050404 planning
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 4, 2004
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDERThe New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to
due call and notice thereof; Chairman Svendsen called the meeting to
order at 7 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Brauch, Buggy (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), O’Brien,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Absent: Hemken, Landy
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Vince Vander Top, City Engineer, Ken Doresky, Community
Development Specialist, Amy Baldwin, Community
Department Assistant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC04-12 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for front
yard setback variance, 8233 39th Avenue North, Loren Stegman,
Item 4.1
Petitioner.
Mr. Ken Doresky, community development specialist, stated that the
petitioner was requesting a 13-foot variance to the 25-foot front yard
setback requirement to allow construction of a third attached garage
addition. The property is zoned R-1, single family residential, and is
surrounded by single family homes. The lot is irregular in shape and
contains 11,066 square feet. Mr. Doresky explained that the Zoning Code
defines the narrowest street frontage as the front yard even though the
actual front of the house faces another street. This property faces 39th
Avenue but the actual front yard fronts Xylon Avenue. Therefore, the front
yard setback requirements apply. The existing garage is 440 square feet
and the proposed addition would create an additional 264 square foot
garage stall for a total of 704 square feet.
The petitioner addressed items from the Design and Review meeting
including: verifying the location of the existing structure, indicating on the
plans that the addition would not encroach on the site triangle area,
illustrating the 25-foot setback line on the site plan, and confirming that
building materials would match the existing structure. The entire house had
been re-shingled and the entire house would have new vinyl siding except
for the front lower portion which has vertical wood siding. The addition
would match roofline of the existing home.
Properties within 350 feet of the site were notified and staff received no
comments. Surrounding property owners submitted a petition in support of
the variance.
The planner’s report outlined the criteria for approval of a variance and
indicated that due to the existing location of the home and garage,
expansion of the garage must occur to the west. While it may be possible
to shift the third garage stall to the north to lessen the setback
encroachment, such a modification would result in a staggered north
building line and would not be the most desirable from either an aesthetic
or functional standpoint. The subject property does not have a unique
physical hardship that would justify approval of the variance. However, the
original placement of the house on the lot facing the side yard could be
considered a hardship. The home would lie 13 feet closer to Xylon Avenue
than the neighboring properties to the north and south. The Planning
Commission should determine if the setback would be in character with
other neighboring residences. The goals of the city’s Comprehensive Plan,
however, do promote reinvestment in the city’s housing stock. This type of
reinvestment would add value to the neighborhood and increase livability
of the home. Based on that, the proposed third stall addition would be
considered positive. Some concern exists with establishing a precedent
with the approval of this variance request and allowing special privileges to
certain property owners. The planner indicated in his report that the
necessary width of a single car garage addition dictated the proposed front
yard setback along Xylon Avenue. While an opportunity to shift the third
stall to the north was possible, it would compromise the proposed building
design.
Mr. Doresky explained that an overhead garage door would be installed in
the proposed 12 foot by 22 foot garage. No ingress or egress was proposed
for the new addition. One window would be installed on the west side of the
addition. Siding would be placed on all sides of the new addition. The
petitioner was also constructing a living space addition on the house that
complied with all setback requirements.
The Planning Commission and City Council have approved front yard
variances in the past on a case-by-case basis.
Staff is supportive of the petitioner’s request. However, the planning report
offers options for approval or denial of the request, which should be
determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff
recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions in the
planning report.
Commissioner Brauch questioned whether the garage would meet the
setback requirements if the side yard would be on the Xylon Avenue side of
the property. The response was that the street side setback was 20 feet.
Mr. Loren Stegman, 8233 39th Avenue, stated that the original reason for
the variance request was for storage. He stated they have four small
children and they needed extra room to store wagons, bicycles, garbage
cans, etc. Currently, his car sits outside so everything else can go in the
garage. He and his wife discussed a storage shed, but decided on a garage
addition to house another vehicle in the future.
