq varian~was considered. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. ~o~ion by Commissioner London, second by Commissioner Gundershaug to recommend to the Council denial of Planning Case No. 77-32 and noting that this was the second opportunity the petitioner had been given to appea~ and while they were notified, they again failed to attend. Chairman Cameron noted the need to talk to the petitioner about the general maintenance of the site. Question was asked as to whether the Council would give the petitioner a hearing should he appear at the Council meeting of May 23, 1977 or whether the Council would refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. It was concluded that it would be the Council's option to either hear the case or refer back to the Planning Commission. Vote was taken on the question as follows: Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug. Voting against: None. Motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS 4. The New Hope State Bank Drive-In facility location problem was reviewed by the Planning Commission. The City Manager explained that this matter had been referred to Planning Commission for its reaction and recommendation. He said that he and the City Engineer had looked at the problem trying to find a solution, and that their recommendation to both the Planning Commission and the Council would be to attempt to obtain an easement from Minnesota Federal for the possible widening of Xylon Avenue at a later date. The configuration is such that the sidewalk on the west as it abuts the Minnesota Federal property could be moved five feet to the west. A very small retaining wall would be needed. The steps at Minnesota Federal are set so that would tie into the sidewalk if it were moved, and the configuration should work out very nicely. Upon inquiry, the City Manager stated that this was not an immediate problem for the bank, but they did need to know whether the encroachment onto the easement would be permitted at such time as they do expand to 6 drive-up lanes. Mr. Dennis Williams, President, New Hope State Bank, stated that it was an immediate problem in that the bank must determine whether it has a cause of action against the architect. The facility was designed to have six lanes when needed. Mr. Mike Florell, Architect for the New Hope State Bank,'explained how the error had occurred, and how it was discovered. He said there was an error on the site plan that had indicated an incorrect dimension. The sixth lane was to have been seven feet plus or minus from the easement line. The plan showed a dimension Yrom the sixth lane to the third lane of 26 feet. It should have been 33' 9". Mr. Florell said that if the building had been laid out from the east property line, the building would have been located correctly. However, at that time there was a stockpile of dirt on the east property lin~ so the building was laid out starting from the west side even though there was a plus or minus dimension at that side. This meant that they were exactly 7' 9" short of where they should have been in order to accommodate the sixth lane as planned. Mr. Florell continued 'tha~ the error had not been discovered until they were getting ready to lay the curb and they found they had too much room to the east. He said he had immediately discussed the problem with City staff. Mr. Flomell then stated that the drive-up stations are already in the ground; all the tubing is in the ground to expand the facility. All that needs to be done at time of expansion is to go out and pour the curbs and extend the canopy. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - May 17, 1977 Mr. Florell then presented copies of the 6riginal site plan, showing the error and also copies of the site plan is it now exists. Mr. Florell said that the actual encroachment of the sixth lane would ~ be l' 10"--the dimension to the inside of the curb. The back of the curb would be another 6" beyond the l' 10". Mr. Florell ~said there would be about 5' 9" from the front of the curb to the existing sidewalk. The sidewalk is 5 feet wide, and there is 8 feet from the sidewalk to the street. Mr. Florell said the 1' 10" encroachment would not extend for the length of the property, but only on that piece where you come around and turn left. Upon inquiry as to the need for the easement other than for the possible widening of Xylon, the City Manager replied that as far as he could see, there would never be a need for the easement for place- ment of utilities in the easement. There would be a need to widen the street when and if the City Center is developed. Upon question to Mr. Dennis Williams, he said that the expansion of the bank facility should take place in two to four years, most likely two years. Discussion followed as to what kind of problems the City would encounter if the encroachment is permitted and Xylon is widened. The City Manager advised that, if Xylon were widened toward the east, the City would have a five foot sidewalk between two lanes of traffic-- the street and the sixth lane of the bank. It was noted that pedestrians would then be walking between two lanes of traffic. The possibility of using fence or shrubs to protect pedestrians from vehicular traffic was discussed. Mr. Florell was then asked what would happen with the additional space to the east of the building. He replied that the additional 7 or 8 feet had been used to provide additional on-site parking for the bank. Another four parking stalls were provided. Mr. Florell continued that there was a nice buffer between the K Mart lot and the bank lot. There are some existing streets and some ground cover provided. The additional space had not been turned into green area. Discussion held as to the elevation of the catch basin at the edge of the bank facility, noting that it caused problems for small cars. Con~nissioner Christensen stated that he objected to the fact that the additional space to the east ~-~ had been turned into blacktop rather than providing additional green area. He said this had the net effect of reducing the green area percentage for the site. Mr. Christensen said he would be in agree- ment with the need for a nice fence or additional landscaping. Chairman Cameron stated that it would also be possible to restrict the facility to five lanes. Mr. Dennis Williams stated that the landscaping was going in as shown on the original plan and that he thought the extra four stalls would help keep the bank's customers off the K Mart lot. Commissioner Christensen then spoke on the desire for green areas on the part of the Planning Commission and Design and Review. He again noted that the percentage of blacktop and green area had changed since the original proposal. He said the mistake was compounded when the extra space to the east of the site was converted to blacktop. If the City is to give the easement encroachment for the sixth lane, the City can ask for something in return such as a fence. Further discussion held as to possibility of obtaining an easement from Minnesota Federal, and, if this were not possible, an alternative would be to require the New Hope Bank to provide some sort of barrier which would be brought before the Planning Commission and the Council before any construction took place. Further discussion was held as to whether a barrier would be a satisfactory alternative. It was pointed out that there would be about 5 to 5½ feet between the sixth lane and the existing sidewalk and that a fence would provide greater safety than a hedge. Discussion held as to whether the bank should be required to come back before the Planning Commission before the sixth lane is added so that a determination could be made at that time whether there should be a hedge, fence or so~e other type of barrier. Following further discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Craigie to recommend to the City Council that they approve the encroachment onto the easement, b~t not to exceed two feet, subject to the following conditions: ' I. That they check with Minnesota Federal to see if a five foot easement would be given ~'~'~ if road expansion is necessary. 2. That, before any construction begins on the sixth lane, the New Hope Bank return to Planning Commission with a recommended buffering system to compensate for the encroach- ment. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Christensen. PLANNING COMMISSION.MINUTES - - 3 - May 17, 1977 Voting in favor: Christensen, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, London. Voting against: None. Motion carried. The petitioner was advised that the matter would be on the Council agenda for the meeting of June 13, 1977. Mr. Williams was agreeable to this schedule. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5. Final review of the proposed zoning ordinance was handled at this time. Commissioner London, Chairman of the Land Use Committee, lead the discussion. He said the use list for the B2 and the B4 areas had been reviewed, and one of the recommendations was that a limit should be placed on the size of certain uses under the B2 claissification. He said the Committee was recommend- ing a 3500 square foot limitation. They wanted the Commission to discuss this figure since it had been arrived at by review of the retail space as listed in the inventory report from Midwest Federal rather than basing on any specific criteria. He also asked the Commission to review the uses under the two classifications as presented this meeting. (See attached). Commissioner London then stated that the Committee is recommending that banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions and other financial institutions be added as a conditional use under the B-2 classification, and the last item under B-2 Principal Uses read "All B-4 Uses not listed with asterisk (*) not to exceed 3500 square feet." Discussion was then held as to the Use List as now recommended by the Land Use Committee. Question was raised as to where Viking Music School would fit under the proposed ordinance. Responsive comment was that it would fit under the proposed ordinance. Responsive comment was that it would fit under the B-4 classification as a conditional use. Commissioner London stated that the unique cases that had come before the Commission had been taken into consideration. Commissioner London then commented that he had never before seen an ordinance drafted where an asterisk was used, as is done in this case, but he thought it was a workable solution and appeared to solve problems that had been raised in respect to various uses. Commissioner London then asked for comments on the 3500 square foot limitation. Following discussion, as to existing businesses operating within that limiation, it was determined that the 3500 square foot limiation was reasonable. MOtion by Commissioner London, second by Commissioner Craigie that the zoning ordinance with amend- ments as proposed by the Planning Commission, including the new use list and the 3500 square foot limitation, be sent forward to the City Council. Voting in favor: Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, London, Christensen. Voting against: None. Motion carried. Discussion was then held as to the steps remaining to complete the comprehensive plan and zoning process. 6. No comments were heard from the Design and Review Committee. NEW BUSINESS 7. The Commercial Core Design Guidelines for the City~e~n~.~ were reviewed by the Planning Commission. Motion by Commissioner London, second by Commissioner Gundershaug to recommend to the Council that the Commercial Core Design Guidelines for the City Center, dated April, 1977, be adopted. CommiSsioner Craigie commented that there is a limit as to what the City should ask when developers come in with proposals. Sometimes the requests pertaining to architectural matters are perhaps beyond that limit. Discussion followed. It was noted that compliance was voluntary. All the businesses were contacted and asked about their feelings on the guidelines. It was their feeling that they would want to cooperate because it should be to their advantage to have guidelines. Commissioner Christensen commented that, while he thought the guidelines were generally good, he would like to see more Commission members in attendance before taking action. Motion by Commissioner Christensen, second by Commissioner Craigie that the consideration of the ~cial Core Desiqn Guidelines for the City Center be tabled until the first meetin~ in June. PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - May 17, 1977 Vote was taken on the motion to table. Voting in favor: Gundershaug, London, Christensen, Craigie. Voting against: Cameron. Motion carried. 9. The Council minutes of the meeting of May 9, 1977, were reviewed. 10. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 3, 1977, were accepted with Chairman Cameron asking that the record show that Commissioner London had excused himself at the previous meeting. ll. Discussion held as to the action taken by the Council on the boulevard encroachment ordinance. 12. There being no further business to be considered, motion was made by Commissioner London, second by Commissioner Craigie, and unanimously carried t-h-~-~l~e meeting_ be adjourned at 8:06 p.m. Respectful ly submitted, Betty Pouliot City Clerk-Treasurer USE LIST PRINCIPAL CONDITIONAL B-2 Ail B-1 Uses , All B-i.\Uses Dry cleaning pickup and laundry Multiple Family Buildings f stations including incidental repair and assembly but not Camera and Photographio including process supplies Grocery, supermarket, not to Electric Appliance stores exceed 21,500 sq. feet. O~fSale Liquor All B-4 Uses not listed with asterisk (*)~-~ ~ ~ Restaurants ~b~ Off-set printing and · service Books, etc. Medical/dental offices and ~ clinics B-4 All permitted in B-i and B-2 All B-3 (except where per- Antique Shop mitred uses) Art/school supplies, book,office Commercial PUD supplies/stationery stores Bicycle sales/repair Training Schools Candy,ice cream,popcorn,nuts 'Veterinarian clinic when all frozen desserts and soft drinks facilities are totally Carpet, rugs and tile enclosed Coin and philatelic stores Commercial and professional offices Copy and printing service Costume and clothes rental Office equipment stores *Enclosed boat and marine sales *Dry cleaning including plant acces- sory heretofore, pressing and repairing Drug store Employment agencies Florist shop Furniture stores Furriers when conducted only for re- tail trade.on premises *Garden novelty stores Gift or novelty stores Hobby store Insurance Sales Locksmith Meat market but not including locker storage Paint and wallpaper sales Plumbing, television, radio, elec- trical sales and such repair, when accessory to principle use *Theaters, not outdoor drive-in type Toy stores *Custom manufacturing and repair Taller shops Jewelry shops and other similar uses Travel bureaus, transportation, ticket offices Variety stores, 5/10 cent stores, : stores of similar nat~re ~Wearing apparel - ~Banks, savings/loans, credit unions, other financial institutions ~ *Public garage/parking ramps Record shops Real estate sales Building material sales of retail nature in totally enclosed bldg. Fabric stores Camera/photographic supplies ~ P~aNNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 7, 1977 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 7, 1977 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: Gustafson (excused) PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 77-43 ~ REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM MR TO RB - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WISCONSIN/BASS LAKE ROAD - NATALIE STUHR, PETITIONER. Mr. and Mrs. STuhr were present and stated that they were requesting the rezoning from MR to RB to enable them to build a structure to house their repair business, now in their home under a special use permit. Chairman Cameron clarified that the Stuhrs had previously requested the MR zone, some years back. MrS~ Stuhr stated that it had been commercial when they purchased the property. The City Manager said that under a direct transfer, MR would become R-4 under the new Zoning Code. An RB district would direct transfer to B-2. In response to a question from Commissioner London regarding plans f~r specific development for the lot, Mr. Frank Pattee, architect, distributed a preliminary plan for the Commissioners to review, stating they were attempting to retain the residential character of the area with a. walk-in two story building in the front and a walk-in on the second level in the rear. There are two curb cuts, one on Bass Lake Road and one on Wisconsin. They are suggesting a one-way entrance from Wisconsin and a one-way exit to Bass Lake Road. Commissioner London questioned whether or not the Commission should not delay action on the rezoning until they could review specific development plans, to avoid future problems. Mr. Patfee noted that he felt the only variance they would require would be for parking. The Chairman noted that he felt the commission should review only the conditions for the rezoning, because they had not reviewed the development plans previously. Commissioner Christensen stated he did not feel the Commission could table the request, u~less they were willing to tell the petitioner that they were, in effect, in favor of the rezoning, and he did not think they could do this. Commissioner London noted that the criteria for a rezoning were (1) a change in the circumstances in the area warrenting a change in zoning, (2) an initial mistake in the zoning. He requested that the peti- tioner address these reasons regarding the zoning request --which criteria applied? Mr: Stuhr noted they wished the building to house their family business. Mrs. STuhu stated that the property had been zoned commercial when it was purchased 23/years ago. They have been trying to develop the property over the year. They had been advised to go MR? they were trying to go up the ladder, but they really desired RB. / Comzaissioner London asked whether Mrs. Stuhr was aware t the RB zone required a minimum lot size of 3 acres and that her property was approximately i/2!acre? He questioned how the rezoning could be justified with this discrepancy? The parking requireme~t~ also could not he met because of the size of the lot. Mrs. Stuhr stated that they had hoped that with the new.zoning classifications one type of zoning would fit their building -- to house the repair business and a floral shop for her daughter. She realized they would need a variance on the parking requirements. Commissioner London noted the signs on the property and the fact that they had be~n supposed to be re- moved in cormection with the special use permit obtained previously. Mrs. Stuhr noted that she was going to court on this issue on 6/8/77. She had written a letter regarding the signs and requested an extension because of her husband's health but had received a citation. She further stated that she felt the property had been zoned mistakenly after they purchased the property when the commercial zoning was removed. Commissioner London expressed his concerns for the lot size and the fact there would he too little space to accc~m~odate the required parking. Discussion then held regarding therezoning and the size of the intended building. Concensus was that it was too much building for the site. pLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 ~ JUNE 7~ 1977 Mr. Pattee inquired whether the Commission even remotely considered it possible to put a commercial development on this piece of property? The Chairman answered, that in ~is opinion, some small type of business could be placed on the lot, but that he felt the proposed building was simply too much for the site. Commissioner London agreed that the problem was the size of the lot versus the requirements for the RB zone. Discussion followed regarding the proposed clinic across the street and whether the petitioner wished the Commission to act on this request or table to allow them to come up with alternative ideas. Mrs. Stuhr stated that what they would like was something, so they could put a building in and include the family businesses. They could scale it smaller. The Chairman noted that the present proposal, was much more than family businesses- they in.tended to also rent space. He felt that if they came in with a proposal suiting their needs, the Comission~ould be reasonable. Mrs. Stuhr wondered about her daughter's plans for a floral shop? Commissioner Craigie noted that, in his opinion, retail sales was almost an impossibility. He suggested they review the LB district uses as ty~es that might better suit the lot. Discussion regarding possible alternatives for the lot and whether or not the petitioner desired a table or a vote on the request. Mrs. Stuhr agreed that a table would be better. Mr. Art Grapentin, 5619 Wisconsin, stated he was absolutely opposed to retail business on the lot. The lot was too small for this. He suggested that the size of the lot be measured to determine the actual dimensions.. Commissioner London moved to table Case 77-43 until September 6, 1977. Commissioner Craiqie second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 77-45 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 8809 30TH AVENUE - DONALD SWANSON, PETITIONER Mro Swanson stated that he would like the variance to allow him to expand his single car garage to a double garage. He has a pie shaped lot and thus needs the variance. He plans to use the garage only for storage and his cars. He intends to stucco the garage and redo the exterior of his home with stucco at the same time. The rear of the addition would be one foot from the lot line. The roofing will also be changed to provide for one roof design. In answer tO questions, he stated that the tree would be saved and that his neighbors had expressed ho. opposition to his plans for the addition. Commissioner Craigie moved to recommend approval of Case 77-45 - Request for Variance in Sideyard Set- back at 8809 30th Avenue North - subject to the siding of the garage conforming to the exterior finish on the house. Commissioner Bartos second. Discussion covered the possibility_of moving the garage forward instead of back, the problems that ~ight arise should the neighbor wish To construct a fence on the lot line, the need for emergency service vehicles to drive between the homes, the practice of granting variances in the City and whether the granting of them had become too automatic. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen,Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: Atch!ey Absent: Gustafson Motion carri~. 5. PLANNING CASE 77-46 - RkQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AT MEDICINE LAKE ROAD/NEVADA AVENUE - PETER J. KING, PETITIONER. Mt. Steve Erickson, of Thorpe Brothers Realty, represented Peter King. He stated they were handling the sale of the property for Mr. King. They wished to divide the property for sale. Commissioner London noted that the lots were all within the required range in size. He added that there might be some need for an additional easement for Medicine Lake Road. Mr. Erickson noted that he had been told by the County that Medicine Lake Road was not included in the current 5 year plan. .PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - JUNE 9, '1977 5. The City Manager noted that the City had heard from all of the utility companies. The City was request- ing a minimum 5' easement on all lot lines and i0' where the line does not back up to any other platted property. Discussion regarding the need for utility easements. There was no one present in the audience regarding this case. Commissioner London moved to recommend approval of the Request for a Preliminary Plat at Medicine Lak~ Road/Nevada with the following stipulations: In addition to what is shown on the plan, there also ' should be provided at least a five foot easement along all lot lines and a ten foot easement where the lots back up to unplatted property and in addition any additional width required by Hennepin County a~.on~ Medicine Lake Road be furnished. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchleg, Craigie, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson, Cameron Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 77-47 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 4608 SUMTER NORTH - LA NETTE PIES, PETITIONER Mr. Bies stated that he was requesting the variance in rear yard setback to allow him to construct his garage to within 25 feet of the rear yard lot line. In answer to questions from Commissioner Craigi~, regarding the need for an oversized garage, Mr. Bies said he needed the space for his two cars and storage and had no intention of doing any shop work in the space. He noted that the house had steel siding and he would like to use masonite on the garage but would paint it to match the house. The panels he would use will be of the Same size as those on the house. He palns to leave the fence and use the existing driveway. Corm~issioner Craiqie recommended approval of Case 77-47 - Request for Rearuard Variance at 4608 Sumter Avenue, subject to the condition that the sidinq on the garage be of the same color and texture as that on the house. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson, Cameron Motion carried. 7.. PLANNING CASE 77-48 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 3657 HILLSBORO - JACK E. CLARK, PETITIONER Mr. Clark stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to extend his garage to wilton 2 1/2 feet from the lot line to construct a double tuck-under garage. In answer to questions from Commissioner Craigie, regarding the siding on the house, Mr. Clark stated that two years ago whe~ the hail storm went through New Hope, they had been unable to match the siding. They had ended up painting with texture paint. This is what he intends to do now. The roof line will be extended. 'Commissioner Craigie recommended approval of Case 77-48 - Request for Sideyard Variance at 3657 Hilhs- boro with the sti.oulation that the siding on the addition match the color and texture of the house and that the roof line be a continuation of the same texture and color. Commissioner Gundershauc second. Discussion between the Commissioners regarding the granting of variances and the encroachment into the setbacks in relation to the extent and cost of the project, as well as the homeowners right to improve his property rather than move, and the risks involved in spending large amounts of money on improvements with the chance that the money could not be absorbed at the time of sale. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Craigie, Gundekshaug Voting against: Christensen, Atchley, Anderson Absent: Gustafson, Cameron Motion carried. Mr. Clark stated he would be out of town on the 13th June. Chairman Cameron noted that he could appear at the meeting of June 27, 1977. 8. PLANNING CASE 77-49 - REQUEST FOR REZONING SR TO TR - PUD - VARIANCES - AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ~OONE/42ND GLEASON COMPANY, INC. PETITIONER. Mr. Mike ~air, of Howard Dahlgren Associates, represented Mr. Bill Gleason owner of the property who was out of town. He was accompanied by Mr. Gleason's son;Bob/and his legal counsel David Himley. Mr. Gait, using various site plans and ~llustrations reviewed the proposed devel op~ent for the Commis- sioners. He noted that they were requesting a rezonin~ from SR to TR and approval of a PUD to allow pLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - JUNE 10, 1977 8. them to develop the site around the poor soil. In some areas there are 13~-25' of peat. The soil problem is complicated bg the fact that the drainage from the higher land all goes into the center low area. They have tried to integrate the development with the recommendations of the City Plan. The development consists of 58 housing units - 34 townhouses and 24 duplex units. .The townhouses will have 1320 square feet and the duplexes 1360 square feet. There will be 2-3 townhouse units per structure with tuck-under garages to take advantage of the slope of the site. There will be a 50 foot setback along both Rockford Road and Boone. They plan to have one access on Rockford Road and one on Boone Avenue. THe access had been discussed with Dennis Hanson of Hennepin County who did not feel the traffic volume required right turn lanes or any additional right-of-way. Landscaping will include perimeter plantings of Spruce and Austrian Pine with deciduous trees along the interior roads. They also plan foundation plantings around the units. Drainage will be off the streets through the low area before entering the storm sewer system. Each unit will have separate sanitary sewer and water service. The exterior design will be Cape Cod. The finishes of the duplexes as well as the townhouses will be continuous in color and texture; with greys, whites, aquas,.soft blues for color. There is a balcony on the back side of the townhouses. The duplexes are 22'x 42' with bedrooms/bath on second floor. The overall density is 7.9 units per acre, the roads will be private - 26' face to'face. The plan has been designed to provide a feeling of spaciousness and to create a residential environment that will fit into the City. Commissioner Christensen noted that at Design and Review there had been' discussion regarding a letter to the City outlining how the owners intended to enforce maintenance of the area. Mr. Himley, stated that the CityManager had been presented with a copy of the restrictions of the Asso- ciation and the Articles of Incorporation of the Owners Association in regard to maintenance of the common areas. The Chairman confirmed that the development is built for sale, with separate lots, and that the Associa- tion will take care of the common areas. In response to a question from Commissioner christensen regarding the lighting plan, Mr. Gait indicated that the locations were on the Plan, but that the decision had not been made as to the exact type of light to be used. He added that the front entrances of the townhouses and duplexes are on the opposite side of the roadway with a walkway around the units. The balconies on the townhouses will be jogged at each two units to eliminate one continuous stretch and to provide privacy. There will be four inches of mulch under the balconies. Discussion then covered the density variance rquested and whether or not it was essential to the developer to have the four extra units. Also discussed was the absence of any tot lot or recreational area. Mr. Gait noted that they were very interested in retaining the 58 units because the drainage of the site was more complicated t~an originally anticipated and extra· costs will he involved because of the dirt work. and the need for increased elevation of the buildings. Mr. Gleason felt it was important for them to develop with 58 units. In regard to the recreation areas, they had not felt there was a need for the tot lot type of area but if the Council determined it necessary Mr. Gait felt Mr. Gleason would be ope~ to this. The sidewalks would be tied together. The costs of the duplexes would be in the upper 40's and the cost of the townhouses would be in the mid 40's. Essential services would be contracted for by the Owners Association. If it should become a pro blem or delinquent, the services would become a lien against the property~ Discussion then centered on the access and the problems of 42nd Avenue during the heavy traffic times of the day° The City Manager stated that he felt it was essential to have the two exits -- Boone Avenue and 42nd Avenue. Mr. Gait stated that the curb cuts had been discussed with Hennepin County. Mr.,Hanson of Hennepin County has suggested the possibility of a 32 foot curb cut from 42nd with a median. The curb cuts will have to meet the approval of Nennepin County. Discussion then covered the elevations of the town houses and the need for steps to reach them, where the house numbers would be located (on the garage side) and whether there was a need for front access into the townhouses as well as the need to provide visitor parking. Mr. Bill Laidlaw, 4132 Ensign, expressed his concern about what the development would do to the evalua- tion of his home, by adding medium and high density to the area. He was also concerned with the setbacks next to the single family residences and questioned whether the land was good for anything but a park -- as it was bad bad land. He was informed that the setback was at least 30 feet. .PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - June 9, 1977 Mr. Les Weigelt, 4095 Cavell,askedhow many borings had been taken of the site, (answer was 14). He also questioned whether the low area as illustrated on the plan was not a little small? Mr. Gait clarified for Mr. Weigelt where the borings had been taken and the type o~ land on the site. He further clarified that the homeowner will have title to the home and the land it sits on. The Owners Association will retain title to the common land. The City Manager stated that the streets would be private but that a contract would be entered into with the City and the City would have the right to go in and maintain the area if it became necessary under the TR ordinance. Discussion followed regarding the Homeowners Association and whether the Planning Commission had any responsibility to supervise this type of association. Also discussed were the potential problems in regard to snow removal and maintenance of the private roads. Mr. Don Murphy, Hennepin County, commented on the fact that at another townhouse development in the suburbs, it had been discovered that they needed a place to'store the maintenance type equipment and had to reappear before the City to get permission for this. He suggested that maybe this need should be anticipated and provided for now, rather than later. Mr. Himley stated that he would expect that a private contractor~ employed by the Association, would ~ bring his own equipment to the site. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the access to Rockford Road as proposed would direct car lights right into the homes opposite and suggested perhaps moving the access 20 feet to the East which would put the lights between the houses. The City Manager stated that the corporation would have to provide a bond for site improvements. Mrs. Jerry Laidlaw, questioned whether New Hope really needed the extra cars and people that would be generated by this development? She was against the whole idea. Mrs. Marge Hyman,8800 41st, expressed concern for the soft land directly behind her property and whether it was buildable. She was also concerned that the elevations behind her property would tower and cut off the vieW. She felt the development was very close to the lot line. Commissioner Christensen noted that on the South side the setback was 35 feet and this was within the Ordinance. He added that the developer is providing 61% green area on the pro3ect. Discussion between the Commissioners then centered on the need for visitor parking, and the need for 'lighting around the units and the interior roadways. Mr. Gait indicated that perhaps more width on the road would allow parallel parking across from the units. He further noted that there will not be signs other than during the construction period. They felt that the identity of the development will be expressed throughout the units themselves. The City Manager urged the commission to consider the location of the drivway on Rockford Road, noting that the platting ordinance required consideration be given to the affect of any access. Com~aissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 77-49 - at 42nd~Boone, including the Rezoning from SR to TR; the approval of the PUD; special use permit and a variance in density with the following sti- pulations: 1. That a tot lot consisting of swings, slides, etc. be located on the property at the discretion of the petitioner. 