There was no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motionsecondedto
by Commissioner Brauch, by Commissioner O’Brien
close the Public Hearing
on Planning Case 04-12. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Oelkers pointed out a discussion at the Design and Review
Committee meeting regarding the location of property lines and the
necessity of submitting an as-built survey at the end of construction.
Discussion ensued on past requirements for residential properties to submit
a certificate of survey and the cost involved to the homeowner. Oelkers
confirmed that the new driveway would consist of asphalt.
2
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
Commissioner O’Brien reiterated that due to the house configuration on the
lot the garage was located in the front yard. Only an eight-foot variance
would be required if the west side of the property was considered the side
yard. With a 20-foot setback, only a portion of the new addition would
require the variance.
Commissioner Brauch stated that the feelings of the neighbors were
important in this type of situation and seven of the neighbors signed a
petition in support with the project.
MOTION Motionsecondedto
by Commissioner Brauch, by Commissioner Buggy,
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 04-12, Request for front yard setback
variance, 8233 39th Avenue North, Loren Stegman, Petitioner, subject
to the following conditions:
Approval of the request based on the following findings:
The New Hope Comprehensive Plan encourages reinvestment in
1.
the city’s residential housing stock.
The necessary garage width dictates the setback along Xylon
2.
Avenue. In this regard, the variance is the minimum
encroachment required.
The proposed garage expansion will not negatively impact
3.
adjoining uses in the area. Seven surrounding property owners
have indicated support for the project.
The proposed addition meets all other performance requirements
4.
for the R-1, Single Family Residential zoning district.
Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the following
conditions:
1. Exterior building materials to match.
2. Review and approval of plans by the building official.
3. No certificate of survey required.
Voting in favor:
Anderson, Brauch, Buggy, Landy, O’Brien, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Voting against:
None
Absent:
Hemken, Landy
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on May 10 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance.
PC04-13 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for side
yard setback variance, 6024 Hillsboro Avenue North, Derrick Slagle,
Item 4.2
Petitioner.
Mr. Ken Doresky, community development specialist, stated that the
petitioner was requesting a five-foot variance to the 10-foot side yard
setback requirement to allow construction of a living space addition above
an attached garage addition. The property is zoned R-1, single family
residential, and is surrounded by single family residential homes. The lot
consists of 11,852 square feet and is slightly irregular in shape. The zoning
ordinance allows garages within five feet of the interior side yard property
line and living space is required to be 10 feet from the property line.
The petitioner submitted additional comments following the Design and
Review Committee meeting. The petitioner originally requested a four-foot
3
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
variance to allow a 10-foot addition. The Design and Review Committee
suggested an 11-foot addition with a five-foot variance request due to
construction feasibility. The length of the addition was changed from 26
feet to 28 feet to match up with the two-foot cantilever on the back of the
house. The petitioner submitted a revised plan showing the change in
driveway, the shingles would match existing, and the entire house and
addition would be resided with vinyl siding. A large maple tree would have
to be removed if the addition was placed on the back of the house.
Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and staff did not
receive any comments. The petitioner submitted two letters of support,
including one from the neighbor directly impacted by the project to the
east.
The planner’s report addressed the variance criteria in the planning report.
Due to the existing location of the home, a living area addition only six feet
in width could be constructed on either side of the home to meet the 10-
foot side yard setback. The ordinance allows attached garages to be
constructed up to five feet from the side yard lot line. The proposed second
story living area addition would basically result in a side building elevation
of greater height. This type of reinvestment should add value to the
neighborhood and increase the livability of the home. The addition would
match the finish materials and rooflines of the existing home. No windows
were proposed on the east side of the structure. The neighbor’s home to
the east has one window on the west side. The requested side yard
variance of five feet was the minimum necessary to eliminate the hardship.