2~ That there be an improvement in residential screening via landscaping to the west and to the south. 3.That a lighting plan be prepared before the Council meeting for the roads and houses in the ...complex. 4.~ That.~t~ash-pickup plan~ will be brought to the $lanning. CQmmission for approval. 5. That the site will have underground electrical power. 6. That a bond will be provided for site improvement per City Ordinance. That the architect will insure that automobile lights will not shine into any existing residential homes. That before the Council meeting there will be an incorporation into the plan of a community storage unit for maintenance materials. The Planning Con~ission expresses their real concern about potential problems of a Homeowners Association. 10. That additional parking areas be provided for visitors. i1. That maintenance, access and utility service questions must be answered to the satisfaction of the City. Commissioner Atchleu second. - 6 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .JUNE 7, 1977 Commissioner Craigie requested that the variance for densitg be voted on separately from the body of the motion. He expressed about the concentration of density due to the poor soil conditions. Following discussion, the concensus was that the motion would be split. The Chairman declared that a vote would be taken on the variance for density. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: Atchley, Craigie, Anderson Absent:' Gustafson Motion passed. Voting on the original motion: Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Craigie, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug,Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson MOtion ~assed. The chairman declared a recess in the meeting. Themeeting was reconvened at 10:30 p.m. 9. PLANNING CASE 7?-50 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WINPARK DRIVE/ WINNETKA - BENSON ORTH PETITIONER. Mr. Ken Benson stated that since their appearance before the Design and Review Committee, they had moved the position of the driveway to the north. It is now positioned'lSO south of the curb line on Winpark Drive. They also increased the number of Austrian Pines to lO across the-front. The total building area is 56,080 square feet of floor space, 47, l?0 is warehouse area and the mezzanine area consists of 8,610. They have provided 67 parking spaces, there is 36% green area and $?% building area. United Noodle will occupy 26,600 square feet of the building, the remainder would be sp~c warehouses. The exterior construction will be of pre-cast panel, and the setback from Winnetka is 70 feet and from Winpark Drive is 50 feet. Comm. Christensen confirmed that there will be no retail operation at all, that this is a manufactur- er of chinese food, and will grow their own bean sprouts. Handicapped parking will be provided in the.visitor's parking area. Mr. Benson stated they had looked at parking on the north side of the building, but it had not proved practical. o Discussion cnetered on the parking spaces, and the difficulties of ensuring that employees would not use the visitor's parking lot. Mr. Benson stated that he was aware of the City sign ordinance. Lighting will be as indicated on the drawing and will be the wall pack fixtures of either mercury vapor or high pressure sodium type. A refuse conta~ner will be provided adjacent to th~ overhead doors, screened from view. Handicapped parking will be provided. Discussion regarding the parking spaces and whether 67 spaces were sufficient or if the requirement should be 88; and the difficulties of enforcing "No employee parking" in a visitor's lot; and what hardship existed to warrant the variance. Mr. Benson noted that in his opinion, the site grade ~ade front parking necessary and without it, more problems would be created~ Mr. Murphy, Hennepin County, noted that he felt that it should be clarified that the first choice of Hennepin County was for no access to Winnetka. It was, however, up to the City to determine. A citizen from across the street asked what the Worst thing that could be allowed in the building. The City Manager noted that any industrial use, manufacturing, wholesaling, warehousing, would be allowed if they could meet the performance standards. Diane Shepherd, 3425 Winnetka,. stated that a major consideration in permitting the warehouse should be the grade on Winnetka. There is a lot of traffic now with loading and shipping from the Penny Bakery. Comm. Oraigie noted that this was what that area was zoned for. Mr. Bronstad, $4th/Winnetka, stated he felt there was a big problem with the traffic. The citizen from across the street stated that the building to the South did not have any front parking, but had a drop offdriveway with all parking in the back. He questioned why this building couldn't use the same method. Mr. Michael Smith, $Sth/Winnetka, w¢~dered about the incline going into the parking lot. He felt it was dangerous for people to back out ~nto the street and he felt the street was dangerous now and increased truck traffic would make it more so. Mrs. b~hepherd asked why the arda for the driveway to Winnetka was chosen rather than some other. Mr. Benson stated it was because it seemed to work out the best because of drainage. Comm. Craigie ased about the 67 parking spaces. Comm. Christensen stated that the only question wa~ how you considered the building. If you consider it as an office structure and a warehouse structure, the requirement is for 88 spaces. Mr. Benson noted that the mezzanine is not proposed to be entirely office space. It is not proposed for use of anyone other than the tenants themselves. In answer to a question from the City Manager, Mr. Benson stated that there was 5,900 square feet for office space and 47,000 square feet for warehouse use. Discussion continued between the commissioners regarding the required parking spaces, and whether there was room for expansion for more parking area and whether or not a variance should be required for employee parking in the front. Comm. Ch~istensen stated that the co~nission could not just say the petitioner needed a variance for employee parking in front, merely because they did not believe no parking for employees could be enforced. Comm. Christensen stated that he did not see how they could say on one project that parking in front Could not be allowed, and then on another, say it wasn't a problem. Com~. Atchley stated that he felt that the commission should know how much green area would remain if the petitioner increased the number of parking spaces. Mr. Benson indicated that re-striping the parking lot could provide the required spaces. Co,~n. Ohristensen stated he felt then, the commission would have to be concerned about the turning maneuverability of the trucks. He asked Mr. Benson whether he wished the commission to vote on the request, or take it back and work on the problem; Mr. Benson ~tated he felt he could accommodate the parking without asking for variances, but he did not feel it was called for in terms of need. He stated they could ear mark the space but not use it, but it would be available if the need arose. In answer to questions from Comm;'. Christensen regarding elimination of the parking lot on Winnetka, Mr. Benson stated he felt that in a private structure with office area and visitor parking, you could put it into the type of situation where .you had a lot 200 feet away. He did not think it was a good progre~n for development of this kind. In answer to a question from Mr. Atchley, Mr. Benson did not see that it would be much of a problem to reduce the number of front stalls from 15 to 8. Commissioner Christensen recommended denial of Case 77-50 - based on the fact that the commission does not believe that parking should in fact be on the Winnetka side of the building; (2) because of traffic considerations they believe this will create even more of a dangerous condition than n~w exists on Winnetka; (3) that there is no way to literally enforce the visitor parking versus the employee parking on the Winnetka side of the buildingS (4) no way for prospective parkers to see if the lot is actually full~ unless they drive in and then have the problem of turning around$ (5) basically that even though they do fall within the ordinance with 36% green space~ it appears to him that there would be a way to allow a little more green space and/or provide parking i~ a different part of the building site. Second by araigie. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen~ Craigie, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson. Voting against: None. Absent: Gustafson. Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - JUNE 7, 1977 10o PLANNING CASE 77-51 - REQUEST FOR REZONING, PUD, VARIANCES~ CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 8000 BASS LAKE ROAD - ST. THERESE HOME, PETITIONER. Mr. Richard Ludwig, Administrator of St. Therese Home, and Mr. Harry Bolin,~rchitect with the firm of Hammill, Bissell, Green, represented the petitioner. Mr. Ludwig stated that they presently have 302 beds in the nursing home and have a 99.7 occupancy rate. When the facility was planned ten years ago it was planned as a full service facility. There now appears to be a need for semi-independent living for the elderly. They are now proposing to construct a retirement housing facility for the elderly. The facility would have 220 apartments, 130 one bedroom of 600 square feet and 90 two bedroom of 900 square feet. There will be 72 covered spaces and additional staff and visitor parking provided. Mr. Bolin made a presentation using various illustrations and site plans of the proposal. 'The structure will be 8 storeis high and have central dining facilities. There will also be facilities for arts/crafts an exercise room, party room, library, tenant storage, small chapel and storage and lounge facilities on each floor. There will be approximately 40 units on each floor. There will be security in the build- ing -- ground floor and adjacent to terrace apartments will also have burglar alarms. It will-be possible to purchase one meal a day. There will be a key operated security system monitored by a TV monitor at the major entrances to the building. The development will require variances in density and in parking requirements. The MR zone requires 2,200 feet of lot area for one bedroom units and 2,800 feet for two bedroom units. Under the proposed elderly requirements in the new Ordinance they anticipate requiring 1000 square feet per dwelling unit. This project would provide about 1650 square feet pem dwelling unit.' They intend to provide 33% parking space° Hud recommends 25%. Chairman Cameron noted that the commission must first seriously consider whether or not this project is an apartment building or an extension of the nursing home. Mr. Ludwig noted that St. Therese was a "not for profit" establishment. The Chairman noted that in the past they had talked about "beds" and now were talking about"dwelling units~ He questioned what assurances the City would have that the dwelling units would not be turned into regular apartments in the future. He confirmed that there was no federal funding involved and that the Board of Directors could control use. What criteria would, be used for occupancy? What would be the definition of elderly? What would happen if three or four years from now a good portion of the units were unoccupied? Mr. Ludwig stated he was sure that the Board would be wiliing to offer the City a private covenant that the units would not be changed to other than elderly housing. Ne added that 15% of the units were already spoken for. Elderly would be classified as 65 years or older and State law required that 5% of the units be provided for handicapped. The Chairman suggested that the petitioners present something to the Council stating what their criteria for renting would be -- age, income, etc. He felt this should be part of the public record. New Hope needed .some assurances that this ~ould remain elderly and not be converted to.a "swinging singles" com- plex needing more parking. Mro Ludwig noted that they were probably going to require meal service as part of the program. Commissioner London noted that he might be in favor of some document between St. Therese and the City -- but was more concerned about determining whether or not this' was an apartment complex or special housing for the elderly. What kinds of services will they provide that set it apart from other dwelling units. Hequestioned whether the one meal a day requirement was sufficient to set it apart from other complexes. He further questioned what kinds of things would make this more of a nursing home than a regular apart- ment building? Commissioner Craigie noted that the meal was an important factor but rooms for .Sealth inspection and the opportunity for minor care without being in a nursing home was also important. ' Commissioner London further questioned whether this project was going to offer such services that would be unique to the elderly? Mr. Ludwig stated that $49,000 had been budgeted for 7 day a week, 8 hour a day, public health nursing with space to be provided for doctors to come in to conduct physical examinations. Co~z~issioner London stated he was concerned that this not be just a complex of 226 units instead of a complex that would provide the services that the elderly are really in need of. Brief discussion held concerning the apartment complex moratorium, the definition of elderly housing and the dangers of low occupancy causing the building to be converted to another use. HR. Ludwig noted that the probable rents would be approximately $400 a month for a single unit and $500 for'a double unit, not including meals. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - JUNE ~, 1977 Chairman Cameron noted that the City, if the project were approved, was giving awag a trememdous variance and needed guarantees regarding the purpose of the complex. Mr. Bolin indicated that if this project were considered as an elderly project, under the propose d zoning ordinance, the~ would not have any problems with variances. The Citg Manager stated that the new Ordinance provided for one for three parking spaces in elderly, with Commissioner Christensen noting that a variance would still be required. Mr. Ludwig stated they did not want to see the entire area blacktopped. Commissioner Anderson asked whether there was a difference in the moratorium -- whether the apartment was for elderly or not? Commissioner Christensen stated he would like to see what St. Therese was going to submit to prive that these were different from regular apartments before he decided. He was further conceraed about the park- ing and the dangers for visitors and residents attempting to cross Bass Lake Road on foot to get to the '~partments. He did not see how the Commission could approve the project with conditions, He felt they _should first review the proposal and that the City Attorne~ should also review. Commissioner London asked for the definition of a nursing home as in the ordinance. Was there a diff- erence between an elderly apartment and an apartment building? The Citg Manager read the definition from the new Ordinance. Nursing Home (Rest Home) A building having accommodations where care is provided for two (2) or more invalids, infirmed, aged or convalescent persons that are not of the immediate family; but not including hospitals, clinics, sanitariums or similar insti- tutions. Commissioner London asked whether elderly apartments were not within the ordinance since this could not be considered a nursing home? How could theg determine without further information regarding classifi- cation of the project. Commissioner Christensen stated this was his concern also. He did not dislike the proposal but was con- cerned with what the City was getting in terms of guarantees, and was also very concerned about the parking. Mr. Ludwig stated that he felt the motion could include that the project would have to'have the approval 'of the City Attorney. He did not see why they should have to come back before the Commission. Commissioner Christensen stated that it was then his feeling that they would have to move for denial; it was Mr. Ludwig's choice. The City Manager clarified that it was Commissioner Christensen's and the Commission's contention that if it was strictly for eldertg and met the City's request for guarantees, the project was acceptable, and the Commission saw no further problems. Commissioner Christensen stated he agreed with the concept if the City receives guarantees that it would remain elderly. Additional discussion followed ~egarding the parking requirements for the suburbs versus Citg projects where bus service was avilable and the need for additional parking for people who would probabl~ have cars.. Mr. Bolin noted that it was his feeling that, if there was a way to resolve the problem of the parking, thew would be willing to look at it. A citizen noted that hi~ mother2in-law lived at the Heritage Home, and there had never been a problem with a parking there, that he had observed. Mr. Ludwig stated he would like to seek approval of the plan with stipulations. Co~issioner Christensen noted that the height was a potential problem although he did not personally have a problem wi~h this. Brief discussion followed regarding the proposed height of the building and fire protection. The City Manager noted that they had exceeded the requirements for internal protection in the building and that the height was less than the designation of high rise according to State Code. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of ?Case 77-51 - Construction Approval, Rezoninq, PUD, andVariances at 8000 Bass Lake ~oad -with the stipulation that before the Council meeting the petitioner PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 10 - JUNE 7, 1977 would submit to Mr. Larson a letter oulininq...specifically, that they,, in effect are going to ~3rovide housing for the elderly, that they will note this by age and stating that it is their intent for here and after to utilize this as an elderly project. Parking expansion should be further indicated, as well as any other requirements deemed necessary by the City staff. This is further contingent upon City acceptance of these specifications as required by the City Attorney. Commissioner Bartos second. commissioner Anderson questioned the combination of the height and the setbacks and the total use of the site. He further questioned why the pmoposal needed to be so extensive? Mr. Ludwig noted that this was the plan that seemed to best suit the site, blending both architecturally and physically with the existing nursing home. Voting-in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson Motion carried. ll. CASE 77-52 - CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL WITH PARKING VARIANCE- 8801 BASS LAKE ROAD Park Ed.qe Construction Compan.v~ Petitioner. Mr. Bertram Getsug represented the Country Club Market. He was accompanied by Mr. Bob Noss, super- visor of the Country Club Markets. They are proposing to build a 36 x 140 foot addition to the existing building. The store will be Bl~ 841 square feet, with the addition. They are requesting a variance in parking because they pro- pose only 153 parking spaces. They plan to relocate the existing entrance farther to the west'. The county seems to agree with this position. l~e existing s~n is to be removed. Discussion the centered on the parking lot, and the fact that code requires that blacktop be three feet back from the street line. Also discussed was the fact that the lot is also blacktopped up to the lot line to the west. Mr. Getsug stated they planned to put a two foot curb next to Bass Lake Road. Discussion about the lack of' landscaping in front of the store. Mr. Noss seemed to feel that any plants would be killed by salt and snow if they were placed this close to Bass L~ke Road. · In answer to a question from Co,missioner Christensen regarding the elimination of some of the parking spaces.versus the addition to the store to improve its function. Mr. Noss stated he did not feel the additional parking spaces were needed because of the change in shopping patterns that have developed in the last few years. Past experience has proven that thelpark~ng has been more than adequate. They do not wanv to introduce any moisture under the blacktop. Discussion covered the sign on the west and its removal and the fact that a variance ~ight be re- ' quired on a new sign. The Chairman noted that with any change in the signs, the signs would have to conform to the sign ordinance. The City Manager noted that the signs should have been under conformance as of February 1, 1977. A total sign plan must be submitted for the property. ¢on~nissioner Christensen noted that at D and R there had been discussion about the need for a ~,land~ scape plan. He had not seen one previous to this meeting. Mr. Getsug noted that the plan distributed was color coded as to type of tree. Discussion the covered the soil conditions (very wet), the need for some landscaping on the site because of the total lack of green area along Bass L~ke Road, ~nd the need for a sign plan to be presented to the City. Co~missioner Christensen recommended denial of C~se ??-52 because~ while the Commission did not feel that the parking variance was that great~ the landscape plan was totally inadequate. Commissioner Craigie second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos. Christensen, Atchley, Craigie, Cameron, Gundershaug. Voting against: None. Absent: Gustaf son. Motion carried° NEW BUSINESS l~. Consensus of the co~mission was that the hour was too ~ate~ tO make a decision on this matter at this meeting. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 12:$~ p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 1977 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 5, 1977 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. by Chairman Cameron 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Christensen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: Atchley(excused), Craigie (excused), Bartos, Gustafson PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.PLANNING CASE 77-52 - CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL - 8001 BASS LAKE ROAD ~ PARK EDGE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. Mr. Bertram Getsug represented Park Edge Construction. The City Manager noted that the Council,'at its meeting on June 25th, had approved the construction plans for the Country Club Market, providing that the new landscape plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission. The plans had gone through Design and Review last week. Mr. Getsug noted that he felt the final plan reflected the changes recommended by the Design and Review Committee. They had changed the type of trees from Russian Olive to Schwedler Maple. The trees will be of a 2~" caliper and be back from the sidewalk five feet. Co=m~issioner Christensen noted that Design and Review had reviewed the plan and it appeared to him that the petitioner had gone along with the suggestions of the landscape arc.~itect. In answer to a question from the Chairman, it was noted that the landscape architect had stated that it was his opinion that this proposed type of tree would withstand the salt and snow problems of Bass Lake Road. Commissioner London noted that the landscape architect had further stated that the proposed trees would meet the minimum height requirement. Discussion followed on the need to keep the trees alive and whether the City had any control over insur- ing this. The City Manager stated that most landscape firms provided a one growing year guarantee. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to recommend approval of Case 77-52, as it pertained to the land- scape plan, with the stipulation that there be filed with the City, a one year growing guarantee. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Gustafson Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 77-50 - CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WINPARK DRIVE AND WINNETKA - BENSON- ORTH, PETITIONER. Mr. Ken Benson, Of Benson-Orth, distributed revised plans to the Commissioners. He noted that the plans had been changed to remove the site access from Winnetka Avenue; they now retain 36~ green area; the front elevation had been changed; they are providing more of a wood effect on the exterior of the build- ing to blend into the residential neighborhood; have provided more landscaping to screen the parking; aud have reduced the ~oading docks to five. Discussion then covered the "front" of the building; the employee parking area; how the "no employee parking" could be enforced for the Winnetka lot; and the potential nolse problem. Commissioner Christensen noted that in reviewing the minutes of the last Planning Commission meeting when this request had been denied, the concerns expres~edin regard to the denial, had in his opinion still not been resolved. The access had been moved but there was still parking planned for the Winnetka Avenue side of the building. He questioned how the building had been re-positioned to provide the required 36~ green area? Mr. Benson noted that the property was zoned industrial and with industrial property you would have to expect some truck traffic, and some noise. The building had been shifted on the site to provide more green area to the south. Commissioner London agreed that the same problem still existed with parking in the "front" of the build- ing. Ne felt that Winnetka was the "front". Ne questioned whether there was sufficient room for the semi trucks to get in and out of the loading area on the east side? Co~m~issioner Christensen stated that, in his opinion, it was the responsibility of the Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 2 ~ JULY 5, 1977 4. only to review the building plans and determine whether there was too much building for the site. The side benefits or non-benefits of the proposal were the Council's responsibility. He personally was still concerned with the parking on Winnetka. In response to a question from the Chairman the City Manager stated that the one problem appeared to be the parking on Winnetka; whether the parking lot would be used by employees as well as visitors, no variances were being requested° Commissioner Anderson stated that with a small lot he did not see the problem as too severe. That the problem was more one of scale -- with only ten spaces, did it make a difference who parked on the west side, since the lot would be small. Discussion then covered the fact that in previous cases, "front parking" had been an issue and in some cases, cause for denial of a planning request. Also covered were the direction the trucks would take in and out, and whether or not there was room for them to maneuver; and the limited turn around space in the front parking lot as proposed. Mr. Benson stated that with 14 stalls, only two tenants in the building and with two of the stalls on Winnetka reserved for the handicapped, he did not see how it would be a problem. He added that they had considered alternatives but had felt that the grade made it impractical to put the visitor parking at the rear of the site. Mrs. Winnie Fernstrom, 3433 Winnetka, questioned the actual size of the building (49,800 sq. ft), the number of loading docks - why five when most area businesses had only 2 or 3, and whether a sidewalk would be provided, and if so, would it take away from the green area? The City Manager responded that the ordinance provided for a sidewalk but that this would not infringe upon the green area since it would go in the road right-of-way. Discussion then covered the truck dock area, how many trucks could be expected to be there at one time, and the anticipated amount of truck traffic in and out at one time. Mr. Benson stated it was his opinion that there was ample room for the trucks to turn and maneuver. He anticipated that the second tenant would be of a warehouse type, that the second space had 25,800 sq. ft. plus 2,400 sq.ft, office space. He hopes there will be only a single tenant as the building had not been designed to be flexible and added that United Noodle would utilize three loading zones and the other tenant two. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Benson stated that with the re-positioning of the driveway, the landscaping would, in effect, be transposed from the plan illustration. Discussion then covered the possibility of reducing the number of parking ~paces on Winnetka; the need for provisions for handicapped parking at the rear of the building to accommodate employees; the dis- tance of the structure from Winnetka Avenue (35' from the south el, and 65~ from the north el), and the need for exterior refuse areas to be screened. Commissioner London moved to reco~end approval of Case 77-50, Construction Plans for a building, a~ Winpark Drive and Winnetka, subject to the following conditions: 1) That at the northwest entrance, at Winpark Drive, signs be posted stating the lot was for "visitors only" and that no truck traffic was allowed. 2) That the number of parking spaces in the Winnetka lot be reduced to 10 and that provision be made to allow turning, around. 3) That handicapped, parking be designated at the rear of the building also. 4) Any refuse containers would be either interior or,if exterior, screened. 5) .That additiona~ parking spaces be provided in the rear of the parking lot to make up for those removed from the Winnetka lot. Commissioner Anderson second. Commissioner Christensen expressed his concern for the fact that the Commission had previously denied this proposal and had now reversed itself and was willing to accept it. He was still not in favor of the proposal because the reasons for denial had still not been resolved. Commissioner Anderson noted that at this time, the petitioner was requesting no variances. ~-~ Commissioner London stated that they had alleviated the traffic problem, changed the access, and agreed to post the parking lot for "visitors only" and had provided a turning area in the Winnetka lot and upped the green space. Voting in favor: London, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: Christensen Absent: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Gustafson. Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -~3 - JULY 5, 1977 5. PLANNING CASE 77-42 - CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL - NEVADA AVENUE CUL-DU-SAC - F AND W PROPERTIES, PETITIONER. Mr. John Pope, represented the F and W Properties. He noted that they had made changes to the plan since their first appearance before the Design and Review Committee. The parking in the front and side yard had been reduced to 11 spaces and employee parking is planned for the rear and side yar. The plans also indicate the truck maneuvering radius ~and 35% green area is provided. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that the structure will be a 24,000 square foot warehouse with 2,756 additional office space. Refuse containers will be enclosed on the west side. There is no sign plan at this time, but the petitioner is aware of the Citg's ordinance. Any roof top equipment will be screened . There will be four truck berths and a five foot-sidewalk around to the east and south from the office area. The parking area will have either concrete curbing or concrete wheel stops and there will be a handicapped ramp to the front door, near the handicapped stalls. Discussion then covered the designated front of the building. Mr. P6pe stated that he would prefer that the arc on the Nevada Avenue cui-du-sac he considered the front -- this would place only four parking spaces in the front for visitor parking. Also reviewed were the lighting fixtures(surface mounted); the provision for truck maneuvering; and the fact that Mr. Pope felt that 11 spaces for visitor parking was inappropriate for the type of use planned. He stated that there was sufficient area to provide more visitor parking, if the need developed. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 77-42 - Construction Approval - with the following stipulations: 1) That the landscape plan be better labeled when the plan is presented to Council. 2) That the four parking spaces on the east lot, within the 50 foot setback, be labeled for "visitors only". 3;j That the handicapped ramp be moved nearer to the spaces in the east parking lot. 4) That an additional handicapped space be provided on the south side of the building to accon~odate the potential handicapped employee with a ramp to allow entrance to thm side door. Co~issioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Cameron, Cundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Atchleg, Craigie, Gustafson Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 77-53 - WAIVER OF PLATTING ORDINANCE - OLSON INDUSTRr~ PARK - STABEN COMPANY, PETITIONER. The City Manager stated that Mr. Bob Olson, of the Staben Company, had called late in the day stating that an unexpected conflict had occurred so he could not attend. Mr. Larson had agreed to present 'the request with the understanding that it would be tabled if questions developed. Mr. Larson stated that the building had been approved a year ago, with a site plan that included more than one lot. The plat was reviewed with Mr. Larson pointing out changes in easements and the placement of the building. Commissioner London recommended approval of Case 77-53 - Waiver of Platting at 5000 Hillsboro - to place an extra 60 feet on to Lot 1. Co~issioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Atchleg, Craigie, Gustafson. Motion carried. ~. PLANNING CASE 77-54 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIDEYARD SETBACK - 6001 RHODE ISLAND - KENNETH POSER, PETITIONER. Mr. Poser stated he was requesting the sideyard variance because he had only 20 feet on the side of his house and if he built with the setback requirements he would be to close to permit access to the garage. He plans to construct a 22 x 24 square foot garage. The exterior will be basically the same as the house, painted the same color. In response to a question from the Chairman regarding the possibility of facing the garage toward 60th, ~r. Poser stated he had considered this, but it would requ/re removing the only major shade tree on his propert~ and he already had a driveway toward Rhode Island. He added that he intended to use the garage only for storage and his own vehicles. No repairs would be conducted except on his own equipment, lawn mowers, etc. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - JULY 5, 1977 7o In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, he stated that the house would be approximatelg 16 feet from the garage. Commissioner Anderson recommended approval of Case 77-54 - Request for Variance in Rearyard Setback - subject to the building materials and color matching the house and that the garage not be used for any commercial ventures. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Gustafson Motion passed. 