Mr. Doresky explained that the garage would be 11 feet by 28 feet and
would match up with the two-foot cantilever at the back, and an overhead
garage door would be installed. The first floor plan indicated that the entire
lower portion would be garage space and the second floor plan shows that
the front portion would be a bedroom and rear portion would be a walk-in
closet. A double window is proposed above the garage to match the
existing windows on the front elevation. A service door is proposed at the
rear of the garage. A single window would be installed in the closet. No
window would be installed on the east side of the addition.
The Planning Commission and City Council have approved side yard
variances in the past on a case-by-case basis.
This proposal has brought forward the issue of adding living space above
attached garages and its relationship to setbacks. If approved and so
directed, staff would bring this item to the Codes and Standards Committee
in the near future to determine if an amendment to the zoning code was
needed.
Staff is supportive of the petitioner’s request. However, the planning report
offers options for approval or denial of the request, which should be
determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff
recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions in the
planning report.
Commissioner Brauch inquired as to the distance between this property
and the home to the east. The response was at least 10 feet. He
questioned the distance in the event the neighbor to the east desired to
expand which could lead to a drainage problem. Doresky indicated that the
building official and city engineer would review any issues regarding
drainage.
4
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
Mr. Derrick Slagle, 6024 Hillsboro, came to the podium.
Commissioner Oelkers asked that both the floor plan and elevation show
the window in the closet. Mr. Slagle added that the home to the east was
approximately 15 feet from the property line. That neighbor is supportive of
the addition.
There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motionsecondedto
by Commissioner O’Brien, by Commissioner Buggy
close the Public Hearing
on Planning Case 04-13. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Oelkers recommended that staff review the zoning
ordinance with regard to living space above garages and Commissioner
Buggy concurred.
MOTION Motionseconded
by Commissioner Oelkers, by Commissioner O’Brien,
Item 4.2 to approve Planning Case 04-13, Request for side yard setback
variance, 6024 Hillsboro Avenue North, Derrick Slagle, Petitioner,
subject to the following conditions:
Approval of the request based on the following findings:
The New Hope Comprehensive Plan encourages reinvestment in
1.
the city’s residential housing stock.
The ground level garage width (which meets the applicable
2.
setback requirements) dictated the width of the living area
addition. In this regard, the variance is the minimum
encroachment required.
Approval of the variance will not adversely affect the site or the
3.
surrounding area.
A significant maple tree is located to the rear of the proposed
4.
addition and the owner is not desirous of removing the tree to
facilitate an expansion into the rear yard.
The neighbor most impacted by the proposal submitted a letter
5.
supporting the project.
The proposed addition meets all the other performance
6.
requirements for the R-1 district.
Approval of the variance subject to the following conditions:
1.
Exterior building materials to match.
2.
Review and approval of plans by the building official.
3.
No certificate of survey required.
Voting in favor:
Anderson, Brauch, Buggy, Landy, O’Brien, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Voting against:
None
Absent:
Hemken, Landy
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on May 10 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance.
PC04-11 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for
conditional use permit for outdoor sales and services, 3566 Winnetka
Item 4.3
Avenue North, Frattallone Ace Hardware, Petitioner.
5
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
Chairman Svendsen stated that he was employed by Frattallone Ace
Hardware and would abstain from a vote on this item.
Ms. Amy Baldwin, community development assistant, stated that the
petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit to allow accessory
outdoor sales and services limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of
the principal use and to allow construction of a 4,264 square foot garden
center adjacent to the new store at Winnetka Commons Shopping Center.
The site is zoned CB, community business. Adjacent uses include R-4,
high density residential to the east, I, industrial to the south, R-4 and CB to
the west, CB to the northwest across the intersection of 36th and Winnetka
avenues, and city of Crystal across 36th Avenue to the north. The total site
area contains 218,130 square feet or approximately 5 acres. The store is
proposed to contain 11,234 square feet and the proposed outdoor sales
area would be 4,264 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan provides
specific commercial goals and policies including maintaining and improving
New Hope’s commercial areas as vital retail and service locations.