8. pLANNING CASZ 77-55 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACKS - 5313 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE - ROGER GR~GG~ PETITIONER. Mr. Griggsstated he wished to position his beautiful storage building within the required setback. He felt the structure was an asset to the n~ighborhood and his neighbors had agreed. He added that he had ~ignatures from his neighbors stating they liked it. The building is unattached, on leveling blocks, of wood and of good design characteristics. It adds to the neighborhood, in his opinion, and his request is that he be allowed to finish it off and leave it where it now is. He does not have a garage and needs the storage space. Commissioner Anderson questioned what the problem had been -- was it lack of a building permit, or what were the nature of the complaints that had been received about the building? Mr~riggs stated he had not thought he needed a building permit. He had placed the building in a position · similar to others he had observed in the City. The City Manager noted that the building was located too close to the lot lineo In answer to a question from Commissloner London, Mr~Higgs~ stated he wanted the storage building where it is now located, because of the beautiful trees that were also an asset to the neighborhood. He further stated that he felt the trees in the easement would be a greater liability to utility companies than his shed. Mr° Ivan Krueger, 5306 Pennsylvania Avenue, stated he was concerned about preserving the neighborhood. He stated that there are storage structures in the neighborhood that are being added on to, and not being taken care of. He felt that Hr~riggs's: structure was not compatible with the house design, and the or- dinance reads that buildings should be compatible to the house. It is a nice looking building but does not blend with the house. It is also located in the easement. He felt if it was so beautiful, why didn't Mr~riggs put it closer to his house. Mr. Jeffrey Ames, 5307 Pennsylvania, had some questions about the code and what the City would do if he ob- jected to the structure. The Chairman noted that once a variance was granted, a neighbor's objection could not force removal of the structure. The City Manager noted that the Planning Commission only recommended action that the Council had the final approval of variance requests, etc. In answer to a question from Mr. Ames, regarding the parking of recreational vehicles, the Chairman noted that the City could not help him if he had an objection, unless a nuisance factor was involved. Mr. Ames noted that he was the only person that the storage building directly affected and while he did not really object to the building or its location, he did have some problems with the fact that Hr. Grigg's sailboat was parked next to his bedroom window. He wondered whether he could reach a gentlemen"s agreement with Mr.Grigg about the sailboat and the storage shed. The Chairman noted that if the building were moved just a few feet, then no one would be able to object to its position in the Mr. Todd Krueger,5306 Pennsylvania, wondered if the neighbors could object if the building were not kept up and then petition for its removal? The Chairman noted that they could file a complaint with the City, but it was his opinion that the City could not get into the business of deciding when a structure needed maintenance if it met City Code and was on private property. ~'~ Commissioner Christensen questioned the need for the variance, why it was requested? The fact that the building was beautiful didn't make any difference in his opinion. M~.Griggs noted that was his observance that other storage buildings in the area were just as close to lot lines, as identified by fence lines, as his. He wanted the shed in that location because of his trees. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - JULY 5, 1977 8. and for the maximum utilization of the space. He also needed storage space. Commissioner Christensen commented on the fact that Mr.G~gg~ had selected the location, but that there were other areas in the yard that would accommodate the shed. Mr. Grigg. answered that not only in his neighborhood but in other neighborhoods, he knew that sheds had been located as close to, if not closer than, his shed was to the lot line. Discussion followed about variances for storage shed and the ones that had been granted in the past and th~ fact that this shed might not have come to the attention of the Commission if it had not been because of a complaint made to the City. Also discussed was the fact that you could not consider only one storage shed without taking the chance of dealing with all other sheds in the City and their locations. Mr. Ivan Kruegercommented that he felt that the Commission should be concerned with preserving the ordinance. Commissioner Anderson recommended denial of Case 77-55 - Request for Variance in Backward S~tback for a Storage Building. Commissioner London second. Commissioner London stated he would vote for denial because he believed there were other remedies and no hardship had been shown. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Gundershaug Voting against: Cameron, Anderson Absent: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Gustafson Motion carried. 9. PLANNING CASE 77-56 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 2857 LOUISIANA AVENUE - BENSON-ORTH, PETITIONER. Mr. Ken Benson stated he was requesting approval of the building for Gopher Glove Company. The building is composed of 12,370 square feet, 28% building coverage, 27% parking area and 34% green area. Parking is indicated as space for 22 vehicles. They plan to provide tl spaces now, with 'space for the other 11 being provided, if they prove to be necessary. The company will have seven employees and will be strictly a warehousing operation. The gloves are manu- factured in Wisconsin. The office area is approximately 1200 square feet. The building will be built of giant structural brick (interior and exterior the same with a vermiculite core fill). The block portions will be of a single score type. There will be one loading dock. Commissioner Christensen commented that the biggest problem was the land distribution. The site is just under one acre and would require a variance. The City Manager noted that there will be a Waiver of Platting Request before the Commission at the August meeting. The Commission should not act officially until the plat can also be considered. In answer to questions from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Benson stated that there would not be a great deal of truck traffic; the rubbish containers would be emplosed; and there will be only eeven employees. There will be wall-mounted lighting fixtures and he was aware of the New Hope Sign Ordinance. In regard to the brick wall near the front entrance, Mr. Benson stated he felt it would be preferable, from a safety · . · and security standpoint, to use landscaping rather than the wall. Brief discussion 'regarding Louisiana Avenue and the residences on the Crystal side. The City Manager noted that the two cities are in the process of finalizing agreements for the surfacing of L~uisiana Avenue. Discussion then covered the fact that the parcel was part of a larger parcel that was to be divided, what might be devleoped on the other portion of the property and the type of landscaping proposed for this site. Commissioner Gundershaug commented that he would like to see the shrubbery continued on to the driveway, with some type of low shrub. The City Manager stated that when the property was platted, the City would require boulevard trees if done by a formal plat. Discussion followed about easements and the access problems of the back portion of the lot. Concensus was that the building was satisfactory, assuming the easement problems, and the potential variance problem, could be solved. Commissioner Christensen moved to table Case 77-56 until August 2, 1977 in order to consider the ~lattin~ ~uestion together with the development. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Atchley, Craigie, Gustafson Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - JULY 5, 1977 OTHER BUSINESS 10.) lheCitg Manager commented that inasmuch as these three items were mainlg discussion items, it might 11.; be wise to wait until the full Commission was present. 12.; The Chairman referred to the Community Core Guidelines and questioned what their function was and what the approach of the City would be in regard to them. The Cit~ Manager answered that, in his opinion, they should be used only as guidelines. COMMITTEE REPORTS 13. There was no report from the Land Use Coa~ittee. 14. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 15. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Co~ittee. NEW BUSINESS 16. The Council minutes of June 13th, and June 27th, were reviewed bg the Citg Manager. 17o The Commission minutes of June 7th, were accepted as printed. 18. Commissioner London commented that he wished to state his feeling that the Chairman of the Design and Review Committee was being taken advantage of because he was too lenient. He referred to the fact that Design and Review meeting dates were pre-set and the increasing requests from both petitioners and the City Council for special meetings. He felt that often Commissioner Christensen was the only one able to attend these meetings. This placed an additional burden on him and he felt it was not fair to missioner Christensen. The Chairman referred to the buses and other equipment parked on the site of the CrystalEvangelical Church. He requested that the City Manager follow up on this problem. ~-~ The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. by unanimous consent. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 2, 1977 1. A regular meeting of the Plannin9 Commission was held on Tuesday, August 2, 1977 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson. Absent: Bartos, Gundershaug, Anderson .. Anderson arrived at 7:39 p.m. and Gundershaug arrived at 8:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS '3. PLANNING CASE 77-57 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING ORDINANCE - 2857 LOUISIANA AVENUE NORTH - BLAINE CAREY, PETITIONER. Mr. Carey stated he was requesting a waiver of platting for his property on Louisiana Aven~e just north of Auto Sound. The site is 400 square feet short of one acre. He noted that there was no way he could enlarge the site~and he needed a variance on the lot size. commissioner London expressed his concern with the long narrow lot remaining if this waiver were granted, as well as the road easement now in existence. He also noted the property where the two homes were presently located depended upon this road for access. He suggested that should the home site be con- verted to industrial use the road would not be adequate for trucks. Mr. Carey responded that the long parcel, as shown on the survey, was not correct. It was two lots and the western portion had been sold to witcher Construction. Company. The remainder of the front lot would be combined and sold with the six acres to the north. Commissioner London was concerned with the "if" nature of this development and noted that the Commission had to look at the ~£fect of the Waiver of Platting on the other properties. Discussion then covered the possibility of moving the road easement to the north, the extension of Nevada Avenue, the access problems to the lots where the houses were located and whose responsibility the upkeep of the road easement was. The City Manager stated that the City was not involved in the access, it was strictly a private matter. He added that he had spoken to the owner of the homes, Robert Short, who had indicated that he was in favor of the suggested R-3 zoning as per the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion then centered on the division of the road easement and how the costs of the maintenance were divided~ Also discussed was the advisability of tabling this request until all of the owners could combine their requests. Mr. Carey stated that he was requesting the size variance for only the one lot. He added that Mr. Ken Benson was present and represented the future lessee of the property. Mr. Benson wishes to construct a warehouse on the site. Mr. Carey indicated that he was willing that the Commission impose the res- triction of joining the narrow lot with the parcel to the north, before development could proceed on that parcel. Discussion then held between Commissioner Christensen and Mr. Benson regarding Planning Case 77-56, the green area as proposed and the parking spaces to be provided. Mr. Benson confirmed that they propose 44~ green area and were requesting a variance to allow only 11 parking spaces. Commissioner London moved to recommend approval of Planninq Case 77-57 - Waiver of Plattin~ with Vari- ance in Lot Size, with the stipulation that the remainder of the parcel to the north of the easement be combined with the north 6.3 acres. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson Voting against: None Abstain: Gundershaug Absent: Bartos Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 77-56 (CONTINUED FROM 7-5-77) REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT 2857 LOUISIANA AVENUE - BENSON-ORTH, PETITIONER. Mr. Ken Benson noted ~hat there had been no changes in the plans since his appearance before the Commis- sion. He added that the 44~ green area proposed was the proportion even if 22 parking spaces were pro- vided. The building will be 12,320 square ~eet, the proposed occupant has seven employees, and the building will be used as a warehouse/distribution center. The structure covers 28% of the land area PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - AUGUST 2', 1977 with parking proposed for 2~. Commissioner Christensen referred ~o-the minutes Of the July '5th, meeting stating theg should be corrected since they indicated that the building would be 12,370 square feet and that the green space would be only 34%. He added that the parking requirement for the building was 22 spaces, but because of the small number of employees, the petitioner was proposing to provide eleven, with space for pansion of eleven if they were needed at a future time. Mr. Benson noted that these facts were indicated on the plat plano Commissioner Christensen then confirmed with Mr. Benson that refuse containers would be by the dock and screened with appropriate materials; that there will be one sign, meeting the City Sign Ordinance; that the roof top equipment, if any, will be screened; that there will be no retail sales; that light- ing will consist of exterior wall packs; parking bumpers will be provided; the entire front of the building will be sodded, and the area from the front building setback line to the rear will be seededB Discussion then centered on the proposed landscaping° Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether they tended to continue the lanscaping along the drive to provide additional screening for the homes on the east side of Louisiana Avenue? Also noted was the lack of an architect's signature on the plans. Mr. Benson stated their intention was to plant Russian Olive trees and American Cranberry bushes as noted on the plan. He further suggested that perhaps they should provide some Austrian Pine since the cranberry bushes were low growing. Commissioner Christensen recommended apnroval of Case 77-56 - Construction Approval - with the sti$ulam tion that the plans be finalized and siqned by a registered architect before they are presented to the City Council and that the landscaping along the front be extended north to the drive to provide a screen for the residences. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson- Voting.against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 77-58 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 5828 AQUILA AVENUE NORTH - WILFRED REIMANN,'PETITIONER. Mr. Reimann stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to extend his garage to within 3'9" of the lot line. His present garage is 16' x 22' and he wishes to enlarge it to 20' x 28~. He added that the garage is located behind the house and it is difficult now to get the cars in and out. Commissioner Gustafson noted'that Mr. Reimann also required a rear yard variance since the garage would be within 11' of the.rear line. He inquired about the use Mr. Reimann makes of the two garages? Mr. Reimann responded that they were used for storage of equipment and vehicles and that the space would not be used for a home occupation. The siding and the color of the proposed garage will be the same as the house. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the principal reason for the variance was so that the turn into the garage would not he so great. In response to questions from Commissioner London regarding the attached garage, Mr. Reimann stated he had no immediate plans to change the use, but perhaps in the future he would use the space as a room. Commissioner Gustafson recommended approval of Case 77-58 - Request for Variances in gideyard and Rear- yard Setbacks - subject to the placing of the garage no closer than 12 feet from the rear lot line and 3'9" from the side lot line and that the color and siding would match the existing house. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent:' Bartos Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 77-59 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 8201 28TH AVENUE NORTH - W. J. OLIVER, PETITIONER. Mr~ Oliver presented pictures for the Commission to review of his proposal to build a wooden deck on the side of the duplex. They would like to build out 11' from the house and the lot line is only 16' from the house. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Oliver stated that his father was the owner of the property, that there was not a door from the dwelling to the rear, only from the garage and that he was not aware of any palns to build a similar deck on the other side of the dwelling. PI~NNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - AUGUST 2; 1977 6. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to Approve Case 77-59 - Variance in Sideqard Setback to Permit Construction of a Wooden Deck. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Abstain; London Absent: Bartos Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 77-60 -.REQUEST FOR PUD APPROVAL AT 4025 JORDAN AVENUE - TOM ~ILDER, PETITIONER. Mr. Wilder stated that the property was zoned MR and tha~ he was requesting approval for a Pud for con- struction of a duplex with a variance to allow him to move the garage farther back on the property, toward #18. He stated that he would own the dwelling and occupy one side. It will be an approximately $90,000 dwelling of Spanish design. Commissioner London noted that the main concern of the Design and Review Committee had been with the landscaping. Mr. Wilder replied that the sidewalks had been added and that the cedar fence at the rear of the property would be similar to the fence on the adjacent property. He presented a copy of the landscape plan to the Commissioners and stated he would include shrubs and small fir trees. The evergreens will be 5' in height. The City Manager noted that there was no specific, requirement regarding landscaping with a PUD in refer- ence to size of planting, but that a 2%" caliper is suggested. He added that setbacks could be changed under a PUD, if the change is approved as part of the PUD. Mr. Wilder stated that this dwelling is basically the same as his previous double bungalow (Case 77-35) with the exception that it is larger and the elevation had been changed. The site will be sodded. Commissioner London made a motion to approve the PUD request in Case 77-60, as submitted on 8/2/77, with the revisions in the landscaping and sidewalk. Commissioner Atchleu second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Cameron Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 77-61 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN AT 4950 COUNTY ROAD #18 - DOUGLAS MOE ARCHITECT, PETITIONER. Mr. Moe represented the owner, Hewitt Peterson. He stated they were requesting a free standing pylon sign that would be ground lighted. The sign would have only numbers (4950). In addition they would like to position numbers above the overhead doors, to give access~for deliveries. Each tenant would also have a 2' x 2'6" identification sign (inside and outside of the building) giving the address they had been assigned. There will be no large building signs. The signage will he controlled by the owners. The pylon sign will be of smooth concrete block. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Case 77-61 - Comprehensive Siqn Plan - at 4950 County Road #18. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against~ None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. 9. PLANNING CASE 77-62 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN PLAN WITH VARIANCE AT 8821 SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE - LITTON MICROWAVE, PETITIONER. ds. Diane Sarenpa represented Litton Company. She stated they were requesting a variance on the size of the letters of their proposed sign from 8" to 16" because they felt the sign was difficult to see from Boone Avenue, for drivers making deliveries. The logo would be the same size as the letters. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with Ms. Sarenpa that the sign would be positioned within City guide- lines. Ms. Sarenpa added that the proposed sign was in the same proportions as the signs at their facilities in Plymouth. Commissioner Christensen corm~ented on the lack of a "proof of hardship" in this variance request. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 -- AUGUST 2~, 1977 9. Discussion then centered on the fa~t that the sign was located on Science Center Drive; whether or not the sign could he moved to Boone A~enue; the fact there, were already directional signs on the site~ and the fact that after a time, the truck drivers would he aware of where they were to make deliveries. The Chairman commented that, in his opinion, a reason had not been shown to grant the variance° Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recommend denial of Case 77-62 - Request for Variance in Letter Size on Sign at Litton Microwave Company - with the suggestion that the petitioner review the site place° ment of the sign between now and the City Council meeting and give some consideration to a different location for the sign to facilitate the need of the truck drivers to locate the building. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Following discussion, Commissioner Gustafson amended his motion to state that the reason for the denial was that the petitioner had not sufficiently indicated a hardship to justify granting the variance.in letter size. Commissioner Gundershauq second. The Construction Manager of the remodeling project stated that he was the one who had received com- plaints from the truck drivers when they were delivering supplies and this was the reason for the request for larger letter size on the sign. The Chairman stated he did not see why they could not position the sign on Boone. He further suggested that the petitioner check the City Sign Ordinance to determine if two signs would be legal in order to have a sign on both Boone Avenue and Science Center Drive. Voting on the combined motion. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. 10. PLANNING CASE 77-63 - CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL WITH SCREENING VARIANCE AT 9390 27th AVENUE NORTH - NEW HOPE FAMILY CLINIC, PETITIONER. Dr. Phillip Worrell represented the clinic. He noted that he was accompanied by the architect Mr. Jerry Mundt and Dr. James Hasteader, his associate. They are requesting approval of a construction addition with a screening variance. The clinic was ori- ginally a home that has been remodeled for the clinic. The additional space would be for Drs. Hasteader and Dennis. They are requesting the screening variance because the topography of the site does not fit in with a lot line fence. They propose landscaping in lieu of specific screening. There is a drainage easement along the north and east side of the property that needs to be maintained which prohibits the changing of the grade. Dr. Worrell stated that because of the drop in elevation, they did not feel a five foot fence would be practical. In response to questions from Commissioner London, the architect noted that the landscape plan had been revised and indicated that there would now be radiant crab trees of a 2%" diameter on the north and west (15 feet on center) property lines, the rest of the landscaping would consist of iow type shrubs along the foundation and sign. There are existing Spruce and Elm trees on the property. Commissioner London confirmed that roughly 52% of the lot would be green area ~nd that the blacktop would cover approximately 40%. He questioned why the parking areas had been split? Mr. Mundt stated that the existing driveway and parking would be for the patient's use. The garage at the back of the home would be demolished. They are adding parking for staff. There will be a total of 32 spaces. The lots cannot be combined because of the grade differential between the lots. In answer to questions from Commissioner London, Dr. Worrell noted that they did not at present have definite plans for the basement space, other than that at least half of the space would be used for their own storage. Commissioner London noted that future expansion into the basement area or f~ture additions would bably increase the requirements for parking spaces and Dr. Worrei1 should be aware of this. Two walls of the structure will be re-sided. The home style of the building will be retained and there will he no roof top equipment. There will be a screened refuse enclosure on the lower level and ~he front will be re-sodded following construction° Commissioner London reminded Dr. Worrell that the City had a Sign Ordinance which must be adhered to. ~-~ Commissioner Christensen noted that the parking requirements were one space for every 125 square feet ~f building, and they now needed 25. He added that he wished the petitioner to be ~ware that if the lower floor were opened up, additional parking (46 spaces) would be required and he questioned whether there would be enough space for these spaces and still retain the green area? PLANNING COF~4ISSION MINUTES - 5 - AUGUST 2, 1977 10. Tho hours of operation will be approximately 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Snow will probably be pushed to the middle of tho lot. The existing parking spaces are ten feet on center which will provide a~ple space for the twelve foot handicapped parking spaces required. Discussion covered the extra number of parking spaces proposed now, the iow lot line and the type of exterior lighting (downlightin). Commissioner Christensen noted that in his opinion the drop in grade at the lot line was sufficient hard- ship to justify the variance. Commissioner London recon~ended approval of Case 77-63 - Approval of Construction Plans with a Variancm in Screening on the East side of the Property, with the condition that (1) handicapped parking ho desig- nated and marked on the plans, (2) that a sign be placed at the east drive indicating that this s~ace was for employee parking only, and (3) that there be screeninq on the north and west. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried° 11. PLANNING CASE 77-64 - CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL AT 4124 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH - OLYMPIC INVESTMENTS, PETrTIONER. Mr. Jerry Harrington stated that he was requesting approval of a 20,160 square foot office building on the southeast quadrant of Quebec Avenue and 42nd Avenue. Sheridan Sheet Metal is located to the south and the railroad tracks are to the east. The building will be of masonry, 11% building, 38% green area, and 51% parking. There will be 105 parking spaces (101 required). The exterior will ho of tip-up concrete panels. In contrast to the "Y", the building will be white. Refuse containers will be en- closed at the rear o~ the building. Roof top equipment is not planned, but if installed will be screened. Discussion then centered on the location of the containers and whother green area or parking spaces would be lost when they enclosures were installed. Mr. Harrington indicated he might install a gas chiller to be located on the exterior of the building, probably on the east side toward the tracks. It will be on the ground and will be enclosed. He noted that the chiller would be about 5' high and would probably only need an area 5' x 5'. In response to questions from Commissioner London, Mr. Harrington stated he plans only an identification sign that would comply with City Code. There will be sodium lucalux lights on the building, shining east toward the railroad tracks and three light standards on the parking lot. Curbing will be as code requires. Discussion then covered the proposed landscaping, the green stripalong the building from the parking lot going east toward the "Y"=--Mr. Harrington indicated it was his impression the green strip was a concept of the City Center Plan end not a part of the Code as it exists now;and whether parking spaces could be traded off for additional trees and landscaping. ~urther discussion covered the type of tenants the building would a~tract and'how many actual parking space might be needed. Mr. Harrington stated that this building would be designed with a clear span from the center to the out- side wall and for the tenant.that needed 1000-2000 square feet of space. He s. tated he was not adverse to the green strip, but he did not intend to request a variance and was attempting to build within Code. He was willing to eliminate nine spaces to provide more green, but this number was what Code required. The City Manager stated that if the nine spaces were eliminated, additional spaces could be added on the center row and there would still be a drive through space for driving around the lot. Additional discussion held about the Commission eliminating the nine spaces on 42nd, adding spaces in the middle to provide additional green area on 42nd Avenue. Concensus was that this was a satisfactory solution. In response to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. HarringtJn noted that he would not antici~ pate trucks any larger than those used by UPI or garbage haulers and mostly of the van type delivery truck. Commissioner Christensen questioned the lack of a registered architect's signature on the plans as pre- sented to the Commission. Chairman Cameron asked Mr. Harrington how many trees he would be willing to in'tall if he could eliminate the parking spaces along 42nd. Mr. Harrington responded that perhaps ten additional trees could be provided, but felt they should be in some reasonable pattern. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - AUGUST 2, 1977 11. In response to a question from Commissioner London, Mr. Harrington stated he did not know where the driveway would be in relation to the driveway to the "Y" but felt the driveway would be toward the south of the "Y" entrance. The City Manager noted that the standard was that driveways should he directly across from each other or else separated by 125 feet. Mr. Herron of the "Y" stated he felt that teh building was quite compatible with the "Y". He did press concern over the increasing traffic problems of the intersection at Quebec and 42nd Avenue. Commissioner London moved for approval of Case 77-4 - Construction Approval at 4124 Quebec - with the following conditions: 1. That the plans indicate the site of the refuse container and the .type of screenin~ to be used. 2. That the plans indicated approximately where the exterior equipment would be located and the type of screening To be provided. 3. That the nine parking spaces along 42nd Avenue be eliminated and added in the middle and that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance in parking of four space~. This is done on the initiative of the Co~mission because they felt it desirable to have the additional green space this would provide. 4. That Mr. Harrington will submit a revised landscape plan which would indicate at least ten additional trees along 42nd Avenue and additional shrubs slong that side to screen for lights. 5. That all of the plans submitted are signed by a registered architect before the Council me, ting. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. 12. PLANNING CASE 77-65 - REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AT 42ND AND BOONE AvENUEs - WILLIAM GLEASON PETITIONER. The City Manager presented a Preliminary Plat for the Commissioners to review, noting that this was the final step in carrying out the PUD. The plat as presented was subject to a final check of the utility and grading plan by the City Engineer. Mr. Gleason and the City Attorney are still discussing the ease- ment plans. Commissioner London made a motion to recommend approval of CAse 77-65 - Preliminary Plat Approval at 42nd Avenue/Boone - subject to the final check of the utlity and grading plans by the City Engineez~. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos Motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS 13 - 14 - 15 The City Manager suggested that these items be tabled. Following unanimous consent, Items 13,14,15 of the 8/2/77 agenda were tabled until September 20, 1977. COMMITTEE REPORTS 16. There was no report from the Land Use Committee° 17. The Design and Review Co~m~ittee met on 7/19/77 -- no further report° 18. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 19. The City Manager reviewed the Council meetings of July llth and 25th. He noted that the Maintenance Code had been adopted by the Council to be effective January 1, 1978. He further commented that the proposed Zoning C~de 'must now be adopted to really carry out the intent of the Code. The final hearing on the Comprehensive Plan was also held by the Council on 7/25/77 with a decision still to be made on the property at 42nd/#18. The Chairma~ read a letter of resignation from Scott Craigie, who has accepted a position in Las Vegas. 20. Commissioner Christensen requested that the July 5, Planning Commission minutes be corrected in Item #9 to record that the green area would be 44% and the rubbish area enclosed. ~-~ 21. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager noted that most of the sign pro- blems in the City were in the process of being corrected. 23. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 1 - SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 1. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday~ September 6, 1977, at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustefson, Gundershaug, Anderson. Absent: London (London arrived at approximately 7:35 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS '3. ~LANNING CASE NO. 77-66, REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN PLAN WITH VARIANCE-7400 42ND AVENUE NORT~L, SIGNCRAFTERS~ PETITIONER. Mr. Charles Peugh represented the petitioner. The petitioner is proposing to install a 16 foot by 3 foot roof sign on the front of the Harrington office building, 7400 42nd Avenue North. The sign would be divided between Baldwin Realty and Mutual Service Insurance. It is also proposed that the existing ground sign be retained. This ground sign is 80 square feet, with l0 inch letters and 20 feet of height. Ground signs facing minor arterials are limited to 75 square feet. Multiple dwelling occupancy bminesses'in a GB zone may have wall signs providing they are not larger than 10% of the wall area. The overall 'size of the wall sign meets code, but since the signs are to identify the individual businesses, a variance would be needed to permit them. Upon question, Mr. Peugh said that he was not aware that the front ground sign exceeded the allowable square footage under the present sign ordinance. Commissioner Gustafson inquired as to the number of entrances to the building. Mr. Peughreplied that there were two entrances, one at the front and one at the rear. Mr. Peugh said that there was a center hall that serviced the occupants of the building.. Commissioner Gustafson inquired as to the number of tenants in the building. Commissioner London arrived at the meeting. Mr. Harrington, owner of the building, was in attendance and informed the Council that there were six tenants in the building as follows: Olympic Investments, Baldwin Realty, Mutual Service Insurance, Lions International, State Farm and Steam Dry Wall. The tenants are served by a cen~er hall. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the large ground sign o~t front had four of the tenants 'listed on it, but there is no identification of the "Harrington Building" as such. He then inquired as to why ~he variance was requested and reviewed ordinance requirements. He noted that the code would permit a single building identification sign on the face of the building, and that first i~ a person must get to the building and then to the individual tenant within the building, who are served by a center hall. He asked why special reasons there were for wanting names of two tenants placed on the front of the building. Mr. Harrington replied that Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Wills had rented the lower floor. These tenants wanted the signs. He said he had informed Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Wills that the ground s~gn had been approved by the City, (under the old sign ordinance) and that any other signs would have to be approved by the City. He said, if the requested signs were approved by the City, he would be agreeable to placement of the signs on 'the building. Mr. Harrington then stated that the re- quest was not from himself, but from the tenants. Commissioner Gustafson again inquired as to whether there was a hardship basis for the variance pertaining to site location rather'than the need for businesses to be identified. Mr. Harrington then stated that the former tenant had moved out because he felt his business did not have enough exposure with the sign they did have., With a larger sign that tenant probably would have stayed. He concluded that he .could not speak for the present petitioner. Mr. Peugh stated that Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Wills felt-they needed the sign for their businesses. -Upon inquiry, Mr. Harrington confirmed that 'Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Wills would also have a stripe on '~J~e ground sign. ~x~s'sion Gunde~shaug expressed concern that if~Yni's~-sign'wereapproved for these two tenants, the .(~ther tenants in the building would request the~sametypeof signs. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 Chairman Cameron said that if any accommodation is to be made on .building signs, consideration must be given to the existing oversize ground sign to bring it into conformance. It was also noted by Commissioner Gustafson that a comprehensive sign plan for the multiple use building must be submitted. Mr. Peugh replied that the plan before the Con~nission was to serve as a comprehensive plan. He was advised that the plan was not sufficient to constitute a comprehensive plan since it did not include the existing ground sign. Commissioner Bartos inquired as to the floor area rented by Messrs. Baldwin and Wills. Mr. Harrington replied that these two tenants rent approximately 1/3 of the rentable square footage of the building. Commissioner Bartos suggested that signage might be allocated to the tenants based on percentage of floor space rented. Commissioner Christensen 'spoke against the variance on the basis that a hardship had not been shown. If the signage had been a major problem for the tenants, they would not have entered into the lease before settling the issue. He noted that the ordinance specifically states that variances are not for general income producing reasons. He noted that a variance for a.larger sign for the purpose of attracting traffic was against a stated purpose of the sign ordinance. Commission London noted that he could see some problems with the building, as far as exposure was concerned. He continued that he did not believe that Baldwin Realty had rented space in the Harrington Building for the purpose of attracting people To the particular building, but had rented the space for other office purposes, closings and other business transactions. He said he did feel there was '~ an exposure problem for this particular site. ~t is a busy street. Mr. London then spoke against · i~ the plan presented this evening, noting that, · the petitioner came back with a comprehensive plan, perhaps designating the building as the "Harrington Building" as the focal point of the sign plan, further consideration might be given. He continued that ~ranting the variance requested tonight would be setting a precedent and the ordi'nance was not designed for the requested signs. He suggested a building designation as opposed to a business designation. Chairman Cameron noted that the sign would not be seen until one was in front of the building. He noted that at the time the building plans were approved, it was the intent that the building would house offices that did not attract highway traffic. He spoke in opposition to'the sign as requested. No one appeared in regard to the requested variance. Motio~ by Commissioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner Christensen to recgmmend to the City Council that the sign variance reque~Qd under PI_ annin_~q_~_C~s__e_ No. 77-66 bede~jed on the_.basis th~:~_o_ hardship has been shown in terms of the items ~isted in section 3.187 of the Sign Ordinance, Joecificall¥: 1) that the conditions involved are 9~i_qg~e %ot~e_p~ct~u~or__pa_r_c~_l__of lan_~L_o]s__u~s_e_ _i~vo]jLecl;_~J__tb..a~t ~h~_ pu~os~ .of the_~a~ce~ i.s__.~_~as~d~_~]~.i v~Jy o~..~.~` de~ re _t.~.~r~s_e_ the value or income pg~en~ a~[_~}j~egJ_j_n.y~]_Ygd_;_. ~)_~.~the_al l_~ge~ di ffi cul ty or hardshi~ iS caused by this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently havinq an interes~ in the parcel; and 4) that the qrantinq of the variation will not be detrimental to the Public welfare or in.iurious to other land or improvements to__the~orhood.. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson. Voting against: None. Motion carried. (Variance denied): 4. PLANNING CASE NO. 77-67, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE_I_I!_SIDE Y_A~RD SETBAC_K_Yg_PERMIZ_AN_8_~O~WI~E ADDITION_ TO THE EXISTING SINGLE ATTACHED GARAGE AT 8108 39TH AVENUE, FRED/NANCY PREISS. PETITIONERS._ Mr. Fred Preiss appeared before the Commission.' He said he wants to enlarge the garage to accommodate two cars. The garage would extend to within 2 feet 7 3/4 inches of the property line. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Gustafson, the petitioner replied that the overhang would be approximately 12 inches as on the existing garage. The siding would be masonite, the same as the current construc- tiono The existing curb cut would be used. It was noted that the wall of the garage would come to within 2 feet 7 3/4 inches of the lot line with the eaves extending another 12 inches. No one appeared in regard to this requested variance. MOtion by Commissioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner Chris.tensen ~o recommend to..the City Council aooroval of vaf~iance in sideyard setback as requested unde~ Planninq Case No. 77-67. sub.iect to ~6mtinuation of the same si_d'ing._~teyjglsa~n_d__roof line as on~hg_garage ~nc_jludinq same color and texture of material. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron~ Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson. Voting against: None. Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE NO. 77-68, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN GARAGE SIZE AND REAR YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT THE ERECTION OF A 24 x 30 FOOT DETACHED GARAGE AT 5213 OREGON AVENUE NORTH-LAWRENCE HARTNECK~ PETITIONER. Mr. Hartneck was present to review the proposal. He stated that his request was to place the garage within 21 feet of the rear lot line rather than at ll feet, which had been one option. The garage would be 5 feet from the side lot line and 12 feet 6 inches from the house. Commissioner Gustafson inquired as to why 720 square feet of garage space was needed. The petitioner replied that he wanted to store his pickup, car, boat and a couple snowmobiles in the garage. He assured that the garage would not be used for any type of income producing business. Upon question as to the type of siding and roof, Mr. Hartneck stated that. masonite sideing would ' be used, and there would be a one foot overhang gable roof. He said at this time he ~has shakes on the house, but he will change the siding on the house in a couple years to match the garage siding. The colors will match. The unusual configuration of the lot was noted. Mr. NartneCk said that he did not want to move the garage closer to the house because there is a patio {porch slab) at the end of the house. He said at this time he did not know whether he would use the existing curb cut. The Commission then advised him that a 20 foot curb cut would be the maximum allowed if the curb cut were expanded. Commissioner Christensen questioned the need for the variance in rear yard setback when the lot was so la~ge, and the garage was oversize. The petitioner stated that he could cut down the size of the garage to 700 feet. (A garage over 528 square feet must be 35 feet from the rear lot line to meet regular setback requirements.) Discussion was then held as to alternate garage placement possibilities. The petitioner stated that the bedrooms were on the opposite end of the house. The kitchen door opens to the porch slab and he does not want the garage too close to the house because it would cut light to the dining room and kitchen. Mrs. Hartneck inquired as to firewall requirements if the garage were moved closer to the home. Upon .inquiry as to how far the garage would be from adjacent lot structures, Mr. Hartneck replied that the neighbor's garage was 12 feet from the lot line and the proposed garage would be 45 fe~t from the neighbor's house. The other neighbors' homes would be further away. Further discussion followed with Commissioner Gundershaug pointing out that the petitioner does have a problem with the odd shaped lot. No one appeared in regard to this Planning Case. Motion by Commissioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner Gundershau§ to recommend to the Council approval of the variances in garage size and rear yard s~_tback as requested under Planning Case No. 77-68. - Co~missioner Gustafson commented, for the record, that he was of the opinion that the setback off that particular corner of the lot was a much better trade off than to move the garage further back, or towards the house which would cut off the rear of the house to a majority of the lot, cutting access to the wind and air. Vntm wa~ then taken on the question. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gun~ershaug, Anderson. Voting against: None. Motion car. ried. 6. _PLANNING CASE NO.'77~69_~_REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIDE YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT ENCLOSURE OF A DECK W)THIN THE lO FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR LIVING SPACE-DENNIS OSTLUND, PETITIONER. Mr. Ostlund stated that he wanted to screen in an existing open deck with a window and door in the sidewall. Mr. Ostlund stated that he wanted to screen the area becabse the City does not spray for bugs. Ne then presented a letter from Marilyn and Allen Haag, gl00 Northwood Parkway, approving the enclosing of the deck on the Ostlund property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 Upon question, Mr. Ostlund stated that he did need a door on the end wall of the deck area to serve as a rear fire exit from the house. He also said that a small part of the deck existed when he purchased the property. No one appeared in connection with this Planning Case. Some Commission members expressed surprise that there was no one present to oppose the request. (A simplification). For clarification, the City Manager stated that a deck was wot a permitted encroachment into the sideyard setback. Motion.by Commissioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner London recommending to the City Council %hat variance in sideyard setback be ~ranted as requested under Planning Case No. 77-69 allowing for a door and a window on the side wall. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, At~hley, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson. Voting against: None. Abstaining: Gustafson, Christensen Motion carried. 7. ~LANNING CASE NO. 77-70~E_~UEST FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FO~ A BUILDING IN KING INDUSTRIAL PARK-M&M DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Joel Sicora, Architect with M & M Development Corporations appeared on behalf of the petitioner. He said the company is proposing a 33,000 square foot USDA approved building located on Quebec Avenue in King Industrial Park. The first tenant in the building will be a company called Arden Foods. They are a USDA plant, and they make frozen entrees which are packaged under private labels. Arden Foods will have approximately lO,O00 square feet. The other 20,000 square feet of the build- ing would be for speculative lease for one or perhaps two other USDA approved companies. Mr. Sicora stated that they were not asking for any variances; everything is designed within the codes. Mr. Sicora then stated that at the meeting with the Design and Review Committee suggestions had been made, and these requested changes had been incorporated into the plans. He then presented revised plans. He said the D & R had recommended some sodding, screening of the roof top areas, moving of the truck doors to provide better manueverability. He pointed out these changes on the revised plans. Sod is provided on the front boulevard rather than seed. The relocation of the truck doors is as shown on the second sheet of the plans. Mr. Sicora stated that a note had been made on the fourth sheet providing for roof top units to be screened with redwood. At this time, they do not know the exact location of the roof top units. Commissioner Gundershaug inquired as to the number of trucks per day that would be generated by the plant. ' Mr. Arde~ Olson, secretary-treasurer of Arden Foods, replied that currently they average about three trucks per day, but they hope to expand their operation. He said the trucks that come to their plant are from places such as Aaslesen's, American Foods. If business expands four times there would be 12 trucks. He said that Arden Foods does not have its own fleet. Supplies are brought to the plant in large quantities, but not too often. The incoming trucks would average about one truck per day. Upon inquiry, Mr. Sicora confirmed that the truck docks had been moved as requested by D & R and that the refuse enclosure would be of precast masonry with wood doors on the front. He also noted that handicapped parking stalls were not designated at this time, but two stalls would be provided as required by code. Commissioner Gundershaug inquired as to provisions for lighting the facility. The architect re- plied that there would be recessed lights at the entrance elevation. The parking area will be flooded by two or three security lights. All recesses or main entrances will have lights on after dark. Mr. Sicora further stated that the signs will be in conformance with the sign ordinance. He said the signs were shown on the elevation. Upon question as to.provision for drainage, Mr. Sicora stated that he had talked with the City Engineer and the site would drain to Nevada Avenue. ~urther discussion held as to the signs. Mr. Sicora sadi that there would be two 50 square foot ~dentification signs on the second elevation for the possibility of two tenants. On the bottom elevation, there would be a 40 square foot sign for all the teDants (or the building sign). Mr. Sicora was~advised that a specific sign plan must be p~ovided for 'a multipleoccupancy building for approval by the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - $ - SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 Commissioner Christensen inquired as to whether there would be parking bumpers or curbing to keep the cars Off the green area. Mr. Sicora replied that there would be concrete curbing around the entire parking lot. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Christensen as to the hours of operation, Mr. Arden Olson replied that the intended hours of operation are from 6:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Christensen then noted that, pursuant to ordinance, semi-truck traffic to the site was prohibited from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. He suggested that, as a condition for approval, the petitioner be required to post a sign at the entrance setting forth trucking hours, similar to the sign at the Creamette plant. Commissioner Christensen-then inquired as to the number of employees, noting that there were 46 parking stalls. He said if there were not a ~eed for the 46 stalls, consideration should be given to leaving more green area, but designating future parking expansion space. Mr. Arden Olson said that his firm currently employs eight people, but they hope to expand. Mr. Sicora said that, due to the nature of the other 20,000 square feet of space, it is difficult to know how many stalls will be needed. Mr. Jacob Miller, representing Robert Short, inquired as to the exact location of the property in question. No one else appeared. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Gustafson to recommend to the City Council approval of Planninq Case No. 77-70, subject to sh~nq the handicapped parkinq s~tall~ 9n the site plan and that a siqn be posted at the entrance notinq that truck traf?ic is prohibited from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. if the noise from loadin§ and unloadinq operations is audible to r-~-idential pro~rties and advising Council that since a comprehensive siqn plan has not been provided, the approval does not include signa§e. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson. Voting against: None. Motion carried. 8. pLANNING CASE NO. 77-71, REQUEST FOR__VARIA~CE IN REARYARD SETBACK TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE HOME AT 3028 BOONE AVENUE-GERALD QUENEMOEN, PETITIONER. Mr. Quenemoen said it was his intention to add a family room to the back of his house. The addition would be 16 x 20 feet. He noted that since he lives on Boone Avenue, the front yard set- back was 50 feet. The only place the family room would fit on the house was to the rear as proposed. He stated that there would not be a full basement under the addition, the exterior treatment of the addition would be identical to the house, masonite with hip roof. The entrance will be to the south consisting of sliding glass door to the patio. He said the patio would not be poured this year, but he did want it included in the approval. The patio' would be of concrete · and to the south side of the addition. Upon question, Mr. Quenomoen stated that the existing window to the house would be removed and replaced with an eight foot opening. He also noted that there would be a two foot roof overhang. The 28 foot measurement is to the wall, not the overhang. No one appeared concerning this case. Motion by Commissioner Gustafson, second by Commissioner London to recommend to the CoUncil that the variance in rearyard setback be granted as requested under Planning Case No. 77-71 Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson. Voting against: None. Absent: Cameron. Motion ~arried. g~ PlANNTNG CASE NO. 77-72, REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL FOR AN ADDITION TO THE CUSTOM MOLD AND DESIGN BUILDING AT 5420 INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY-DUANE TRIEBER~ PETITIONERt Mr. Trieber said they are.pKo~osing a 40 x 35 foot addition to the rear of the existing building. He then reviewed the plans with the Commission. The addition is needed mainly for additional storage space. It would be standard construction with a~sprinkler system and a hook up to alarm security. The addition would have the same roof line and exterior treatment as the existing build- ing, There wil~.be no roof top equipment, and the trash will be stored inside~the building. Co~missioner Gundershaug inquired as to the location of the truck docks. Mr. Trieber agreed that he would angle the truck spaces, giving :an.additional 15 fee{. Ne noted that they were well within the green area requirement, running about 41%. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - ! SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 i Upon inquiry as to lighting for the building, Mr~ Trieber said that an existing NSP yard light would light the one side of the building. There would be mercury lights on two corners and a mercury light in the back loading dock area. The whole building would then be illuminated. He said that parking spaces now exceeded code. He had provided an additional four stalls. No one appeared in regard to this Planning Case. Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Atch'ley to recommend to the City Council approval of Planning Case No. 77-72 subject to modification of the plans prior to submittal to Council to show the dia~nal truck spaces. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson. Voting against: None. Absent: Cameron, London. Motion carried. 10. PLANNING CASE NO. 77-73, REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF DEVELOPHENT PROPOSAL THAT INCLUDES REZONING, WAIVER ,OF PLATTING~ VARIANCES AND CONSTRUCTION OF RESTAURANT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BASS LAKE ROAD BETWEEN NEVADA AND MARYLAND-STEPHEN KROGNESS~ PETITIONER. Mr. Steve Krogness, petitioner, and Mr. Dave Colwell, representing Sambo's were present. Mr. Krogness reviewed the proposed site plan with the Commission. He said that duplexes were proposed for the southern portion of the property. He said one access is proposed to the Bass Lake Road, and that the curb cut to the Bass Lake Road had been approved by the County on a verbal basis. Variances are needed for the lot size of the restaurant site and for restaurant building size. The City Manager verified that, under the proposed zonin~ code, a B-3 district would not require variances as to restaurant buil~ng size and lot size. Under the current zoning of RB, these variances are needed. It was noted that the restaurant site would also have access to Nevada Avenue. Mr. David Colwell stated that he was an architect with C. R. West, representing Sambo's. He explain- ed that Sambo's was a family style, 24 hour operation and originated in California in 1959. Since then, 800 stores have been opened. It started as a pancake house, but now three full meals are served. It remains somewhat like a pancake house in that it is open 24 hours a day. Mr. Colwell said the proposed building has been modified from the older style building. It is about 4,500 square feet of which 2,500 square feet is public space. The balance of the area is service related. The front 2/3 of the property will be used for the Sambo restaurant. Seventy-two parking spaces are provided with two handicapped parking spaces located in front of the doors.' Mr. Colwell noted that there would be one access off the Bass Lake Road and another access to Nevada Avenue. The building is of masonry construction, scored concrete block with accent walls. The exterior lighting is high pressure sodium shining completely downward. Three s~des of the trash enclosure will be the same material as the building with the entrance side to be a chain link fence with wood slats. Mr. Colwell said since the preliminary meeting with D & R, they had provided a speed bump in the back. He said entrance lights are also shown on the plan. These will be small, ground mounted lights that would exemplify the entrance. Mr. Colwell also noted that a preliminary landscape drawing had been presented showing the different types of trees to he provided. The larger trees would be Norway Maple. The smaller trees would be Hawthorne or shadow trees. Summer Sweets, Sand Cherries, Junipers, and Evergreen foundations would constitute the shrubbery. He said a ground cover of a mossy type vine would be provided and that the areas shown in green would be sodded rather than seeded. Chai,rman Cameron noted that D & R had not reviewed the landscaping proposal. Mr. Colwell stated that a five foot wooden cedar fence will be provided between the restaurant site and the MR property. He noted that the landscape pt, an was preliminary. Mr. Colwell was informed that a final landscape plan was required at this time. The plan should specify numbers, species, size, etc. Mr. Colwell then reviewed the fleor plan. He said the seating capacity was from 125 to 135. Stained cedar shacks and facia will be used on the exterior, and there will be an accent wall of stone veneer. Burnt tile will be.used to accent the bulkhead, and the scored concrete block would be painted. Mr. Colwell then presented a perspective of the building. PLANNING CO~4ISSION MINUTES - 7 - -SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 Question was raised as to the signs proposed for the site. Mr. Colwell stated that the signs would conform to City Code and would be the typical Sambo signs. It was pointed out to Mr. Colwell that the City would like to see a sign plan. Commissioner Gundershaug inquired as to the finish on the trash 6nclosure and the west and south side of the building. Mr. Colwell replied that these walls will be scored concrete block, and the trash enclosure would be of the same type of material as the building. Upon further questions, Mr. Colwell confirmed that there would be a wood fence, rather than chain link on the south side of the site, concrete curb would be provided around the parking lot and the transformers will be screened. Co~missioner Gundershaug-commented that he would like to see more landscaping along the streets. Mr. Colwell was again advised that a complete landscape plan giving the necessary detail must be submitted. Mr. Colwell also confirmed that lights would be provided for the Bass Lake Road entrance and on the Nevada entrance. It was called to Mr. Colwell's attention that the lights should be high enough and so situated as not to be covered or damaged during~snow plowing operations. Mr. Colwell informed the Commissio~ that the handicapped ramp would be five feet wide, that a speed bump would be installed to the rear and that they were planning on having an irrigation system for the site although this pla'n could not be ready in time for the next Council meeting. He said the final landscape plan could be ready for the Council meeting, but the irrigation system plan would be submitted with the construction plans. Further discussion held as to handling of trash, with Mr. Colwell again describing the trash enclosure. The enclosure will be six feet high. The chain fence with slats is proposed for gate material because it is more durable than wood, withstanding the opening and closing movements for a longer time. Upon question, Mr. Colwell said that all deliveries would be made to the back of the building, once a week by a semi-truck which comes out of Kentucky. Perishable items., such as bread, poultry, vegetables, are provided locally and delivered daily. He noted that Sambo's had its ownmeat and food processing plants in Kentucky and California. The delivery trucks will not block on-site tra ffi c. Commissioner Christensen expressed concern that the delivery semi would block traffic. Mr. Colwell said the truck would be on the site 1/2 to 3/4 hour, and there would still be room to go around the building and use the Nevada entrance. On-site~ snow storage was discussed. Mr. Colwell .said he did not know at this time how the snow storage would be handled. It would probably be pushed to the parking area along Maryland because this is the parking farthest from the doorway. -Hauling away of the snow would be the responsibility of the store manager. Mr. Colwell noted that the store manager is part owner of the store (20%), that Sambo's is a company owned store, rather than a franchise. The City Manager advised that pursuant to City Ordinance, Sambo's would have to remove the snow from the site if they could not otherwise maintain the-require parking stalls. Upon question as to how this restaurant compared to others in the area, Mr. Colwell stated that 'it was bigger than the restaurants in Fridley and New Brighton 'and the same size as the one in Si. Louis Park. (4,000 square feet versus 4,$0u square feet). Sambo's requires that 60 parking stalls be provided on all sites; that is the minimum. The restaurant will handle 125 to 135 people, and 'that number of parking stalls would be needed. Mr. Krogness noted that Sambo's had taken an .additional ~cen feet of land so as to increase the landscaping around the bull ding. -Upon inquiry as to why the original Sambo's proposal had not located on the site,~Mr. Krogness ~-replied that Crystal would not give ~access':to the side street. Mr. Krogness also.confirmed that ~e car wash would be removed from the site. ~issioner Anderson suggested that the Planning--Commission should indicate .what they--would like - to see in the way of. landscaping so the architect.~.would be aware of. this when preparing the landscape plan. No comments were offered. Discussion then followed as to ,the .request't~r 4iv~sion Jof the propet~cy with ~he-front 2/3 :o remain I~B and be used as the Samob site with the~.south.~l/~--:proposed'for-l~ezoning to ::Commissioner London noted .that the Planning Ccmmfission~mas :concerned~with ~prov~ding add-density ~:tlousing rather than high density under'MR. Question ~as~'raised ~as to,whether the :~ea~er could -assure. that the property would be developed r ~*~ 4~h~ .~r?do~).e ,~aunga]ows-.~tJ~er ~ban ~par~nts, i f +~he ~property ~were ~rezoned.~o ~, . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 It was pointed out that the MR zoning would be p~eferable to the present RB zoning since it would serve as a buffer to the single family homes abutting to the south. It was also noted that the size of the lot would serve to restrict the number of units that could be constructed. The lot would be approximately 128 feet by 300 feet. The City Manager advised that Mr. Krogness had indicated he would be willing to stipulate that the property would be developed according to R-2 under the proposed zoning ordinance. The City Manager also noted that, if the property were to be rezoned TR, the townhouse district also permits double bungalows by special use permit. This would be an alternative to the MR zoning and would avoid the possibility of an apartment. It was noted that under the proposed zoning ordinance, the front portion of the property would, in effect, become B 3 and the rear portion would become R 2, this being the transfer recommended by the Planning Commission. It was pointed out that the front lot was undersized for RB, but if transferred to B 3 it would not be undersized. Inquiry was made as to whether any difficulty would be encountered in obtaining a curb cut to Maryland Avenue for the proposed southern portion of the total property. Further discussion followed as to whether the proposed south parcel should b~rezoned as requested. It was pointed out by the Chairman that, whether or not this parcel' could be developed MR or no~, it would be a better zoning in respect to the single family homes in Crystal. Mr. Krogness asked for clarification as to TR zoning and the uses permitted in that district. He was advised that duplexes were a permitted use in MR, but required a special use permit in a TR district. Duplexes would have the same area requirement in either district. Apartments are not permitted in TR, but townhouses are a permitted use. Mr. Krogness then stated that he would be agreeable to TR zoning but would prefer to make a decision later as to whether townhouses or duplexes would be requested. He said that he did not want an apartment building. Commissioner Christensen stated that the plans before the Commission had not been signed by a register- ed architect. Mr. Colwell replied that this was a preliminary presentation and the construction plans which cost between $5,000 and $10,000, would be signed by a registered architect. Further discussion followed as to the requirement for the architect's signature on the plans and the nature of the request before the Commission. Mr. Colwell agreed that the plans would be signed by an architect prior to Council presentation. Commissioner Christensen expressed concern that a landscape ~lan had not been presented. He also advised that this plan must be prepared by a landscape architect. Chairman Cameron suggested that the landscape plan be brought back to Planning Commission for con- sideration rather than the plan going directly to the Council. It was decided that the landscape plan should be submitted to the Planning Commission. Chairman Cameron called for comments from the audience. None were offered. Upon question from the Commission, Mr. Krogness again indicated that he would be willing to accept TR zoning for the south portion of the lot. He stated that he was the purchaser, not the fee owner. Further discussion followed as to the requested rezoning. Upon inquiry to Mr. Ted Jewett, Mr. Jewett indicated that he understood the rezoning issue under consideration. Motio~by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Bartos lo recommend to the City Council. Qpproval of requests under Planninq Case No. 77-73 as follows~ 1. To rezone the south 1/3 of the property to TR. 2. To grant waiver of platting to create two parcels as requested, with the north parcel to remain RB and the south parcel to be rezoned TR. 3. To approve variances in relation to lot size and building square footage, and 4. Construction plan approval for Sambo's subject to the following conditions: a~ A completed and detailed landscape plan being presented for consideration at the'Planning Commission meeting of October 4, noting that this plan must be signed by a registered architect. ~. The present owner agrees that the zoning of RB, to be transferred to B-3, and the TR to be transferred to R-2, is.apprg~ria~e and agrees to this zoning. ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - SEPTEMBER 6~ 1977 Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson. Voting against: None. Motion carried. ll. ~LANNING CASE NO. 77-74~ REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR HOME OCCUPATION-OPERATION OF PRINTING ~USINESS FROM 8275 DEL DRIVE-PAUL AND MARY COLSTROM~ PETITIONERS Mr. Paul Colstrom explained the nature of the proposed business. He said he would have a couple of presses, one paper cutter and other small items. Mr. Colstrom said that, following discussion with the Fire Marshal as to having flamables in the basement, it was decided that the presses would have to be operated from the garage. He stated that he would fulfill requirements of the Fire Marshal. The main press would be a Mealey 1250. The paper cutter would be a 30 inch manual cutter. The presses would be placed on ½ inch plywood for insulation purposes, and the paper cutter is already mounted on 4 x 4 boards. Commissioner Bartos inquired as to electrical hook-ups and whether there would be interference to the neighbors' TV's. Mr. Colstrom replied that the off-set press wo~ld operate on regular house current. The paper cutter is manual. Mr. Colstrom also noted that the present owner of the business was present and could testify as to TV interference. The City Manager noted the code requirement as to garage space and inquired as to whether this space would remain. Mr. Colstrom stated that his garage was 14 by 21 feet, and the press sizes are approximately l' 11" by 5' 3". It is an attached garage and does have a fire wall. There would still be 200 square feet available for a.car. Mr. Colstrom continued that the Fire Marshal had requested a solid door with a door closer.which will be installed. Upon question, Mr. Colstrom said that partitions will not be erected in the garage. He also said there was a third press which would not be operated. It is planned to have a wall heater installed by a contractor. The heater would be vented. Inquiry was made as to whether energy standards would be met. Mr. Colstrom said this had been discussed with the building inspector, and the standards would be met. There would be no exterior changes~ to the building, nor would there be any signs. There is no venting other than for'the wall heater, and all electrical hook-ups will be to normal house current. Upon questions, Mr. Colstrom confirmed that, even with the third press, there would still be 200 square feet for garage space, that there would be no employees other than family, and there would be no signs. Mr. Colstrom said that he did not propose any walk-in business. The company has established'customers. Discussion held ~s to the traffic that might be generated by the business. Mr. Colstrom said that he expects delivery once a week of paper goods. He would pick up the other supplies and make delivery of the finished goods to his customers. The paper will be delivered by a truck, similar to a "Sears" truck. Mr. Mqrris Dobling, 1590 Mississippi NE, confirmed that paper delivery is via a truck similar to a "Sears" delivery truck and that paper would be received approximately once a week. Commissioner Bartos inquired further into the electrical wiring and amperage. Each press has a two' quarter-horse capacitors with split phase motors, requiring five or six amps a pi~ece. The present owner of the business said that he had run separate lines to each press using no. 14 wire. Mr. Colstrom indicated that he would be doing the same. Upon question as to the total square footage to be used for the business, Mr. Colstrom said that a collator, staple~ and a table probably would be located in the basement. Upon inquiry as to whether Mr. Colstrom intended to use the garage for his car, he replied that New Hope code requires that the room be available; you don't have to use it. It was pointed out that cold air would be a problem if the garage door were opened often. Discussion followed as to the noise factor ~rom the equipment and hours of operation. Nr~ Colstrom said that, it is planned that his wife would operate the machines during the day. It Is not a full time job. Mr. Colstrom then presented written permission from his neighbors to locate th~ business in his basement. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - l0 - 'SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 Discussion held as to the clientele to be served and the resultant traffic. Mr. Colstrom said he expects to print calling cards, items for nursing homes and churches. ~-~ The proximity to Cooper High School and New Hope Elementary and the restrictions on parking other than on Del Drive was noted. Mr. Colstrom again stated that he planned to deliver the finished goods and that the difference in traffic would not be noticed. Upon question, Mr. Colstrom said that~ as to the neighbor to the south, the bedroom portion of that house would be closest to the Colstrom garage. He stated that the presses were not noisy and that the garage wou~d be insulated and closed up. Question was then raised as to noise factor during summer time when windows would be open. Commissioner Bartos stated that the equipment proposed was not very noisy. It was also pointed out that, should noise be found to be a problem, the business could be controlled through annual review. Chairman Cameron noted that the neighbors' letters related to the location of a printing press in the basement of the home rather than the garage. The petitioner is buying three presses. He also inquired into plans for expanding the business--deliveries, trash, etc. Mr. Colstrom said the purchase of the business was a package deal and that he does not intend to, operate all three presses at this time, nor within two or three years. The home occupation is more of a family hobby than a business. The possibility of conditioning the special use permit upon an annual review by staff was again mentioned. Mr. Colstrom was asked how many cars he had. He replied that he had three vehicles including the '39 Ford. Question was then raised as to whether all three vehicles w~uld fit in the d~iveway. The reply from Mr. Colstrom was affirmative. Discussion held as to limiting the business area to 225 square feet with the petitioner indicating that the 225 square feet would be adequate. (Code permits up to 300 square feet). Upon inquiry as to how business would be solicited, Mr. Colstrom stated that he was taking over an established business, tha~ he did not intend to advertise other than by "word of mouth". The current owner was asked to describe the existing business. Mr. Dobling said approximately 80% of the business was pick-up and delivery which he did himsel'f, that he had operated the business for six years, and there is very little traffic involved. Mr. Colstrom stated that he plans to take over the customers and operate in a similammanner. Mr. Dobling advised the Commission that, as he operated the business, one press was used for printing and the second press was used for envelopes and operated about twice each month. The third press is used for parts and never operated as part of the business. No one appeared in regard to Planning Case No. 77-74. Motion by Commissoner Gustafson, second by Commissioner Gundershaug to recommend to the City Council that Planninq Case 77-74 be approved~ subject to the followin§ limitations: 1. That'~the business contain only the three off-set presses and single manual paper cut~er. 2. l~at the special use permit be reviewed annually by the staff to determine traffic volume and whether the business has radically changed from what has been proposed at this time. 3. That the electrical hook-ups and storage of flammable liquids be reviewed again by staff to determine appropriateness prior to opening of the business. The petitioner inquired as to whether it would be possible to have a variance as to the garage space requirement. He was advised that this issue was not before the Commission. Chairman Cameron spoke in opposition to thi~ type of business locating in a residential neighborhood, noting the potential traffic as local business is o~taine~. The safeguard of the annual revie~ was pointed out by Commissioner London. Parking limitations were again discussed, and it was pointed out that, for all practical purposes, the ~arage space would not be used. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - ll - SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 Vote was then taken on the question. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Gustafson, Gundershaug. Voting against: Cameron, Anderson. Motion carried. 12. PLANNING CASE NO. 77-75, REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN PLAN WITH VARIANCES FOR NEW HOPE SHOPPING CENTER-DRAPER AND KRAMER, PETITIONER. Mr. John Rochford represented Draper and Kramer. He said they were requesting approval of a sign plan with variances for the New Hope Shopping Center. The major variance is in regard to the pylon sign. This sign has had all individual tenant signs removed from it, but the sign is too close to the property line and exceeds 20 feet in height. He said he did not know the exact height of the sign. Variances are requested to leave the pylon sign as it now exists. Upon question, Mr. Rochfo~d said he thought the pylon sign was about 30 feet high and the sign is located within four or five feet of the property line. He continued that the individual store signs are up to the tenants, but the lease provides that tenant signs must conform to City Code. He then stated that Draper and Kramer were also requesting a variance for the Red Owl and Walgreen signs. The other individual tenants would be required to have signs above the entrances at the east and south of the center only. The Commissioner asked to see the plan including the proposed tenant signs above the entrances. Mr. Rochford said he did not have a plan covering these specific sig~s, but he had presented drawings to the City showing the dimensions of the Red Owl and Walgreen signs. The City Manager advised that, for shopping centers with more than four tenants, t~e code does provide that the pylon sign can be 30 feet in height. The. Manager also said that he had not received the plans for the Red Owl store sign. Mr. Rochford said that the 10 individual signs proposed for the entrances would be 2 feet by 7½ feet wide and pladed just above the doorways. The entrances are 15 feet in width. The consensus of the Commission was that the plans before them were inadequate, and that the petitioner should review Section 3.185 (7) of the code and submit a plan in accordance with these requirements for review prior to the next Commission meeting. Motion by Commissioner Bartos, second by Commissioner Gustafson, to table Planninq Case No. 77-75 until the meeting of October 4, 1977. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchl~ey, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson. Voting against: None. Motion c~rried. COMMITTEE 13., 14. There were no substantive committee reports. &15. NEW BUSINESS 16. The Council minutes of the meeting of August 8 and 22 were reviewed. 17. The Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of August 2, 1977 were approved as printed. 18. Chairman Cameron commented on the on-street parking near 3241 Winpark Drive and inquired as to when Boone Avenue would be striped. Commissioner Gustafson commented on the seal coat program and the follow-up street sweeping. 19~ There were no announcements. 20. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectful ly submitted, City Clerk-Treasurer PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 1977 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning COmmission was held on Tuesday, September 20, 1977 at the Cit9 Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:35 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Custafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: None PUBLIC HEARINGS · 3. PLANNING CASE 77-43 - (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 7, 1977) REQUEST FOR REZONING MR TO RB AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WISCONSIN/BASS LAKE ROAD - NATALIE STUHR, PETITIONER. The City Manager stated that the petitioner in this case had requested a 30 day table to allow them to explore an alternative development plan for the property. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to table Planninq Case 77-43 until the second meetinq in October (10-18-77). Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Lo~don, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: 'None Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS 4. Discussion then was held regarding the City Center Guidelines and the 42nd Avenue Guidelines as proposed. 5. The City Manager stated that it was up to the Commission as to whether they wished to take any action in terms of the guidelines as proposed. The Commission has several options: to simply review, to re- con~end their use as guidelines only, to determine whether the guidelines should be presented in ordinance form. The Commission should decide whether they wish to take any official action in regard to the guidelines. The Chairman noted he felt that an ordinance was a little strong, but questioned whether the document would stand up in court, if only guidelines, if they later had a dispute with a developer. The City Manager noted that his personal preference was that they remain only guidelines. He felt that with an ordinance you would have variances to contend with, while if they remained guidelines and valid reasons could be presented to encourage their use, it would be more open to negotiation with developers. He added that the guidelines had received a favorable reception from the people who had called and re- viewed them. Commissioner Atchley questioned whether it would be possible to pass this type of ordinance on to exist- ing businesses without grandfathering them in? If you did this, in his opinion, you would have nothing more than a guideline anyway. In answer to a question from the Chairman in regard to the consequences of the guidelines, the City Mana- ger stated that the important thing was that it was an attempt by the City to develop a "whole" with con- sideration given to architectural styles, landscaping, lighting, an attempt to blend two points of view together. Acceptance of the guidelines would at least indicate that the Commission was interested in looking at a total package in development, with compliance by individuals dependent upon how far the Com- mission wished to go. He felt that the guidelines could have almost as much impact as the Comprehensive Plan in terms of specific development in the shopping center area. The Chairman asked whether compliance with the guidelines could be used as a reason for approval or dis- approval of a development proposal? The City Manager answered that this would be a positive type of action. At least the builder would be aware of what the City wanted in terms of development even if he were turned down. Chairman Cameron stated he was strongly in favor of some type of guideline. Commissioner Gustafson inquired as to whether other cities and areas where total r~-development had taken place, i.e. an "old town" or developed with a theme, was always on .a volunteer basis or whether there were controls imposed by the cities? The City Manager stated that in many cases these areas are developed under an urban renewal project, under City direction. There are also many examples where the land owners and merchants agree on a theme, i.e. Minneapolis and Edina in their abutting shopping area, Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - September 20, 1977 4. Discussion then covered whether the guidelines should be referred to Codes and Standards for study 5. to determine whether they should be incorporated into an ordinance. Commissioner Bartos noted that he felt the Commission had to start someplace and this was a good time to do so. Commissioner Anderson expressed the opinion that the guidelines were totally unworkable as an ordinance. They would have to be totally re-written to be an ordinance. He was in favor also, of leaving them as strictly guidelines° Commissioner London stated that he felt that if they were adopted as only guidelines and the City could show that other businesses had used the guidelines successfully, the Commission would be on fairly solid ground should they refuse a development proposal for failure of a developer to consider them. Following discussion, the concensus was that the guidelines should not be introduced into ordinance form. The City Manager noted that the City Council had accepted the guidelines. The Commission now needed to determine what their recommendations would be as to implementation. Discussion then centered on the fact that guidelines do represent further action, the specific recommenda- tions of the guidelines, i.e. facia material, lighting style, etc., whether the issue should be referred to the Codes and Standards Committee or considered by the entire Commission, and whether the Commission should adopt the guidelines in their entirety, or only the goals and objectives. Commissioner Gustafson co~ented that he felt that if the guidelines were to be reviewed and perhaps put into more workable form, considering the items that would be in the City's best interest, the Commission should then actively pursue these goals, not just wait and hope it would happen. In his opinion, if it were worthwhile to spend time on review and recon~endation it is worthwhile to take an active position on their implementation. Discussion then covered the most effective way for the Commission to review the guidelines. Concensus was that the Commission should review the guidelines for City Center and the 42nd Avenue Corridor together. Commissioner London moved to table the discussion of the Commercial Core Guidelines and the 42nd Avenue Guidelines until the second meetinq of October (10-18-77) to allow the entire commission to review and possibly restructure them for implementation by the City. Commissioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: Cameron Motion passed. 6. The next item of discussion was the possible addition of "uses" to the industrial/business zones. Commissioner Gustafson noted that the Codes and STandards Committee had discussed the addition of "uses" to the industrial/business zones but had felt it would be wise to make a determination on specific"uses" when they came before the Commission, as to which zone a"use"belonged in. The Committee had attempted to identify the"uses"in the City and categorize them, not to go out and look for new "uses", with the intent to react to new items when they came in. Discussion then covered the procedure necessary in adding uses to a zone. The City Manager noted that variances could not be made to the Use List, but that the Code would have to be amended. He added that there had been several requests to the City regarding the establishment of rental facilities (small equipment) and health clubs. In answer to a question regarding the status of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Manager said that the Council had tabled it until the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. Commissioner Atchley commented that it. might be appropriate to include these two activities now, before the Code is formally adopted, rather than having to amend at a later date. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to table consideration of the addition to or exclusion of, these two items to the zoning list, for a period of thirtu days. In the interim Codes and Standards will review the Use List and make a recommendation to the Commission. Commissioner Christensen second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gustaf$ont Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 7. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 8. Design and Review Committee met on 9/20/77. Commissioner Christensen noted that there would be several big planning cases appearing before the Commission in October. PI~NNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - SEPTEMBER 20, 1977 9. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINES$ The Cit9 Manager reviewed the Council minutes of September 12, 1977 with the Co~ission. He noted that the Council had agreed with the Commission recommendations regarding the planning cases with the exception of Case 77-66 which the~ had approved and Case 77-74 which had been denied. He added the petitioner in Case 77-74 was looking for a commercial site for his printing business. He also noted that there would be a case similar to 77-66 relating to a sign variance, before the Commission at the first meeting in October. The Council had also tabled the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan - the problem still being the area at 42nd/#28. Council had requested the Cit~ Attorneg to draft a memorandum listing procedure he felt would be needed as documentation in order to downzone the property if this were the final decision of the Council. The Cit~ Manager noted further that RCE Corporation had filed suit against the Citg in regard to the development of the corner at Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue. 11. The Planning Commission minutes of September 6, 1977 were approved as printed. ' 12. In answer to a question from the Chairman regarding the trees and parking of buses at the site of the Crgstal Evangelical Church, the City Manager noted that the Chai~nan of the Church Building Committee and Mr. Barber, the City Inspecto~ had met several times. The church has now been told that if they did not choose to correct the situation, theU would have to appear before the Planning Commission again to obtain an amendment to their Special Use Permit. 14. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary / PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 1977 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 4, 1977 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order at 7~38 p.m. b9 Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: London, Atchley (excused) Commissioner London arrived at 8:16 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 77-73 (CONTINUED FROM 9-6-77) LANDSCAPING PLAN - SAMBO'S RESTAURANT - BASS LAKE ROAD. Mr. Dave Colwell represented Sambos. He submitted a letter from the landscape architect to the CoF~is- sioners (attached) and reviewed the proposed landscaping. The green area will be sodded, the size of the trees will be as indicated on the plan. There are exist- ing trees on the site that they will attempt to save. The plan as submitted is in accordance with the Code. At the rear they will use Linden trees of a 2%" caliper, Seedless Ash and Japanese Spruce will planted along the building. The positions of the trees will be according to the projected growth of the trees as well as the amount of light in the location and the hardiness of the trees. There will also be an irrigation system. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that the City Council had approved the Sambo development contingent upon the approval of the landscape plans by the Planning Commission. Ail of the trees, except the Birch clumps, will be of a 2%" caliper. The plantings will be as indicated on the landscape plan with the exception of the existing trees. If it is not possible to save these, they will be replaced with a suitable type according to Code specifications. Commissioner Christensen moved to approve the landscape plan as submitted by Sambos on 10/4/77 with the understanding that the plan is a final plan, with the exception of the existing trees which will be re- placed with a suitable species according to Code, if they cannot be saved. Commissioner Gustafson second. Chairman Cameron commented on the need for a one year guarantee on the plantings and the.-need to insure that they will continue to grow. He confirmed that Sambos did not have to reappear before the City Council. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, London Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 77-75 ~ (CONTINUED FROM 9-6-77) APPROVAL OF SIGN PLAN FOR NEW HOPE SHOPPING CENTER - 42ND~WINNETKA Mr. John Rocheford of Draper and Kramer, represented the center. He submitted a letter to the Commission (attached) which the Chairman read into the record. Mr. Rocheford stated that at their previous appear- ance before the Commission in September they had requested a variance on the pylon sign and approval of their sign plan. Since that meeting, the Center has been sold with the closing to be next week. The new owner, Mr. Jerry Kelly, would like a delay in conforming to the Code until April of 1978 to allow them to ascertain what updating was needed and allow them to come before the Commission at that time with a pro- posal for updating as well as a Comprehensive Sign Plan for the center. Discussion held regarding this request. Concensus was that a stay of enforcement was preferable to a tabling motion. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to stay enforcement of the Sign Ordinance at the New Hope Shoppin~ Center until April 1, 1978. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, London Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 77-76 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIGN PLAN AT 2738 WINNETKA - FRANK BALMA, PETITIONER. Mr. Balma stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to retain the two wall signs on his build- ing. He noted that one of the signs (Spring Company) was tied in with the lease arrangement. The City Manager noted that this was the relatively new building at 27th~Winnetka. He stated that the building could not have individual identification signs on the wall and that the existing ground sign did meet the requirements of the Ordinance. A variance is needed to permit these to remain. PLANNING 'COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 ' OCTOBER 4, 1977 5. Con~issioner Gustafson confirmed with. Mr. Balma that the two tenants with the wall signs do not have separate entrances and that all of the tenants of the building are listed on the ground sign. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Balma stated he felt the value of the two signs was in the vicinity of $6000° Commissioner Gustafson quoted from the Ordinance, and noted that Mr. Balma, under the amortization sche- dule in the Ordinance, would be allowed to retain the two signs until 1981, at which time they would need to br brought into conformance° Mr. Balma stated that he was requesting the variance to'allow him to keep the signs permanently. He fur- ther stated that he could not comprehend why a sign that was legal in 1973 could suddenly be declared il- legal now. He referenced the correspondence he has had with the City regarding the signs. The Chairman noted that rules and regulations change, i.e. the new speed limit, and that this was the rea- son for the establishment of the amortization schedule. He added that it had been the feeling that a busi- ness would pretty much get their investment our in a five year period as applied to the cost range of Mr. Balma's signsi.~ Lengthy discussion between Mr. Balma and the Commissioners regarding the Code, its interpretation, the legality of changing Code requirements and the length of the tenant lease that had been tied to the wall sign (8 years remaining)° The City Manager stated that the Code further states that at the time of any changes made to the sign, it would be required to be brought into conformance. Mrs. Paul Bosman, 2832 Winnetka, stated she could see no problem in the variance request. She added that she wished however, that the owners would cut the weeds and clean up the landscaping. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager noted that the City had not received a Comprehensive Sign Pi~n from Mr. Balm for the building. He apparently wanted the existing signs to he the plan. Discussion followed between the Commissioners regarding the timing of the variance request and the re- quirements of the Ordinance and the amortization schedule. Commissioner Anderson made a motion to deny Case 77-76, based on the fact that according to the amorti- zation schedule there were still several years for the sign to remain. Commissioner Gustafson second. Commissioner Anderson noted that, in his opinion, when the amortization period ran out for these parti- cular signs in 1981, was the proper time to request a variance. Commissioner Gustafson commented that, in his opinion, the the case of a signed lease, signed on the basis of legal signage it would appear to him that at least in terms of that particular tenant, this might be sufficient grounds for granting a variance. The Chairman stated that he strongly disagreed with this position. It was up to the Commission to uphold the integrity of the Sign Ordinance. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Anderson Voting against: None Abstain: London, Gundershaug Absent: Atchley Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 77-77 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIGN PLAN AT 4219 OREGON AVENUE - OREGON ESTATES APARTMENTS, PETITIONER. Mr. Arnold Feinber~, one of the owners of Oregon Estates, stated they had purchased the complex in Janu- ary 1977. He stated that in June of 1977 he had received a letter from the City stating that in 1974 the previous owner had requested a variance of the Sign Ordinance. This had been approved with the stipula- tion that all signs would be brought into conformance by February 1, 1977. He noted that he had replied to the Inspector Mr. Barber that the June letter had been the first inkling he had that the signs at Oregon Estates were not in conformance. He had attempted to find out what the previous owners intended to do about the situation since he feelt is is their responsibility. Mr. Feinberg stated that his interpretation of the ordinance was that they would qualify for a variance. He did not know what useful purpose would be served by making the entrance signs smaller? He felt it would be a waste to take them down. They do not interfere with air or.light, aren't detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to other land in the neighborhood. The hardship is caused solely by the Ordinance, in his opinion, and had not been created by the persons presently having an interest. It was his understanding that the signs had been in place since the project was built in the late 60's. PLANNING CO~4ISSION MINUTES - $ - OCTOBER 4, 1977 6. The Chairman noted that there were two concerns in regard to the signs. One is with the main signs of the complex and the other is with ~he internal signs. The Ordinance outlines what the permitted sizes are for signs° Commissioner Gustafson quoted from the "exceptions" section of the current Ordinance - #4 - relating to small directional signs on private property and noted his opinion that at least in the spirit of the Ordinance none of the directional signs were in excess of the two foot minimum. It was his opinion that in regard to the larger sign, it was in violation and should be brought into conformance at some time but he would be willing to discuss what that particular time should be. He did not consider that sign to be particularly unsightly. Commissioner London stated he saw no reason to change the sign. He did not feel that Mr. Feinberg was asking anything unreasonable and further felt that the interior signs were more of a help than a hin- drance. The sign is not unsightly and is well maintained. Mr. Don Gessman, 4225 Nevada Avenue, stated that he did not object to the sign but had a complaint about the lawn next to his property and the trash that accumulated. He was also concerned about the upkeep of the fence around the Oregon Estates property - it was damaged. Mr. Jerry Narrington, 7400 42nd Avenue North, stated he owned the building next to the apartment complex. He felt it would prove to be a great expense to the owners to have to move the large signs since there was not only a sprinkler and electrical system underneath in the ground there were large footings. He felt the signs would be almost impossible to see if they were moved further back. Commissioner Anderson then commented on the fact that up to this time the Commission had enforced the Sign Ordinance consistently. He had not heard any persuasive reason for not enforcing the Ordinance in this instance, when other petitioners had been required to conform. Chairman Cameron noted that he felt the traffic hazard aspect convinced him. The complex has little visibility, particularly from the west. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion for approval of the Sign Variance in Case 77-77, subject to the stipulation of Section 3.186 of the Sign Ordinance - that any sign that would be placed in lieu of this sign if 50% of the cost of replacement of the sign because of damage - in that case the sign would have to be brought into conformance with the Ordinance and that the directional signs have been reviewed on the property and the Commission finds they are in keeping with the "exception" portion of the Ordinance in Subdivision 3.183 Sub.(1) 4. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion carried. 7. PLANNING CASE 77-78 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 8400 61% AVENUE 'NORTH - HARLAN JOHNSON~ PETITIONER. Mr. Harlan Johnson, stated he was requesting a variance to allow him to build an attached garage. The current garage will .be removed and an addition placed on the house. He was requesting the variance so that he would not have to remove the kitchen and family room windows, part of the deck and part of the patio. When the garage and the addition are completed the house and garage will have all brick siding. He pre- fers an attached garage to a detached garage at the rear of the property. The garage will be used for storage of vehicles and not for any home occupation. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to approve Case 77-78 - Variance in Sideyard Setback at 8400 61% north, subject to the condition that the siding on the garage and the house be the same. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Cameron Motion carried. 8. PLANNING CASE 77-79 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIGN ORDINANCE AT 2749 WINNETKA AVENUE (PENNY'S MARKET) - T AND H ENTERPRISES, PETITIONER. Mr. Tom Ruvelson represented Penny's Supermarket. He stated they were requesting the variance to allow them to a 4'6" x 6'6" logo next to the 100 square foot sign on the fro~t of the market. He presented photographs to the Commissioners illustrating the present sign and the location of the proposed sign. They are asking for a variance of 36 square feet. He noted that the front of the store was approximatel~ 150 linear feet and he did not feel they were proposing too much sign. He added that the owners of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4 - OCTOBER 4, 1977 8. supermarkets are currently involved in litigation with the J. C. Penny Company because of the similarit~ of names. Under the petition of the lawsuit, Penny's has been requested b~ J. C. Penney to utilize a logo in conjunction with their identity si~ning. In'response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson regarding the logo size and whether or not it was standard with Penny's, Mr. Ruvelson noted that the used two sizes -- 9'6" x 6'6" and 4'6" x 6'6". The~ propose using the smaller of the two. This logo has been used for the past two years on new stores or when stores are remodeled. The entire sign will be at the leading edge of the canopy. The large pig on the top of the building will be removed. The sign will be interior illuminated plastic. The City Manager stated that the Con~ission had approved a comprehensive sign plan for Midland Center approximately two gears earlier. The pylon sign in front had been changed to conform to the Ordinance with the stipulation that the other signs would be brought into conformance with the Ordinance as changes occurred in the signs or the amortization schedule ran out. Mrs. Paul Bosman, 2832 Winnetka, when informed that the sign would be smaller than the existing sign, stated she couldn't believe anything better happening to them, usually it was worse° She did not object to the variance. Commissioner Gustafson moved to approve the Sign Variance in Case 77-79 - identification slqn for Penny's Supermarket with logo, with the stipulation that the logo not extend above the roof line. Commissioner London second. Commissioner Anderson referenced past planning cases where the use of standardized signs had not been considered sufficient reason to grant a variance and he did not fee2 that this was a particularly per- suasive reason. He felt that the scope of the sign in terms of the building frontage might be more persuasive. Commissioner London agreed but felt that the fact that there was litigation pending requlring the use of a logo, was a factor. Discussion covered the possibility of reducing the size of ~ name portion of the sign, thus reducing the total area. Mr. Ruvelson noted that the signs were usually designed in 6" increments that allowed the use of standard slzed fluorescent bulbs. He added that he felt that the intent of the Ordinance was not only to improve the appearance of the visual signage but also the esthetics. He felt the City had missed the boat in the center by perhaps not going far enough. The City was cleaning up part of a problem by creating another problem -- cleaning up a menagerie of s~gns with a smaller menagerie. He felt they were asking the owners to spend several thousands of dollars for signing and he wondered if the City would be much happier with the result. The Chairman indicated he felt the City would be a great deal happier. Commissioner Anderson noted that he did not have any problem with the sign, but felt that in the last cou- ple of weeks the Sign Ordinance had seemingly been cut up. He felt they were losing some standards and were really going to be in trouble in a year or so. Commissioner London felt that each case had to be taken on an individual basis. Commissioner Anderson felt that it had now gotten to the point where hardship was no longer a factor any more. Now was the time to decide exactly what they wanted to do with the Ordinance. The Chairman agreed with Commissioner Anderson 'that no particular reason had been presented to prove a need for the additional square footage. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: Cameron, Anderson Absent: Atchley Motion passed. 9. PLANNING CASE 77-80 - REQUEST FORREZONING SR TO MR AND APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AT HILLSBORO AND 36TH AVENUE - HAROLD JORGENSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Jorgenson stated he was requesting the rezoning to allow him to construct seven double bungalows on the property. He felt the rezoning was justified because of the changing traffic patterns and the fact that there was a shopping center diagonally across from the area and that the area directly to the west was zoned LB. He felt that 36th Avenue at that particular point was more heavily travelled than most of 36th Avenue, with the exception of the area by Winnetka, because of the shopping area and the proximity to Highway #18. He felt that if the property to the west were developed LB there would be even more traffic gen- erated on Hillsboro Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5 - OCTOBER 4, 1977 9. There will he three lots facing Hillsboro, two lots facing 36th Avenue and two lots back in the cul-du-sac. Mr. Jorgenson felt that with the price of property in New Hope they would not be cheap houses. Commissioner London noted that to consider a rezoning one of two criteria had to be met, either an initial mistake in the original zoning or a substantial change in the area. He requested that Mr. Jor~enson address one of these issues. Mr. Jorgenson answered that, in his opinion, the fact of the shopping center across the street and the heavy traffic on 36th Avenue were reason for changing the zoning. He did not know what the property on the shopping center site had originally been zoned. In response to a question from Commissioner London, Mr. Jorgenson noted that the existing buildings would be removed from the property. Commissioner London referenced the fact that the Comprehensive Plan for the City recommended that this particular property be developed as mid-density. One of the goals established by the Commission had been to establish alternative housing. Discussion then covered the dangers for the City of a rezon~ng to MR should the development plans he changed. -~ The City Manager noted that without a PUD, 28000 square feet were required for a double dwelling. Mr. Jorgenson no~ed that it was his understanding that because of the Zoning Ordinance not being completed, that the alternative to going PUD was to request the MR zoning with the stipulation that the seven lots would be developed With double homes (R-2). Commissioner London noted that in considering rezonin~ the property to MR, the Commission had to look at all of the possibilities for development in an MR zone. Mr. Jorgenson stated that this was his reason for submitting the preliminary plat along with the request for rezoning. He further stated that he was of the opinion that based on the price he would guess that the units would be 90% owner occupied. 'He felt it was conceivable that he would try to hold on to one unit himself. Discussion then covered the possibility of keeping the lots along the cul-du-sac single family (Lots 6 and 7); the type of homes Mr. Jorgenson anticipated being constructed; the elevations of the lots; and the danger of rezoning to MR and the property being sold before development. The City Manager stated that in this event, a developer would have to appear before the Planning Commission for approval of any type of multiple development. Commissioner Gustafson stated that as a Commissioner he felt very strongly that alternate housing opportu- nities should be available for the residents or potential residents of New Hope in the next generation. The Chairman noted that he felt the Housing Plan made a commitment for the City to attempt to provide this type of alternative housing. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and Mr. Jorgenson regarding the need to be consistent in requiring justification for a rezoning from a petitioner. Mr. Jorgenson stated that he felt there was a heavier traffic pattern on 36th/Hillsboro than there is any other place than Winnetka/36th. Itc also felt that the proximity to County #18 further increased the traffic flow. In addition, he felt that the LB zoning to the west of the property would also increase the traffic flow. It was his opinion that you should not go from LB to SF. There was no one present regarding this petition. Chairman Cameron asked Mr. Jorgenson whether leaving Lots 6 and 7 SF would seriously impair his plan? His concern was for the owners of the adjacent new homes who had been told that the zoning was SF. Mr. Jorgenson answered "not seriously". He could see conceding those two lots. Commissioner London moved to recommend approval of Case 77-80 - Approval of Preliminary Plat at 36th~ Hillsboro, subject to providing utility and drainage easements, as presented 10/4/77 and approval of the rezoning of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of that preliminary plat from SF to MR, on the assurance by ' the petitioner that he would construct two family dwellings on Lots t, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Commissioner Gustafson second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - OCTOBER 4, 1977 i0. PLANNING CASE 77-81 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN GARAGE SIZE AND SETBACK AT 2916 WINNETKA AVENUE - DAYTON BLOOMQUIST, PETITIONER. Mr. Bloomquist stated he wished to build a garage at the rear of his propert9, seven feet from the real- line and four feet from the side lot line. He has a single attached garage now which he intends to keep. In his opinion it would be more expensive to extend the single garage than to construct a new one. His total garage space would then be 788 square feet requiring him to have a variance of 88 square feet. He wishes the three garages stalls because he owns an antique car, a pickup and a famil~ car,all of which he would like to store inside. In response to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Bloomquist stated he was proposing to encroach the garage into the sideyard because he could then extend his existing driveway to the new garage and allow him turning movement. He stated that the next door neighbor had no objections to his plans. The garage will be used only for personal reasons with no business activity intended. Commissioner Gustafson moved for approval of Case 77-81 - Variance in Garage Size and Side and Rearyard Setbacks at 2916 Winnetka, sub3ect to the siding and color being the same as on the house. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion carried. 11. PLANNING CASE 77-82 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF SIGN ORDINANCE AND CODE INTERPRETATION AT 7202 42nd AVENUE NORTH - RAPID OIL CHANGE, PETITIONER. Mr. Ed Flaherty, President of Rapid Oil Change, stated his business was a ten minute oil and oil filter change for $10.95. They were currently leasing one bay at the Metro 500 station on 42nd Avenue. They have four other locations in the metropolitan area. They are a separate corporation with no business ties to Metro 500 other than the lease arrangement. They would like a separate sign for their business. They would also like a sign on the standards, a 2' x 6' sign to be placed directly below the Metro 500 sign. The reason for this sign is that the canopy partially hides the s~gn over the bay. He stated that the signs are in compliance with the Code in regard to size. Mr. Flaherty stated that the other problem was that the Code interpretation allowed only one business in the GB zone. He felt that they did provide service station functions and like an interpretation to deter- mine if they could be a legal use. He felt the business was compatible with a service station. In response to questions from Commissioner London, Mr. Flaherty stated he had no business connection with Metro 500 other than leasing the two bays. He had separate employees also. Commissioner Gustafson stated that, in his opinion, this particular use was almost an allied use for a service station and that it was reasonable to allow a maximum potential of two uses operating out of one gas station. He could see a potential problem if each bay had a separate use and he did not feel that the signage should become triple what the single use allowed. He felt that perhaps the Commission should study the issue of two allied uses in one business location. Commissioner London expressed concern that it could turn into a sign menagerie. Discussion then centered on the possibility of changing the Code to allow two separate facilities in one location and whether this would be in the best interest of the City. It was determined that if two uses should be allowed, then the question of the slgnage for such a facility would also have to be addressed. Commissioner Gustafson stated that he felt it would be wise to table this particular planning case for 60 days to allow one of the Planning Commission Sub Committess to review and develop and opinion of the City as to how they wish to treat allied accessory uses being operated out of the same structure. In addition, the Con~ittee should look at what type of signage would be appropriate if an allied accessory use were added. The Committee should then come forward with an amendment to the Sign Ordinance and to any other Ordinance applicable to such allied uses, i.e. the Zoning Code. Following discussion, Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to table Case 77-82 until the first meeting in December (12/6/77). Commissioner Christensen second. Chairman Cameron noted that the Codes and Standards Committee would be responsible for reviewing this' issue and reporting back to the Commission. Mr. Gastuch, 4209 Nevada Avenue, commented that there was a problem now with the Metro Station as far as cleaning up the property and he questioned whether the station was large enough to handle two businesses? Mr. Flaherty noted that the did not allow people to leave their cars for service and they intend to use an existing 10' x 10' square space for office use. There will not be cars cluttered around. He noted that the problem of the trash was being handled. The City and Fire Marshal had directed Metro 500 to clean up the area. It was Metro 500's responsibility to clean up the area. He added that at the PLANNING C~MIS$ION MINUTES - 7 - OCTOBER 4, 2977 11. present time they have two employees, and anticipate having three. The hours of operation are 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday - Friday and 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. They are closed Sundays and holidays. Mr. Jerry Harrington, 7400 42nd Avenue North, stated he had no'objection, to the operation proposed, but he did object to the color. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug. Voting against: None Absent: Atchley, Anderson Motion carried. 12. PLANNING CASE 77-83 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 5400 ZEALAND AVENUE NORTH - ROGER MCCULLOUGH, PETITIONER. The petitioner did not appear. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to table Case 77-83 until the meeting of November !, 1977. Commis- sioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug Voting against: London, Christensen Absent: Atchley, Anderson Motion carried. 13. PLANNING CASE 77-84 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING ORDINANCE AND APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS AT LOUISIANA/29TH AVENUE - BENSON-ORTH, PETITIONER. Mr. Rick Hollenkamp, representing Benson-Orth, stated they were proposing to construct a new office building for Benson-Orth, to be shared with another firm. Commissioner Christensen confirmed that it will be an office and storage facility for their firm and a tenant. I will store construction materials, supplies and display materials. The building will be 10,580 square feet. There will be 41 parking stalls and will have 35% green space. Mr. Hollenkamp stated they would like to provide only the stalls they presently need and reserve the space for the future, which would give them an excess of 35% green space in the beginning. The building will be brick on the north, south and east sides. The rear side will have a brick soldier course to tie it together. Any roof top equipment will be screened. They are requesting no variances. There will be corner lights in the soffit pointing down and wall packs on the building pointing down. They will install poured concrete curbing in the parking area. There will be one dock and one driveway and they anticipate perhaps two semi trucks a weekm Refuse areas will be screened. Commissioner Christensen stated that the City would like to be furnished with a copy of any easement that is worked out between the property owners regarding the easement. Discussion followed regarding the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for this area, which was pro- posed for development into mid-density housing and the responsibility of the Commission when presented with a proposal under the existing zoning, inasmuch as the Comprehensive Plan had not been adopted as yet. Concensus of the Commission appeared to be that the property had to be considered as its present zoning since there was no way of knowing exactly when the Plan would be adopted. Discussion then covered the natural ground cover proposed for the rear and the problem of the setbacks in the front as required by Code (4.23,Subdivision 1) which states that the front setback of the new structure should conform to the prevailing setbacks of the area. The Building Inspector to determine the proper frontyard setbacks. The Commission agreed that the existing setback was O.K. with them rather than requiring a 75 foot setback. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 77-84 - Waiver of Platting and Construction Approval at 29th~Louisiana for Benson-Orth. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion carried. 14. PLANNING CASE 77-85 - REQUEST FOR WA~ZER OF PLATTING/DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT APPROVAL ON SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE - ROSEWOOD CORPORATION, PETITIONER. Mr. Howard Rekstad stated he was a partner in the Rosewood Corporation. He was accompanied by another partner Mr. Ted Yock. They requested approval for a combined site plan for two buildings. He noted that they had been in business for ten years and were in the business of total development. They have taken from the Knutson Corporation, on contract, all of their available land in the Science Center. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - OCTOBER 4, 1977 14. Site plans were distributed to the Commissioners for their review. Mr. Rekstad stated that they had extensive survey work conducted by Twin City Testing and they felt they were~presenting a plan that would provide good land usage of extremely poor soi. They propose to provide a parklike area and hiking area in the center of the property, increase employment in the area, increase the tax revenue for the City, and an opportunity, if possible, to use industrial revenue bonding in the City. Using site plans Mr. Rekstad indicated the smallproportion of useable land that 9xisted in the center because of the soil problem for the benefit of the Commissioners. They are proposing to develop Site 8A and 8B as a comprehensive two building site. They are now ready to develop Site 8A. In the spring they would like to develop Site BB. Site 7 is an industria2 site as is Site 9. They propose that Site 4 be used for transitional planning and for multiple residential. The good soil lies in the center to be joined with the pond and hiking area, with office buildings and small buildings on the International Parkway side of the pond, and the area to the northwest to be rezoned in the future to be used as a commercial site. Mr. Rekstad stated that what he hoped to receive from the Planning Commission was a commitment to allow Rosewood Corporation to develop this area in 8A and 8B as an entity and that they would give a commitment to the Commission/City that they would develop it as an entity. The soil tests provde physical limita- tions on the site. They have tried to position the proposed buildings according to the_~soil limitations. Building A will be 57,278 square feet or 14% of the land coverage, green area of 65.2% and asphalt of only 2i%, of the total combined site. Taking the combined sites of 8A and 8B, they have 86,000 square feet of coverage for 21%, the green area is 43% and the asphalt 35.45%. In considering the Building A site only, the building is 33% of coverage and the green area is just a lit- tle over 15% of the property, which they recognize is in violation of the ordinance. The asphalt area is 50%. These percentages are a result of the limitations placed upon them by the physical capabilities of the land. They are asking that the Commission review the proposal on the basis of the entire site. They are also requesting a lot split for.mortgage purposes. In response to questions from the Chairman, Mr. Ted Yock stated that the buildings were spec buildings° He stated they would prefer to develop in stages rather than have an expanding mortgage. He further stated that restrictions at the County level prevented division of the property in other than a simple manner. Concern was expressed by the Commissioners about the lot split and the problems should one or the other of the buildings be sold, or only one building be developed. Also of concern was that the Building A site did not provie sufficient green area when separated from Site B, and the guarantee that the City required to protect the percentage of ground coverage on Site A. Commissioner Anderson.noted that the quality of the soil would prevent the possibility of over-building on the site. In answer to a question from Commissioner Christensen regarding the possibility of granting a variance on one section tied to another section of land, The City Manager stated that this would be difficult if it were not developed PUD. Commissioner Gustafson questioned whether it would be possible to treat the undeveloped space as common green area to be shared by buildings A and B? Mr. Yock noted that it was entirely possible that when both buildings were constructed they would merge. the mortgages together. Another factor to be considered was that the land was divided by the railroad tracks. Discussion between Mr. Rekstad, Mr. Yock and the Commissioners regarding the dangers of splitting the site; the guarantees necessary to protect the percentage of green area should the lots be split; and the fact that the 'soil conditions would in effect guarantee that there would be sufficient green area on the total site. Commissioner Christensen noted that the Commission was being asked to consider only the concept of the development at the present time. The Corporation will be back before them with actual construction plans. Personally, he liked the concept. Commissioner London noted that perhaps some restrictive covenants could be filed regarding the shared parking and green area. This would insure that no additional blacktop would be placed on Site A, In answer to a question from Con~issioner Christensen, Mr. Yock stated that he was fairly certain that they could not get finaucing under a PUD because of the restrictions placed upon lending institutions regarding mortgages, on a spec limitation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - OCTOBER 4, 1977 14. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 77-85 for the Waiver of Plattingand approval of concept Development, recognizing that more specific plans will have to be presented to the Commission. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Chr~stensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion carried. 15. PLANNING CASE 77-86 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT KING INDUSTRIAL PARK - N. H. RUDEEN, PETITIONER. Mr. Dick Vanmann, the general contractor for the construction company, noted that the plat plan had been revised per the recommendations of the Design and Review Committee, namely reducing the number of parking spaces in the front. Discussion regarding the number of spaces requi~ed by the Ordinance and the number required by the busi- ness. It was noted that 41 spaces were required at least. Commissioner Ci~ristensen stated that the working drawings must be changed to indicate the parking spaces as well as the expansion parking spaces provided, even though they were included in the green area at this time. The building will be 30,125 square feet, with 3500 square feet of office space, 12% office, 88% warehouse. There will be t~o truck docks on the south side and three side loading bays on the west. The front lot will be signed and striped for visitor and handicap parking. There will be all concrete curbs provided and a handicapped ramp. The entire north side will be sodded. There will be no refuse containers and the only roof top equipment will be a five ton compressor which will be screened if visible. They expect 25-30 semi trucks maximum per week. Mr. Rudeen stated it could be as few as six or seven trucks per week but at busier times of the year there would be more. Mr. Vanmann noted that the lighting wall packs met the recommendations of the City Police Department -- they will be 175 watt high sodium wall packs. He also noted that the required number of parking spaces could be provided by changing some of the dimensions. Commissioner Christensen noted that the plans had not been signed by an architect. He added that the petition should not have been passed by the Commission because of the lack of a registered architect's signature. The Commission passed on what they had reviewed and plans could not be changed once they were approved. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 77-86 - Approval of Development Plans at King Indus- trial Park, Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Atchley Motion carried. Mr. Jerry Harrington, 7400 42nd Avenue North, requested permission to address the Commission. He stated he had made application on 9/12/77 for a 186 unit multiple residential project on County #18 and 42nd. There was no moratorium in effect at that time. The check and application were accepted and the plans were in by the deadline. He had since received.a letter refunding the application and check because there was a moratorium in effect. He wished to get it on the record that he was supposed to be on the agenda on 10/4/77. He was requesting no variances, there was adequate parking, adequate green area, and the whole concept was in line with the existing zoning on the property. Chairman Cameron asked Mr. Harrington how this had happened? Mr. Harrington answered that he had come into the office, talked with Mr. Barber, gone through the check list and that there was no moratorium on at that time. When he brought the working drawings in, on the 16th, Mr. Barber asked him if he knew there was a moratorium? He had said yes, but that there had not been when he applied and his check had been accepted. He had a receipt for it dated 9/12/77. He realized that the moratorium went into effect on 9/12/77 at eight or nine o'clock at night. However, his applica- tion had been in before this and he should have been on the agenda tonight. The Commission informed Mr. Harrington that he should see his attorney. COMMITTEE REPORTS 16. There was no report from the Land Use Committee 17. There was no report from the Design and Review Co~ittee. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 10 - OCTOBER 4, 1977 18. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Con~itteeo The Chairman reminded this Committee that'they now had an assignment. NEW BUSINESS 19. The City Manager noted the reference to the requirement for an architect's signature, stating there would be an ordinance before the Commission the first meeting .in November~ Council 'had also decided not to appeal the Taco Boll case and directed the issuing of a building permit. Taco Bel,1 had picked up the tax delinquent lot next to the property. The Chairman requested that the minutes show that the Council Minutes of 9/26/77 had been reviewed. 20. The Commission minutes of September 20, 1977 were approved as printed. 21. In answer to a question from the Chairman, the City Manager noted that Boone Avenue would be striped in the sprin~-o 23. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 11:40 p.mo Respectfully submitted, Fjoyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 1977 Due to the fact that a quorum was not present, the regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission, scheduled for Tuesday, October 18, 1977 was not held. Members Present: Cameron, Gundershaug, Christensen, Anderson Absent: Bartos, London, Atchley, Gustafson (all excused) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 1977 1. A regular meeting of the Planning~%Commission was held on Tuesday, November 1, 1977 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. b~ Chairman Cameron. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: London, Bartos, Atchley, Cameron, Anderson Absent: christensen(excused), Gustafson(excused), Gundershaug(excused). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 77-83 (CONTINUED FROM 10-4-77) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SETBACK AT 5400 ZEALAND AVENUE NORTH, ROGER MCCULLOUGH, PETITIONER. Mr. McCullough stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to construct an addition at the front of his house. The addition would increase the size of his existing living room and two bedrooms. The variance would be for one foot. In answer to questions from Con~issioner Atchley, Mr. McCullough stated that the roof would be a con- tinuation of the hip roof on the house now; that he intended to do the work himself except for the block/cement work and the electrical work. The sidin9 is now aluminum but Mr.M©Cullough intends to re- place all siding with masonite siding and rough cut cedar. Mr. McCulloughstated he had considered placing the addition on the other side of the house, but one of the reasons he had purchased the home was for the backyard, he has small children, and since theg do not use the front yard, he felt this was the best place to add on. Commissioner Bartos made a motion to recommend approval of Case 77-83 - Request for a one foot variance in setback at 5400 Zealand Avenue. Con~issioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: London., Bartos, Atchley, C~meron, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Christensen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 77-87 - REQUEST FOR CODE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT RETAIL SALES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES - AFP COR- PORATION, PETITIONER. Mr. Peter Thorpe, Vice President, represented AFP Corporation. He noted that he had submitted a letter to the City on October i0, 1977 requesting an amendment to the Code to permit them to sell first quality merchandise (code permits seconds, or items manufactured at the site) from their factory outlet facilitw. He noted that they had been operating on a trial basis, daily from 6 - 9 p.m. and on weekends from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. They had. selected these hours to avoid interferring with .other tenants in the building. The Chairman inquired how the petitioner, as'a reputable businessman, could have proceeded to set up business in the City without first receiving an occupancy permit from the City? Mr. Thorpe noted they had not intended to do anytJ~ng wrong but had been unaware of any Code restric- tions. He stated they had submitted the letter to allow them to appear before the Commission on Octo- her 10th. The Chairman noted that they had, ho~¢ever, started selling before the letter had been submitted and this had been done without even an occ%~panc~ permit. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the items AFP sold from their New Hope outlet were shipped from their factory near Madison Wisconsin. He asked the reason for the limited hours of operation? Mr. Thorpe stated that the hours were chosen to avoid conflict with the other tenants of the building and would also be more convenient for customers. He noted that if the operation were to have daytime hours, there would be a parking problem. Commissioner Anderson inquired as to why the 'company had not sought out space in a con~ercial area, i.e. the New Hope Shopping Center, which would permit longer hours and provide adequate parking~ Mr. Thorpe replied that they need space with a loading dock, with adequate warehouse space and room for a showroom. He did not feel the center had this type of space. Further, they felt that these hours of operation were adequate for their needs. They had looked at a lot of locations but this one seemed the best for them. Discussion followed about the definition of a factory outlet and how this differed from retail sales -- Mr. Thorpe noting that they did not sell merchandise other than their own. The Chairman stated they were selling to the public and this made it retail sales. The ordinance speci- fied that the products should be made on the premises. The Chairman added that it was difficult for PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - NOVEMBER 1, 1977 4. him to consider how the proposed ial~s were different from any other retail sales operation° Discussion between Commissioner Anderson and Mr. Thorpe regarding the request for a change in the word- ing of the Code text, how it should be changed, and that fact that any change in restrictions would ap- ply to not only this property but all similarly zoned districts in the City. Suggestion made bg Com- missioner Anderson that Mr. Thorpe consult an attorney for advice on proposed wording to acco~odate their need. Commissioner Atchley commented on the fact that present2y, the company was operating short hours, but questioned what the position of the City/Commission would be if after the Code were changed, the company decided to operate longer hours and problems with parking availability and increased traffic developed? Mr. Thorpe noted that they presently had 2-3 parking spaces and they anticipate perhaps five customers per hour. Con~issioner London expressed agreement with ComissionerAnderson stating he would like to see the pe- titioner submit some language they felt appropriate for the amendment. He further noted that it might be wise to submit this language to the Committee for review. Chairman Cameron noted that the City's ordinances had been established for good reasons and were the result of a long history of review and circumstances that had caused them to be developed. He felt that the ordinances were quite reasonable and personally was not inclined to change the ordinance just because the petitioner chose to conduct an operation in a cheap warehouse when there was good commercial space available in the City. He noted that, in his opinion, suggesting that the petitioner submit possible language for the proposed Code amendment was possibly holding out a false hope to them that the Code would be changed. He added that there were many other businesses in the City willing to pay the higher rent for commercial space. Additional discussion between the Commissioners regarding the propriety of retail sales in an industrial district. The Chairman stated that a Code change would affect all of the industrial property in the City and he did not think the petitioner should write the ordinance. If the Commission felt there was merit in in reviewing a possible ordinance revision, then it should be sent to Codes and Standards, even though this might be a long process -- several months. He felt there were only two alternatives for the Com- ~.~ mission - either reject the request or send it to Codes and Standard~ It is the City's job to write an amendment from the City's point of view. Mr. Thorpe noted that they had talked to Mr. ~arber who had talked to Mr. Larson and it had been their recommendation to a~proach the situation in this manner. The Chairman noted that this was the only way they could have approached it, but he questioned whether either Mr. Barber or Mr. Larson had recon~ended it. He added that the company was absolutely illegal now and should have contacted the City before they opened up. They had not, and now were asking the City to change the ordinance to accommodate them° Commissioner Anderson stated that he didn't see much difference between this request and the sales opera- tion at Big Save. He would be willing to look at a possible code amendment. Commissioner London stated he was not sure he was in a position to decide if the operation should con- tinue at this time and felt it would take some time to study the ordinance and determine if it should be revised. He noted that the process involved in a code amendment would not take only weeks but per- haps months. He questioned how fair this was to the petitioner? He felt perhaps the Council should make the decision as to whether the code should be amended. Discussion continued between the Commissioners regarding reasons for changing the code, whether or not it should be changed, whether the matter should be sent to committee, with action against the peti- tioner stayed until the matter was settled, and the history of the ordinance and its restrictions and the fact that this portion had not been considered as needing change when the ordinance as a whole was recently reviewed. In response to a comment from Mr. Thorpe regarding the retail operations conducted by S. R. Harris, and formerly by Minnesota Fabrics and the fact that this had led them to believe they also could be fit into the ordinance, the Chairman noted that the retail sales in these businesses were a relatively small por- tion of the entire operation, not the only operation. Mr. Thorpe asked whether, should their request for a code amendment be denied, they would be allowed some time to work out the problems involved? Concensus was that a reasonable time would probably be allowed by the Council. Noting that he had heard no evidence to convince him that a hardship was being caused b~ the ordinance restrictions and g~.ving support to amending the code text, Commissioner London made a motion to recom- mend denial of Case 77-87, request for code amendment. Commissioner Atchley second. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - $ - NOVEMBER 1, 1977 Voting in favor: London, Atchley~.Cameron Voting against: Bartos, Anderson Absent: Christensen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 77-89 - REQUEST FOR REARYARD VARIANCE AT 4404 INDEPENDENCE NORTH - CRITERION HOMES, PETITIONER. The petitioner, Mr. Nelson of Criterion Homes, had requested on 11/1/77 that this case be removed from the agenda. He was no longer intending to build this particular home on this site and would not need the variance. Commissioner Atchley recommended denial of Case 77-89. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Cameron, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Christensen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 77-90 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN FRONTYARD SETBACK AT 3025 BOONE AVENUE - WARREN AND DOROTHY JORENBY, PETITIONERS. Mr. Jorenby stated they wished to make some changes to their home and it had seemed to them that the simplest way was to use the existing single garage for living space and were requesting the 22 foot vari- ance to allow them to add a garage at the front of the house. In answer to a question from Commissioner Atchley about the possibility of putting the addition on the rear of the house, Mr. Jorenby noted that the architect had not recommended it, stating they would lose too much natural light and it.would be more expensive. He noted that he had spoken to the immediate neighbors -- the one to the south was in favor and the one to the north he felt had mixed feelings about the project. Mr. Jorenby stated that the siding, roof line, pitch of the roof would all match the existing home° Commissioner Anderson raised the issue of the setback on Boone and the fact that this was a different type of request because it would in effect change the 50 foot setback presently in force on Boone Avenue which is a major arterial. This would be, in his opinion, a fairly significant change. Commissioner Atchl~y questioned what the street width was now and asked what the dimensions would be, should Boone Avenue ever need to be widened? Mr. Reimer, the Director of Protective Inspections,stated he thought that Boone was now 60 feet wide and noted that when Winnetka had been widened, his property had lost seven feet to the street. Commissioner Bartos commented that it was his OPinion that the City could go up to 75 feet for the width of the street - this wDuld come extremely close to the structure if the variance were granted. Commissioner Anderson questioned whether Boone would ever be widened, since Winnetka and Highway #18 t' were so close. Mr. Jorenby noted that Boone began to curve away from his lot at the south end and noted that the house on the corner of 30th~Boone was located only 30 feet from the street. It was determined that this house did not front on Boone and the 30 feet was a sideyard setback. Discussion then centered on the size of the variance and that the traditional reason for granting a vari- ance was that there was some hardship involved. Commissioner Anderson noted that a persuasive case had been made for granting a 22 foot variance. Commissioner Bartos noted that in the past the variance requests had usually been for 1-4 feet and this was a much larger request. Commissioner London noted that each request had to be considered separately. Commissioner Atchleg made a motion to recommend denial of Case 77-90 due to the fact that there had not been a hardshi~ proven, other than the fact that the petitioner would like for economic reasons and con- venience, to build his garage toward the front of the ~roperty. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Cameron, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Christensen, Gustafson, Gundershaug. Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES m 4 o NOVEMBER 1, 1977 6. Mr. Jorenby commented that he had been treated well by the City, but felt that it might be practical to make future petitioners aware early that there were certain streets in the City that had different setback restrictions than normal. 7. PLANNING CASE 77-91 - REQUEST FOR CODE AMENDMENT TO PER~IT ROLLER SKATINC RINK IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS - ROLLER WORLD, PETITIONER. Mr. Joe Beach represented Roller World. He stated that they would like to develop a roller rink on a site in the Olson Industrial Park. It will be a 24,000 square foot structure, similar to a warehouse in construction. They chose this site because it had good access and, in their opinion, would not bother anyone by this type of business. The business primarily deals with kids from 9 to 14, this is 70% of the business. The rest would be adult type business, primarily couples from 25-40. There is some potential for business in the daytime for housewives. It is a clean business, geared for kids and is run pretty much like a church would run an operation, no smoking, no drinking, policed parking lots. The bread and butter of the business being that moms and dads would be comfortable with dropping the kids off and leaving them for a couple of hours. Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission had to be presented with a rationale for changing the zoning to permit thistype of operation° This must be done before the discussion could cover the building construction, hours of operation, etc. Mr. Beach noted that their original search had been for a site that was zoned commercial recreation. They had been unable to find a site even remotely feasible. They had conversed with both the City Mana- ger and Mr. Barber who had indicated that there was no way they would be able to accomplish a rezoning of the property from industrial to commercial. Their concern is to use the property for their specific intent. The use does not fit into a commercizl zone and does not seem to fit into an industrial zone° T.~ere does not seem to be a particular zone accommodating this type of facility. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not see much difference between chis request and the.request in the earlier case for a change in the zoning text. He would be willing to consider an amendment to the code based on additional work on the part of the Committee including some additional input from the petitioner. Mr. Beach noted that he had a contingent purchase agreement on the property. Discussion continued between Mr. Beach and the Commissioners regarding the selection of the site, the availability of suitable sites in the area, including Plymouth, and whether or not Mr. Beach planned to proceed with construction should the other petition to construct a roller rink be granted. The Chairman noted that this was the same type of case as the previous cede text amendment request. If the issue were sent to the Committee for review, this would not guarantee an amendment to the code° AnY action taken in regard'to code amendment would apply equally to all similarly land in the City. Commissioner Atchley commented that, in his opinion, there was more justification for looking at a zoning text amendment in regard to allowing recreation facilities because of ~he area and access, than in some other cases. He felt there was grounds for looking at this request. Commissioner Anderson moved that this request for code text amendment be referred to the Codes and Stan- dards Committee to consider the impact of commercial recreation in industrial zones and to make a recom- mendation to the Commission on their findings. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Cameron, Anderson Voting aga~inst: None Absent: christensen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Motion carried. The Chairman noted that the Committee would schedule a meeting and would perhaps contact Mr. Beach, but that the process would take some time° Commissioner Anderson stated that the Committee might also require additional input from Mr. Beach in re- gard to proposed handling of traffic etc. 8. PLANNING CASE 77-92 - REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM INDUSTRIAL (LI) TO RETAIL BUSINESS (RB) WITH SPECIAL USE TO PERMIT ROLLER SKATING RINK. BOYD YANCY, PETITIONER. Mr. Yancy stated he was proposing an 18,000 square foot building. Land is at a premium in this area and he had hired a consultant from the Roller Skating Association check out the area. The consultant had felt this was one of the best spots because they preferred a location not closer than five miles from an- other rink. Chairman Cameron noted that this was a different request from the preceding case. Mr. Yancy was request- ing a rezoning of the property. There were only two criteria for a rezoning in New Hope, because the zoning remains ~dth the property, regardless of future use. These criteria are: that the original zoning PLANNING COMMISSION ~4INUT~S - 5 - NOVEMBER 1, 1977 % was in error, or that sufficient ~hanges had occurred in the area to justify a rezoning. He added that the Commission must be concerned with the reasons for the rezoning and this is what Mr. Yancy must pre- sent. The first concern must be for the rezonlng request. The plans for construction would be reviewed at another time. He suggested that perhaps it would be wise to request a table of the petitioner's re- quest to allow Mr. Yancy to come forward with sufficient reasons for a rezoning. Commissioner London noted that the land had held its present zoning classification since 1960 and Mr. Yancy must address himself to the two criteria that the Commission must use to consider a rezoning. The Commission cannot consider the structure construction until the question of the zoning is established. Mr. Yancy stated he was not prepared to address this issue. He had sopken to Mr. Barber who had said this was the way to handle the request. He had provided blueprints to the City offices of the proposal and had a site plan with him. He noted that he had not spoken to the City Manager about the proposal. Chairman Cameron suggested that perhaps a table of the request would allow Mr. Yancy an opportunity to discuss the matter with the City Manager. He could then present his arguments in favor of a rezoning to the Commission at a later time. Mr. Sylvester Warden, an associate of Mr. Yancy, stated that in his opinion, one reason to justify a change was that there were really not that many places for the kids in the New Hope area to go. Commissioner Anderson noted that the rezoning would allow many uses on the site, i.e. a shopping center, not just a roller rink. In response to a question from Mr. Warden, the Chairman stated that the zoning stayed with the property, rezoning could not be granted contingent upon a specific use. He referenced incidents in the past where property had been rezoned for a specific use, financing had fallen through and the property not developed. The property, however, had been increased in value greatly, because of the rezoning. Mr. Loren Brueggemann, Benson-Orth Associates, questioned whether ~ argument for rezoning might not be that future industrial development on the site would perhaps run into the same problems regarding citizen objections, that the development in the Winpark area had? Might not a rezoning provide a more neutral area for development than the industrial? Chairman Cameron restated that there had to be firm, established reasons for a rezoning, with a legal record, in the event that the rezonlng were ever challenged in court. He suggg~ted~a tabling action to allow the petitioner to present a better case for the rezoning. Mr. Yancy noted that land was at a premium and that for t~s type of operation, it was necessary to go into industrial areas rather than commercial because of the need for large sized structures, off-street parking, etc. Commissioner London moved to recommend a thirty day table of Case 77-92 until the meeting of December 6, 1977. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Cameron, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Christensen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Motion carried. 9. PLANNING CASE 77-93 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL WITH VARIANCE IN PARKING AND GREEN SPACE AT 9301 SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE - ROSEWOOD CORPORATION, PETITIONER. Mr. Howard Rekstad represented Rosewood Corporation. He noted that they were requesting the approval of plans for an office/warehouse on Site 8A of the property. Chairman Cameron requested that, in the absence of the Design and Review Committee Chairman Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Rekstad give his word that they were requesting nothing that had not been reviewed by the Committee. Mr. Rekstad confirmed that this was true. He added that following the Design and Review Committee meet- ing, the Committee had been complimentary about their presentation and plans. Commissioner Bartos stated that Commissioner Christensen had left a memo in regard to the Design and'Re- view Committee meeting and read this memo for the record, confirming that the following items of concern were included in the presentation: 1. That the truck entrance and exit would be marked.(west side). 2. That there would be a sodded divider on the east side, the north side would be sodded, as well as the area along the building on the east side. 3. The west and south sides would be seeded. 4. The entire building would be-'curbed, concrete on the east, blacktop on the west and south. 5. There will be 12 truck docks on the west side. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 a NOVEMBER 1, 1977 · 9. 6. There will he 102 parki, ng spaces, four handicapped stalls w/ramps 7. The lighting will consA~t of seven wall packs on the east and west sides of the ~-~ building with additional lighting at the entrances. 8. The rooftop equipment will be screened with redwood throughout. 9. Sign plan had been presented - conforms to the City ordinance. 10. They will use exterior decorative concrete block, with a vertical pattern face. 11. The roof facia and downspouts will match the canopy° 12. Refuse containers will be enclosed with wood. Commissioner Anderson made a motion to reco~end approval of Case 77-93 - Construction Approval and variances in green area and parking, with the understanding that the variances in green space are given, based on the pr. oj.ect viewed as a whole with the adjacent site, and the subsequent concessions on that adjacent site added to the whole project. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Cameron, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Christensen, Gustafson, Gundershaug Motion carried. ' 10. PLANNING CASE 77-94 - REQUEST FOR CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING ARCHITECT APPROVAL OF CERTAIN STRUCTURES. ~he Chairman assiqned Case 77-94 - to the Codes and Standards Committee for review and report back to the full Commission. 11. PLANNING CASE 77-95 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIGN ORDINANCE AT 7305 42ND AVENUE NORTH - DAVE ANDERSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Anderson stated that he had recently purchased a canopy for his station. He now wishes to reinstall the sign but discovered that he could not put the sign on the roof of the canopy. He is proposing to extend the sign through the canopy. He submitted a rough draft to the Commission for review. He is in- terested in getting the sign'back up. It would not exceed the 20 foot height limit or the setback to the street. He plans a hole through the~ canopy for the sign. Chairman Cameron noted that the ordinance stated that nothing should extend above the roof° Mr. Anderson stated that the sign was a free standing unit and would not be held up by the canopy. In his opinion there was no other place for the sign other than in the middle of one of the driveways. He felt he needed approximately three feet of variance. Discussion then fol. lowed on alternative locations for the sign -- at the end of the canopy, closer to the street -- and whether these locations would encroach on the setback. Mr. Anderson feit that. placing the sign at one end of the canopy would restrict the vision of the sign from the street. It would be visible from only one lane of traffic. The Chairman noted that the sign could be placed at either end of the canopy within the ordinance. The ordinance stated a sign could not extend into the air space above a roof. Discussion then covered the fact that Mr. Anderson installed the canopy without first checking with the City, and the subsequent problems involved in re-position the sign that had previously been approved by the Commission. The Chairman stated that the Commission understood Mr. Anderson's problem but that they had dealt very firmly with other businesses in the City regarding the Sign Ordinance~ Mr. Anderson stated he was asking for approximately three feet of variance above the roof. The sign is six or eight feet in width. In order to keep it ten feet off the street he needs to extend three feet of the sign over the canopy. The sign would be offset. The pole needs to be between the two gas pumps. He added that he could obtain exact measurements but hated to delay another month. Commissioner London stated he felt that the Co~ission should be given exact dimensions and measurements before they could act on this variance request. Chairman Cameron noted that the Commission would meet again in two weeks and he felt that Mr. Anderson should speak to the City Manager regarding what would be the best location for the sign° He felt this request should be tabled to allow Mr. Anderson to do his homework and come back before the Con~nission with alternative proposals and details. He felt justification had to be proven for the granting of the variance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - NOVEMBER 1, 1977 1!. Commissioner London moved to table Case 77-95 until the.meetin~ of November 15, 1977. Commissioner Atchle~ second. Voting in favor: London,. Bartos, Atchle~, Cameron, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Christensen, Gustafson, G~dershaug Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 12. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 13. There was no report from the L~d Use Committee. 14. There was no report f~m the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 15. After brief discussion the Chairman declared that the second of the month in Dec~r, the 20th, would be c~celled. 16. The Council minutes of the meetings of October llth, and October 24th, 1977 were reviewed. 17. The Commission minutes of October 4, 1977 were accepted as printed. 20. The meeting was adjourned bg unanimous consent at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jo~ce ~eddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 15~ i977 1. A regular meeting of the New Hope Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 15, 1977 at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: Present: Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Absent: London, Atchley, Gustafson London arrived at 7:33 p.m., Atchley arrived at 8:17 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 77-95 - (CONTINUED FROM 11-1-77) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN SIGN ORDINANCE AT 7305 42ND AVENUE NORTH - DAVE A~DERSON, PETITIONER. The petitioner was not present. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion to table Case 77-95 until later in the meeting. Commissioner Anderson second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson, Atchley Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 77-96 - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES IN PARKING AND SETBACK AT 7140 42ND AVENUE NORTH - CRO~VNAUTO, PETITIONER. Mr. Paul Sentman represented Crown Auto Company. He stated that they are planning to constuct a build- ing, specifically designed for and to be' occupied by Crown Auto. Crown Auto is a corporate chain of automotive part stores, batteries and accessories. They sell not only parts but also have service bays to install the parts they sell. They are requesting a variance in the parking spaces to be provided and a setback variance for the north- west corner of the property, where it abuts the single family lot. Since the time Crown Auto had appeared before the Design and Review Committee, they had eliminated the truck dock. This fs because the delivery operation is to be changed for the company and it .will no longer be needed. In making this change they left this space to be designated parking. This then gives them 33 spaces. If the building is considered as a service station, 45 stalls would be required. Mr. Sentman distributed a list of the other facilities built by Crown Auto in the past five years to the Commissioners. He noted that the building that was closest in design to the building proposed for New Hope was located in Moundsview. In response to a question from Chairman Cameron as to what the company would do if the City insisted on the 45 parking spaces, Mr. Sentman replied they would probably have to forget the project, since the land sloped too steeply at the rear to allow more parking spaces. The only alternative would be to turn the building on the lot and use all of the green space. He did not feel either the City or Crown Auto would desire this. The building will be constructed of fluted block, all the way around. Commissioner Christensen verified,with Mr. Sentman, that the front door would face 42nd Avenue and that most of the front would be glass. There will be five service bays; the hours of operation will be 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Saturday, with shorter hours on Sunday. In response to a question from Co~uissioner Christensen, Mr. Sentman stated they had not spoken to the County regarding the curb cut on 42nd Avenue~ There is an existing curb cut which they hope to reposi- tion a few feet. It will be a company-owned structure. They have provided one handicapped parking space and the toilet facilities will be equipped to handle handicapped persons. Mr. Charles Novak, architect for the project, noted that the requirement is for one handicapped stall for every 50 parking spaces. The lot will be striped and there will be a concrete curb around the park- ing area. There will be an eight foot wide sidewalk from about mid-point of the building on the west side to 42nd street and around the front of the building to the main door. The refuse areas will be en- closed on three sides with concrete block, eight feet high, with wooden doors on the fourth side. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2 - NOVEMBER 15,~1977 4. Mr. Novak stated that the lighting on the building will be of a canned fixture type with the light directed both up and down. This is the only building lighting other than the sign lighting. There will be two poles on the western border of the parking lot with the light directed toward the building and the lot, reflected down° There will be security lighting in the back, also of the shielded mercury vapor type. Commissioner Christensen reminded Mr. Sentman that the City had a strict Sign Ordinance and they should be aware of the restrictions before any signs are installed. Mr. Novak stated that they will meet the square footage requirement of the Sign Ordinance. He added that all roof top equipment will be screened with a wooden fence and he was sure that the green area total would be over 40%. Commissioner Christensen noted that the Design and Review Committee had expressed some concern that if the four existing trees should be killed d~ring the construction process, the petitioner would replace them with additional landscaping. They had felt the proposed landscaping plan was adequate providing the present trees were saved. T.he petitioner plans to sod the entire area and there will be a six foot fence on the north of the property. Discussion then covered the service bays and the type of work that would be conducted in them; the amount of traffic they might create, and the number of cars that might be at the retail portion of the facility at any one time. In response to a question from Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Sentman stated that one bay would contain alignment equipment, a couple of the bays would be primarily for tire work and exhaust system work, and one bay would be for tune-ups. He added that according to their market analysis work, the typical cus- tomer in their stores is male, 18-34 and a good portion of the people do the work themselves. He did not anticipate that there will be cars sitting around waiting for service, since it is an appointment only service. They do not ;~ticip~te any problems with parking. Commissioner London commented that in the past he had worked for a similar type of operation that had fewer parking spaces provided and there had been no problem with excess cars sitting around because of the service bays. A lot of the customers seemed to buy their parts and then leave. Commissioner London noted for the record that he did not now, or had never, worked for Crown Auto. In answer to a question from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Sentman stated they would have a maximum of five employees. It is a rapid-turnover business and the retail facility is basically a serve yourself operation except for the check out counter. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to recommend construction approval with a variance in setback and a variance in parking ~equirements for Case 77-96, with the stipulation that if the existing trees die, during the construction process or thereafter, the petitioner will make suitable additions to the land- scaping, keeping in mind the safety of the 42nd Avenue intersection. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson .Voting against: None Abstain: London Absent: Gustafson, Atchley Motion carried. 5. PLANNING CASE 77-95 was taken off the table. Mr. Dave Anderson, owner of the station, distributed an illustration of what he proposed to the Commis-. sioners. He stated that he had installed a canopy at his gas station. When he was ready to put the sign back up he had discovered that he coul~ not have a sign extending above the building. He felt there was no other place for him to position the sign, except partially over the canopy or in the middle of either of the two driveways. He felt it would be a hazard to place the sign back from either of the two corners because people would run into it. He was requesting one of three variances: 1) a pole up to the cross beam of the canopy with the sign on the cross beam, 2) a hole in the canopy, offsetting the sign a little, 3) going up and around the canopy, leaving the base in the same spot. Discussion followed between the Conm;issioners and Mr. Anderson about alternative locations for the sign; the visibility of the sign from 42nd Avenue, both from the east and west in these alternative locations; why the sign could not be placed at one end of the canopy; and the fact that the sign could be positioned on the property without the need of a variance. Mr. Anderson noted that the sign was primarily a price sign with small letters at the top stating Surf Oil. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Anderson stated he had not spoken to the City staff garding the sign placement since the last Commission meeting. He had 'spoken to the building inspector previously. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 ~ NOVEMBER 15, 1977 5. There was no one present regarding this request. Commissioner Anderson recommended denial of Case 77-95 - Request for a Sign Variance - on the basis that no suitable hardship or reason had been proven for granting the variance and because it appeared to the Commission that alternatives were available for the positioning of the sign. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson, Atchley Motion carried. 5. The Chairman noted that the next item to be considered would be the City Center Guidelines. He then reviewed the recommendations of the City Manager in regard to these guidelines. Discussion centered on the advisability of treating these guidelines as just guidelines, or whether they should be incorporated into an ordinance. It was the concensus of the Commission that the reso- lution idea proposed by the Manager was the best solution. The City Manager suggested that the Commission direct that a specific resolution be drawn, regarding the City Center Guidelines, to then be returned to the Commission for final review and approval. Commissioner London moved that a resolutionbe prepared and presented to the Commission at the next meeting (December 6, 1977). Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Cameron, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Gustafson, Atchley Motion carried. 6. No action taken. COMMITTEE REPORTS 7. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 8. There was no report from the Design and Review Co~uittee. 9. There was no report from the Codes and Standards Committee. NEW BUSINESS 10. The Council Minutes of October 24, 1977 were reviewed. 11. The Commission Minutes of November 1, 1977 were approved as printed. Mr. Atchley arrived at 8:17 p.m. 12. There were no comments or requests from staff or Commissioners. 14. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1977 1. A regular meeting Of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, December 6, 1977 at the City Hall, 4401 xglon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order at 7:43 p.m. by the Chairman. 2. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN: PRESENT: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Cundershaug ABSENT: London (excused), Gustafson (excused), Anderson (excused). The Chairman apologized to the citizens for the delay in beginning the meeting explaining that one of the Commissioners had just returned from out of town. · PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PLANNING CASE 77-82 (CONTINUED FROM 10-4-77) REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE AND CODE INTERPRETATION AT 7202 42ND AVENUE NORTH - RAPID OIL CHANCE, PETITIONER. Commissioner Atchley noted that Codes and Standards had met on Monday, December 5, 1977 and were recom- mending that the Zoning Ordinance be changed to allow for one additional related use in a service station and also amending the Sign Ordinance to allow separate signage providing it does not increase the signage allowed at a service station. They also would amend the ordinance to require a comprehensive sign plan for these situations. He noted that the Committee was willing to meet again before the next Planning Commission to work out the wording of the amendments. Commissioner Atchley moved to table Case 77-82 until the meeting of January 17, 1978 and also to refer the matter of the code interpretation back to the Codes and Standards Committee. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Chr~stensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Gustafson, Anderson Motion carried. 4. PLANNING CASE 77-92 (CONTINUED FROM 11-1-77) REQUEST FOR REZONING LI TO RB TO ALLOW A ROLLER RINK - BOYD YANCY, PETITIONER. The City Manager stated that Mr. Yancy had requested a 30 day table to allow the petitioner to determine whether they wished to proceed with their request. Commissioner Bartos made a motion to table Case 77-92 until the meeting of January 17, 1978~ Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Gustafson, Anderson Motion carried. 5. PI~NNING CASE 77-97 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW OVERNIGHT TRUCK PARKING AT 7208 BASS LAKE ROAD - DENNIS DEMAREY, PETITIONER. Mrs. Demarey represented her husband who was out of town. She questioned why he was not allowed to park his truck in front of the apartment the two or three days a month he was in town. She stated she had asked the people around the building and they had no objections. No one who lived there had ever com- plained. The truck is off the road and not in the fire lane. She felt he had been hassled by the Citg, with warning tickets, and twenty four hour notices to move his truck. She noted that he parked there only a few days a month and then returned up noth. The Chairman commented that the problem was that the City had an ordinance against trucks/trailers being parked in residential areas. He compared it to the ordinance that prohibits parking on the street of cars all night long. Mrs. Demarey noted that other trucks had been parked there without being ticketed. The Chairman responded that the Commission could onlg deal with the case that was before them. Mrs. Demarey stated that there was a road behind the Fina gas station. When her husband comes home he parks the truck there, 'It is out of the way because no one uses the road. She noted her husband had been snowed in up north and this was why she was at the meeting. She added that she felt it wouldn'f do her any good to continue talking. In answer to a question from the Chairman about what her husband would do if the request were denied, Mrs. Demarey stated that he had looked all around where they live and rents would be from 200-400 dollars a month to park the truck. If he could not continue to park on the property by the apartment, she would have to move. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 1977 5. The Chairman noted that he had not heard any compelling reasons for allowing the variance to park the truck, adding that many people in the Cit9 drive trucks and make other arrangements for parking them overnight. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mrs. Demarey noted that they had lived in the area for about 3 1/2 years. Her husband had had his own truck for about 1 1/2. Commissioner Christensen noted that it has been the Con~ission's past experience that the citizens of New Hope do not really want trucks parked in residential areas because of the safety factor for kids. Each case had to be looked at on its own and the Commission was only attempting to find out what the hardship was to justify allowing the variance. The ordinances are based on what the citizens have asked for. 'Mrs. Demarey noted that she had talked to the people that live in the area and they have no complaints. There is nothing on the truck to h3rt child and there is adequate space for children to play in the area and not too many d~ildren around. Her husband parks the truck an average of four or five times a month, for a twenty-four hour period. The owner of the building does not mind if the truck is there. Mr. Victor Fish, 5608 Pennsylvania, stated he objected to the truck parking. The apartment'is right behind his house audh9 felt he had p~tup with enough there, noise pollution, and letting a truck park there is too much. He lives in a house and he has to put up with it, the apartment owners can move. In answer to a question from the Chairman, he noted that he didn't know if it was this truck, but someone lets a truck run all night or starts it up during the night. He opposed the parking. Mrs. Demarey noted that her husband did not run his truck all'night long. Mr. Fish stated this was a residential area, not a truck terminal. Mrs. Dorothy DeValk, 5624 Pennsylvania Avenue, stated that she also felt they put up with a lot from the apartments. She referred to the time a car had driven through her fence into her yard to her ex- pense, and the garbage etc. She was against the truck parking. The Chairman commented that he felt they. should concentrate on just this one truck and Mrs. DeValk stated it would be just one more noise. Mr. Warren Kremen, 7227 62nd Avenue North, stated he called the cops at least once a week because of an 18 wheeler parked on 62nd. He had been fighting trucks for years. Parked trucks run all night during the winter. Trucks could be parked on the corner of 62nd and West Broadway. He felt if you let one in, you will get a lot of other trucks in the neighborhood.. The Chairman noted that it had been his experience that. once a request were denied, the petitioner usually found another place to park. Commissioner Atchley, noted that he sympathized with the petitioner, but moved for denial of Case 77-97. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Mrs. Demarey asked what people would do if all of the truckers went on strike during the winter? There would be no food, no milk or anything. The Chairman noted this was a rhetorical question and out of order. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug. Voting against: None Absent: London, Gustafson, Anderson Motion carried. 6. PLANNING CASE 77-98 - AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL USE AT 4225 GETTYSBURG - CRYSTAL EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH, PETITIONER. Mr. Ed Peterson, Trustee Chairman of the church, stated they were requesting permission to increase the size of their parking lot. The present parking is no longer sufficient. They propose to add 164 spaces to the west and north of the church. They a~so requested an Opening on to Independence from the parking lot, to be kept chained and opened only on Sunday mornings from 9:30 a.mi to 12:30 P.m. They would like to make these changes immediately to give them additional parking for the winter and eliminate the park- ing on the street. Asking Mr. Peterson if he spoke for the church, the Chairman noted that when the original special use . had been approved, conditions had been established that the church had not as yet met. One was for land- scaping and the other the screening of the buses. He noted that the Commission hah been very diligent in their efforts to insure that any building in the City included a landscape plan, enforced by the City, and from what he observed, the church had not lived up to its commitment on the landscape plan. Mr. Peterson indicated he could speak for the chur~. He stated that the landscape plan had specified certain trees. When they were ready to plant one type was unavilable. They had substituted some other PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3 - DECEMBER 6, 1977 6. trees. Ten flowering crab trees for the hill had also been donated to the church, which they had substi- tuted for trees on the plan. He stated they would like to be in accordance with what the City desires, if the trees are available this year they will be planted. Chairman Cameron stated he wasn't sure the City cared about the type, but were concerned with the size and number of trees that had been promised. The code requires that the trees be of a 2% inch caliper. He did not think the church had complied with this, especially with the trees along 42nd. They were not of either the size or the number as specified. Mr. Peterson noted that originally there had been a three year plan for planting. The landscaper had sug- gested they put in more smaller trees in and that by the time the three years had passed, they would be the correct size. He asked what the Commission proposed they do? The Chairman noted that he felt they should fulfill their original obligations. They had said they would plant a particular size of tree. They may.have twice as many smaller ones but that was not the condition. Everyone in th~ City is required to install 25 inch trees. Mr. Willard Johnson, another trustee of the church, stated that when they had been ready to plant last Spring, they had been informed because of the dry year the trees were unavailable. He said he personally had tried to locate the trees. The Chairman noted that the City had planted approximately 400 trees last summer. He added that the second point not in compliance was the screening of the buses. This had been a major point at the time the church received the special use for the church. The church had been informed the buses could be parked only if they were properly screened. The City had asked the church to move the buses any number of times. Mr. Peterson noted he had been in contact with the inspector. He had not understood that they had to move them but to screen them. They had planted some slower growing trees and then filled in with some poplar trees. The trees had not done well last summer and they are hopin9 they wi. ll do better next year. The City Manager noted that the buses could stay, if they were properly screened. This is with a solid fence or planting that would present a solid shield. Poplars are not a solid screen. The Chairman stated that,in his opinion,' before considering the new requests, there should be some commit- ment from the church that they will live up to their original agreement on the landscaping and screening. of the buses. ~he Commission has an obligation to guarantee that these promises are kept. Mr. Peterson indicated that this is what the church wants to do.. They would like to get this cleared up, but what do they do if they can't get the right tree? Mr. Ed Parrell, Church Chairman, stated that their intention had been to plant exactly what was on the plan. The church will do their best to plant what was on the landscape plan this spring. He noted that personally he had not been aware that a fence was proposed but felt they could certainly put a fence there if this was what the City desired. Chairman Cameron noted that fencing or a screen was a requirement, not a desire and poplars six to eight feet apart do not constitute a screen. Mr. Peterson asked whether they could tell the Commission verbally that they would put up a fence to sheild · the buses and meeting the landscaping requirements. The Chairman again expressed his concern about the past commitments that had not been met, but that the Commission would accept their present commitment to fulfill the original plans. He noted this was on the record. Commissioner Atchley confirmed that the petitioners were asking for two things in the amendment to their special use -- an increase in parking spaces and an exit onto Independence Avenue. In response to questions, Mr. Peterson stated there are presently spaces for 350 cars. They would like 164 additional spaces. He added that the problem was increased when one service ends, and before the second service begins, there is a doubling up of cars. They would like to avoid on-street parking. In answer to further questions, Mr. Petemson stated they wanted the additional exit because there were so many cars going out at once on Sunday mornings and they thought that if the people who lived to th~ north could use that exit it would relive the congestion on Gettysburg. Commissioner Atchleg asked whether Mr. Peterson was aware that one way that the church had obtained the special use permit had been contingent upon there being no exits into the residential area? Mr. Peterson stated he was, but that they had told their people that only the people who lived up north could use that exit, and only on Sunday mornings between 9:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Commissioner Christensen stated that when the church had appeared before the Commission to receive their special use, it had been part of the approval that the church would not have any additional curb cuts, other than the ones on Gettysburg. What had caused this change? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4 - DECEMBER 6, 1977 6. Mr. Peterson said he had not realized theg could not have another curb cut. Their strongest need is for the additional parking. Theg do not want a lot of traffic out into the residential area either, but it would alleviate their situation. Theg would put a chain across the exit when it was not in use. Theg ~ had not established an exact width for the proposed driveway -- it would be onlg an exit. Commissioner Atchleg commented that in his opinion they might be causing more problems than solving them, they might have people trying to go two wags. Mr. Peterson stated he felt most of the people that lived south or east would still have to go out 42nd. Christensen - referenced the indication on the plan for a proposed building and questioned when the church anticipated needing the addition? Mr. Peterson said that when they first moved to theist new location they felt it would be several gears. In the past gear they have become verg crowded for educational space and now could anticipate building in three or four years. Discussion then centered on the parking lot and how it would be surfaced. Mr. Peterson noted they would like to level it off now and put five inches of crushed rock or broken-up bituminous material down until next fall when it would be surfaced with asphalt. Commissioner Christensen expressed concern about the delay of the church in seeking to solve their park- ing problems until now, and the amount of dust that would be present during the spring and summer. The lot would also be un-striped until fall when it was surfaced. In answer to questions from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Peterson noted they would leave the existing road and add another one toward Independence. THey have not purchased the property for the exit, but lot six is a long lot, and theg could exit over it. They have talked to the future owner and were quite sure theg could purchase the end o~ the lot. The Chairman questioned how t~e Commission could allow a house for that lot (Case 77-103) if the church wanted to run a road through it. The City Manage~ noted that a one-way exit would have to be 12 feet wide, and curbing would be required. He further stated that because the church is a special use in a residential area, there ~s no requlre- ment for green area other than the 20 feet required along the public streets. However, he felt it should ~--~ be remembered that the church was there under a special use and as such any detrimental effect on the neighborhood was to be kept to a minimum. He added that technically the church is there illegally at this point, because they have not complied with the conditions of the special use permit and the C~ty would have no recourse but to withdraw the occupancy permit if the permit conditions were not met. They are not a permitted use, but a special use. He felt that after a year and a half, something had to be done about these unmet conditions. In answer to questions from Con~nissioner Christensen, Mr. Peterson noted that the parking problems had be- come more evident with the snow and that it is their hope to eliminate parking in the street. However, they feel they must provide space for parking for the people who wish to attend the church. One alterna- tive would be to level off the hill. Mr. Farrell noted that they had considered other spots on the property for additional parking, between the house and the church, or even in front of the church, but they preferred to leave that ~n green. Commissioner Christensen asked whether the church would give a commitment that by September 1978 the parking lot would be paved? He did not want to have another item for the City to be concerned about. Mr. Farrei1 and Mr. Peterson indicated they would commit to have it finished whenever the Planning Com- mission and City determined. A gentlemen from the audience, stating he had no connection with either the church or the neighborhood, questioned why the church could not go to three services per Sunday and have a longer gap between the ' services to alleviate the parking problems. Mr. Peterson indicated that this had been considered. Mr. Edward Lentz, 9008 47th Circle, stated the traffic was really a problem. He wished to go on record that he would like both sides of Gettysburg posted for no parking, especially during church services, or at the very least, posted on one side. Since the snow it had been almost impossible to get through on~ Gettysburg. The previous Sunday morning cars had parked on 44th Circle. He finds himself coming home from his church the back way to avoid the traffic. He also suggested that the church stagger their two ~"~%. services with more time between. Mr. Peterson agreed with Mr. Lenth about the need for the street to be posted for no parking. Mr. Benboom, 9000 44th Circle, agreed with Mr. Lentz' concerns about traffic. He stated that he had PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 5 - DECEMBER 6, 1977 6. personally spent 22 minutes on Easter Sunday on 42nd Avenue, trying to get through. There is a need for the street to be posted. He also objected to the parking on the cul-du-sac. In answer to a question from the Chairman, the Citg Manager noted that there had been problems with the traffic in this area but he did not have any reports of serious problems. Hollis Hennekamp, 4428 Independence Avenue, stated that he has five children and he had purchased his new home because of the location, the quiet area and the lesser traffic. He had had no idea that the church would want to put an exit into their area. When he had built his home he had to live up to the City Codes and felt the church should too. He did not approve of the proposed exit on to Independence Avenue. Mr. Roger Harma, 4424 Independence, stated that the traffic on Independence was heavy now with the four apartment buildings in the area. He was concerned that traffic mould be increased if the exit were opened. There is a blind corner and the cars often speed. He could not see adding more traffic problems into the area. He wished to go on r~cords also, that there is a need for stop signs in the area° In response to a question from Mr. Lentz, the Citg Manager noted that the possibility of a light at 42nd and Gettysburg had been explored but that according to the County, the warrents were not there for a signal. Con~issioner Atchleu made a motion to deny the request for an Access on to Independence Avenue in Case 77-98. Commissioner Christensen second. Commissioner Christensen noted that the request was being denied because no hardship had been proven and because the original special use permit had been granted based on there being no further access into the residential area. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Gustafson, Anderson Motion carried. Commissioner Christensen made a motion to approve amending the Special Use Permit to allow 164 additional parking spaces at 4225 Gettysburg with the stipulation that the p.a.rking lot will be blacktopped by fall 1978, and that mtriping and security lighting wit~ be provided in the parking lot. Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Gustafson, Anderson 7. PLANNING CASE 77-99 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN REARYARD ~ETBACK AT 3118 BOONE AVENUE - RICHARD FLUGUEAR, PETITIONER. Mr. Fluguear stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to build an 8 x 10 foot storage shed on the back of his property. He wished to go to within 28" of the lot line. He felt that if he placed the shed at the ten foot setback spot it would look strange and be almost in the middle of his back yard. The 28 inches would still allow him to cut grass and weeds behind and prevent unsightliness. He has a very narrow lot. He had obtained letters from NSP and NW Bell stating they had no objection to his encroach- ing on the easement. The City Manager noted that he would also have to receiv~ permission from the gas company to encroach into the easement. The shed will be constructed of wood and he will attempt to match the house. In response to questions from Mr. Atchley regarding the hardship, Mr. Fluguear stated he felt. if the shed were position according to setback requirements it would look funny and out of p~ace. He said he did not want the shed closer to the sideyard on the north because he did not want to move the trees and bushes and that on the right side there were clothes poles. He stated there had been no water pro- blems in the backyard since they moved in last May. Commissioner Atchley made a motion to deny Case 77-99. Motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of the variance in backyard setback in Case 77-99 for the building of a non-permanent 8 x 10 foot shed. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Gundershaug Voting against: Atchiey Absent: London, Gustafson, Anderson, Cameron Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 6 - DECEMBER 6, 1977 8. PLANNING CASE 77-100 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PUD AT 4041-43 JORDAN AVENUE - MICHAEL WILDER, PETITIONER. Mr. Wilder stated he was seeking approval of his proposed double bungalow at 4041-43 Jordan Avenue.. The land is zoned for doubles. The plan presented to the Commissioners had been updated since the Design and Review meeting and now indicated the landscaping and the addition of a six foot cedar fence at the rear of the propert similar to the building to the south. Commissioner Christensen noted that the PUD had been reviewed by Design and Review and they were propos- ing a structure worth 90 - 100 thousand dollars,to be rental property. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 77-10,Request for a PUD at 4041-43 Jordan. Commis- sioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Gustafson, Anderson, Cameron. Motion carried. 9. PLANNING CASE 77-101 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PUD AT 36TH/HILLSBORO AVENUE NORTH- HAROLD JORGENSON, PETITIONER. Mr. Jorgenson stated that this plan was for Lot 3, Block 1, Jorgenson's 1st Addition, at 36th/Hillsboro. He also requested a variance in frontyard setback. He stated he had not been aware of the requirement for a 35 foot setback on a major thoroughfare. He could maintain the 35 feet if he moved the house to the SW hut because Hillsboro drops sharply he felt it would look better if he could maintain the seven feet. He would have 35 feet on the NW corner of the building, with a jog to 33 feet at the foundation line and 31 feet at the overhang point on part of the building. There is an 18 foot boulevard along 36th Avenue. Commissioner Christensen noted that the landscaping would be the same as discussed at Design and Review. He stated that the setback did not seem to be of major concern to hJ~ because of the landscaping provided. The unit will be worth 115-120 thousand ~ollars, will be a double bungalow and will be sold. The only change from the ~esign and Review reviewat will be that a "T" will be provided to allow the homeowner a turnaround space on 36th Avenue. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 77-101 Approval of PUD at 36th/Hillsboro North. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchiey, Gundershau~ Voting against: NOne Absent~ London, Gustafson, A~derson, Cameron Motion carried. 10. PLANNING CASE 77-102 - WAIVER OF CONCRETE CURB REQUIREMENT FOR SANDPIPER COVE - 36TH~BOONE - WILLIAM GLEASON, PETITIONER. Mr. Gleason requested permission to install bituminous curbs in the Sandpiper Cove development rather than concrete. He stated he had not attended the meeting when the project had been approved and had not been aware of the concrete requirement until he came in for a permit. He feels the cost was prohibitive and would run about twice as much as bituminous curbing. He did not feel that concrete curbs on private roads were worth the cost. He added that he did not know of any development in the area that had put in concrete. Commissioner Christensen stated that considerable discussion had take place when this case had been be- for the Commission regarding their concern for the streets and their upkeep, the curbing, and.parking for visitors. He noted that approval of a PUD meant that the development must be built e~actly as approved. In a PUD development, the City gives up density with conditions that must be met. In his opinion, con- crete would last a lot longer than bituminous and guarantee that the curbs/roads would remain in satisfactory condition for a long time. Mr. Gleason stated that the road would be builttm.the City's specs and did not understand whg there would be a problem with bituminous curbs ? He d~d not know what more he could to to enhance the property if he were allowed to change the curbing material. He was amenable to working things out with the City. Commissioner restated his opinion that concrete would last longer and would insure the streets and curbs remaining in good condition. In answer to a question from the City Manager, Mr. Gleason noted that there would be 58 units, and instal- ling concrete curbs would increase the curbing cost from approximately $4500 - $4600 to $9200. The units will sell for approximately $50,000 for a townhouse and $55,000 for a double bungalow per unit. He would install a congiguous bituminous roll curb and gutter, to the specifications of the City. There was no one present regarding t~is case. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 7 - DECEMBER 6, 1977 Commissioner Christensen recommended denial of Case 77-102 - Request for Waiver of PUD. - Commissioner Atchley second. Voting in favor: Bartos,'Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Gustafson, Anderson Motion carried. 11. PLANNING CASE 77-103 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN REARYARD SETBACK AT 4431 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE - CRITERION HOMES, PETITIONER. Mr. Jon Nelson represented Criterion Homes. He requested a variance in setback for Lot 6, Block 2, Gettysburg Hills. Mr. Nelson noted that he had been surprised when he received the letter from the City indicating the church's plans and that they included the lot they had sold to a church member. He had not been aware that their plan was to build a road across the lot. He was pleased to see the action taken by the Planning Commission in Case 77-98. He is requesting permission to building one end of the garage to within ten feet of the property line that joins the church property. The reasons were twofold. The lot is strangely shaped and is a little more limiting in terms of house placement because of the way it narrows to the west. Because of the topography, it would be difficult to place the house farther to the east. The east property line is quite a bit higher than the house and would create problems with moisture coming down the hill. The house had been sold contingent upon obtaining the variance. Mr. Nelson. in response to questions from the Chairman stated that he knew that the person purchasing the lot was a church member but had been unaware that they intended to grant an easement to the church to allow a road from the church property. The house will be basically 1400 square feet in size. Commissioner Christensen stated that at the time of the plat approval the Commission had been assured that homes could be built without requiring any variances. Mr. Nelson stated he had purchased the land from an attorney at the time that the hardshell was ready to be recorded. They had not been involved in the actual platting -- they wish they had been - since they are living with other problems as a result of the platting. Commissioner Atchley recommended approval of Case 77-103 - Request for Variance in Rearyard Setback at 4431 Independence. Co~uissioner Bartos second. Commissioner Christensen noted that when the house wasn't even built yet he did not see where the was a hardship justifying the variance. Mr. Nelson commented that probably 95% of the houses in New Hope had a depth of at least 26 feet front to back. If you positioned a 26 foot deep house back 30 feet from Independence, you would have. a 38 foot wide house by the time you took the line from the church parking lot and moved it in 35 feet for the rearyard setback. He did not say you couldn't build a house on the lot with those dimensions but you might not be able to sell it. 'The Chairman noted that personnally he would be more willing to give them more on the front and felt that with 29 feet to the east and 48 feet to the south, a house could be designed of 3000 square feet and fit on the lot. Mr. Nelson noted that the problem of using the space where there is 29 fee, the property rises 7 or 8 feet at the end of the lot. In regard to why such a large house was needed on the lot, he noted that success as a builder depends upon building what the buyer wants, and even with today's prices people wanted larger homes. Commissioner Atchley stated that if the south were considered the sideyard, the ten feet would be adequate and with the church as the neighbor to the south, he saw less problem with granting the variance than a variance in the rearyard that would create an obstacle affecting the neighbors. Voting in favor: Bartos, A~chley, CamePon, Gundershaug. Voting against: Christensen Absent: London, Gustafson, Anderson Motion carried. 12. PLANNING CASE 77-104 - AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN AT 8801 EAST RESEARCH CENTER ROAD - STEVEN CHENEY, PETITIONER. Mr. Cheney stated that apparently, when Coachman buil.t the building, the sign plan as submitted, was never put into effect since none of the signs match each other and none of them have any uniformity. He stated that Coachman continued to operate the building on a manager/lessee arrangement but he owns the building. Since he lives in Minneapolis and they are in Omaha and were not responding to any mail, he said he would take care of the sign problems. He is representing them. He has no control over the tenants. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 8 - DECEMBER 6, 1977 ' 12. The Chairman asked what guarantee the City would have that what was approved by the Commission would be completed? Mr. Cheney replied that he had an agreement with Coachman, with the tenants and the inspector of the plan he was presenting. According to his lease anything necessary to meet the Codes of the City can be done by Mr. Cheney and he would be reimbursed by Coachman or else they are defaulting-on their lease° The Chairman noted that the City had been fighting with Coachman for years -- the trees are all dead, the lot is not maintained, etc. Mr. Cheney stated he would like to put six inch block letters on the black facia of the building that would conform to the dimensions, size and space requirement of the code. The signs would be similar to the Water Control sign. He would change the other two signs at his expense and when the vacant space was rented, the tenant would be informed what type of sign he could have. He felt this treatment would make the building look uniform and not give the tenants any visibility problem. Commissioner Atchley noted that a comprehensive sign ptanhad to include all signs that were intended to be on the property. Did this plan include all of these signs? Mr. Cheney stated it was his understanding that a prior arrangement had been made with the tenant in the back of the building to have his sign posted on the side rather than the front to give him greater visi- bility. He was proposing the plan for the front of the building as it faces the road. The City Manager noted that it was specifically included with the approval of the original sign plan that this sidewall sign would come down. Discussion followed about this sign and whether the tenant needed it in that location, as well as the City ordinance and what its requirements were. The Chairman noted that the Commission had to look at the total signage of a building and while they probably didn't have any trouble with Mr. Cheney's proposal, there were signs that had to come down. He questioned Mr. Cheney's control over these signs? The City Manager asked what plans Mr. Ch~ney had for the signs on the rest of the building? Mr. Cheney aske~ what arrangement there was between the City and Jiffy Products -- they had claimed they had City approval for their signs. ~'~ The City Manager replied there was no such arrangement with the City. In answer to a question from Mr. Cheney regarding the rear of the building and the Commissioner's sugges- tions, Commissioner Atchley stated he should simply go by the Ordinance, which is very complete in its requirements. The Chairman suggested that perhaps Mr. Cheney woul~ like to go back and look at the total building and talk to the City Manager about the signs. Mr. Cheney indicated this would be satisfactory unless he would be subject to citation from the inspec- tor. In talking to the inspector he had understood the back of the building was in compliance. The City Manager stated that as far as he knew, the only sign that was in conformance on the building, was the Gratek sign on the front. He added that there were also ground sign problems that must be con- sidered in the total sign plan. Commissioner Bartos moved to table Case 77-104 until the first meeting in February 1978. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug. Voting against: None' Absent: London, Gustafson, Anderson Motion carried. The 'Chairman recessed the Commission Meeting at 10:02 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:i0 p.m. 13. PLANNING CASE 77-105 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING/VARIANCE/CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL - LOT BEHIND KINNEY SHOES - METRO FONE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PETITIONER. Mr. Philip Fernkes stated he was one of the owners and officers of Metro Fone. They are presently lo- cated in Crystal and need a larger facility. They are .proposing to locate on the property behind Kinney Shoes. The building will be 90 x 100 feet and positioned according to setbacks. They need a variance for less parking spaces since the requirement is 38 and they propose 18. Half of the building will be office and half warehouse. They anticipate four employees. There will be handicapped parking in the front of the building. In the past few years they have never had more than four customers in their building at any one time. There is expansion room for parking at the rear if the building were ever sold, or the 18 spaces were not adequate. PLANNINC COMMISSION MINUTES - 9 - DECEMBER 6, 1977 13. In response to questions from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Fernkes noted they were a public utility providing radio pagers and mobile telephones and were regulated by the Minnesota Public Service Con~is- sion and the Federal Communications Commission. The building is to house their general office and com- puter system. There will be a tower conforming to the ordinance for the radio relay. In answer to a question from Commissioner Christensen, Mr. Fernkes noted that the road easement problem was almost resolved. It was his understanding, from talking to Mr. Velie of Perlich Real Estate, that they had been guaranteed the easement and official permission would be forthcoming shortly. He said they would like to get started immediately on construction. He stated the property was going to be divided and they were purchasing a particular lot. Discussion then centered on the waiver of platting, the fact that the property was torrance and the ad- vantages for both the petitioner and the City in its being platted. The City Manager noted that it was to the City's advantage as well as to the property owner's advantage for the property to be platted. The advantage to the petitioner would be that he would have his parcel identified, in a plat avoiding all the problems of a metes and bounds description and secondly would get the easement out in front designated so it could not be changed without the City agreeing to vacate. Commissioner Christensen noted that it would also be for his protection to have the property platted but the problem would be the amount of time involved. Mr. Fernkes asked whether there would be any reason they could not obtain the waiver of platting right now and obtain an official platting at a later time? Commissioner Christensen stated he would only hope that the legal description would come out the way he thought his land was. Mr. Fernke replied that he had no reason to believe it would not. There will be a berm on the east side of the building (front), the roadway will be one way around the build- ing, directional signs will be installed, and handicapped parking ~.'ill be provided in front of the building. They are aware of the Sign Ordinance in the City and their proposed sign does conform. There will be exterior lighting on all sides of the bulding and lighting in the parking areas. They are considering a low sulfur light opposed to mercury vapor. There will be a concrete curb around the bitding and the parking lot will be striped. Trucks will be UPS, entire area sodded, with a rock bed along the front, and refuse areas and rooftop equipment will be screened. The fence will be five feet on the north side of a vertical slat woven wood type. The structure will be of concrete block with stucco face on the east. The City Manager noted that Mr. Fernkes would have to have a legal survey for the waiver, but the property could be platted at a later date. He sated he would urge that if the commission granted the waiver of platting now, the City's interest in the easement would'be reinstated, so they would be required to receive notice if changes were made in easement rights. The easement has to run to all three properties. Commissioner Gundershaug made a motion to approve Case 77-105 - Approval of Waiver of Platting, subject to the granting of the easement, and granting variances on the size of the lot and the number o~ parking ~ spaces to be provided. Commissioner Bartos second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug Against: None Abstain: Christensen Absent: London, Gustafson, Anderson Motion carried. 14. PLANNING CASE 77-106 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN FRONTYARD SETBACK AT 5206 OREGON AVENUE NORTH -SHERWOOD AND EVELYN WEEKS, PETITIONER. Mr. Weeks stated he was requesting the variance to allow him to put a 4% x 12 foot addition on the NW corner of the house. They want to use the addition for a dining area. It has been a'utility room. They are asking for a variance of 5% feet. The addition will have the same roof line and the same siding as is presently on the house. Commissioner Atchley recommended approval of Case 77-106 - Request for Variance in Frontyard Setback, with the stipulation that the addition will conform to the existing house as far as siding and roof line. Commissioner Gundershaug second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Gustafson, Anderson Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 10 - DECEMBER 6, 1977 15. PLANNING CASE 77-107 ~ REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT WINNETKA AND THE SO0 LINE RAILROAD - RAUENHORST CORPORATION, PETITIONER. Mr. Bob Worthington represented Rauenhorst Corporation. He noted that they are proposing the second building in their industrial park. The building will be 96,000 square feet and.be an office/warehouse building similar to the first building that was constructed last year. The property is about 7 acres in size, there will be 108 parking spaces, and the green area will be 39%. They are asking for no variances. Mr. Worthington referred to a letter received by Rauenhorst from the immediate neighborhood commending them for their construction procedures.(attached to minutes) They asked that it be submitted for the record. The request for additional landscaping has already been filled by the company. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gundershaug, Mr. Worthington noted that they intended to construct the third building when this phase was finished. Commissioner Christensen noted that the petitioner had appeared before the Design and Review Committee and they had had no concerns about the proposal. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case 77-107 - Construction Plan Approval for the second building at the Rauenhorst site. Commissioner Atchleu second. Voting in favor: Bartos, Christensen, Atchley, Cameron, Gundershaug Voting against: None Absent: London, Gustafson, Anderson Motion carried. COMMITTEE REPORTS 17. There was no report from the Land Use Committee. 18. There was no report from the Design and Review Committee. 19. Mr. Atchley noted that Codes and Standards had met and would like to be on the Commission agenda to make their recommendations to the Commission regarding the use lists and additions to these lists. The Chairman stated that this item would be on the agenda at the meeting on January 17, 1978 NEW BUSINESS 20. The Council minutes of November 14th, and 28th were reviewed. 21. The Commission minutes of November 15, 1977 were approved as printed. 24. The Commission was reminded that there would be ne.meeting on December 20, 1977. 25. T.ge meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J~oyce Boeddeker, Secretary %0 your multAple {-~arehsuse pFojeo'b i.n -hhank you for %.he b~n~ 'bha'b youP compan~ ooLtr%.eons ~n -[;he:_r ef~O:T,S ~0 oatLse a m:Lnl~'aum i~ 'the con~,,,r~,_.ozon ach.!.v'zty N':LS sLvomer, plan {,h~ summeP~s cor3. s'oPuol,'Aon, i,-t:T '¥7iiI. need co 082;'} R.3X'h vO3.'n ,, ' ' :,,)-o,'.~ ..... ':.~ ~,:.=s sznoe we could enjoy ~.% a year sooner. it also 'i,'ould offer wil!%er cover rot o~ phe~sanhs~ a!!ov~n~ %0 ~*?:-:ai'a vea:c our ho:ss Father t, han re'breat~nS t,o the rough