Frattallone’s Ace Hardware is a family owned business and operates 12
stores throughout the metro area. The New Hope store has been at the
Winnetka Center for the past 17 years. The business had decided to
expand the store and desired to remain in New Hope and is moving to the
former Walgreen’s location in Winnetka Commons Shopping Center. The
new location would provide significantly more space than the current
location and the opportunity for a garden center. The store would be adding
additional employees to its staff.
The petitioner submitted correspondence which included a description of
the outdoor garden center. The center would be enclosed with rock face
iron fencing on the exterior. A public entrance would be located on the west
side and a service entrance gate on the east side. New landscaping would
be installed along the north and east sides of the garden center. The
surface would be asphalt with new lights installed on the north elevation. A
service door would be installed from the store into the garden center.
Property owners within 350 feet of the property, including the city of
Crystal, were notified and no comments were received.
Ms. Baldwin stated that the conditional use permit criteria was included in
the planning report. Specific criteria for the CB district include traffic,
adjacent residential property and existing businesses would not be
adversely affected. Specific criteria for outdoor sales and services
includes: 1) area limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of the
principal use, 2) screened from view of neighboring residential uses
abutting a residential district, 3) lighting to be hooded and directed so the
light source is not visible from the public right-of-way or neighboring
residences, 4) sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust, and 5) use
does not take up parking spaces.
The development review team and Design and Review Committee
reviewed the plans and was supportive of the request. Revised plans were
submitted as a result of these meetings.
Ms. Baldwin reported that in a CB district, a 20-foot setback was required
from a community collector street. The 20-foot setback was labeled on the
site plan, however, it scaled out to about 18 feet. Staff discussed this item
with the petitioner and was informed that it would be addressed at the time
of construction. Landscaping would be installed around the wrought iron
6
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
fence. The size and quantities of the landscaping was compliant with city
landscaping requirements. The existing four-inch ash tree on the northern
property line would be retained.
The planner’s report indicated that the Frattallone tenant bay is 11,234
square feet and would allow an outdoor sales area of 3,370 square feet. To
address this issue and allow the proposed 4,264 square foot area, the
applicant furnished a letter from the building owner that would allow them
to use an appropriate amount of the shopping center floor area (15,000
square feet) to calculate their allocated outdoor sales area. The site abuts a
high density residential district and there is a row of coniferous trees that
would provide a strong screen along the east property line. The applicant
provided details of the exterior light fixtures which shows they are down lit,
90 degree cut off lighting, and flat lenses. A photometric plan was provided
that revealed a .4 foot candle contour two feet from the light source. The
sales area would be an asphalt surface. The proposed sales area does not
consume any of the existing parking stalls. The proposed outdoor sales
area does not interfere with any of the vehicle maneuvering. Access to the
sales area would be through the gated area.
Ms. Baldwin stated that city staff felt the overall site design was well
conceived for this location and was pleased that Frattallone’s had decided
to remain in the community. The proposal provides an opportunity for infill
at a currently vacant commercial site. The development is consistent with
the current zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends
approval of the application subject to the conditions in the report.
Commissioner Buggy wondered whether the sales area had been
calculated using the 18 or 20-foot setback. Baldwin answered that there
may be some flexibility in the calculation due to the fact that the area was
based on 15,000 square feet for the shopping center rather than the actual
store area. It was noted that the gateway on the east side of the garden
center would be used for loading.
Mr. Jim Faulkner, architect and general contractor for the project and
representing Tom Frattallone, came forward to address the commission.
He stated they had completed the interior build out of the project and would
open at the end of the week. They were eager to obtain approval for the
outdoor sales area for the sale of flowers, trees, and other landscaping
items for the balance of the season. He stated the petitioner felt this use
would be a nice addition to the shopping center and to the hardware store.
Garden centers are an important function of the other Ace hardware stores.
He stated the use would be year round.
Commissioner Oelkers stated he remembered discussion at the Design
and Review Committee meeting that all foot traffic would come through the
store. Mr. Tom Frattallone, one of the owners of the store, responded that
garden center customers would enter through the store or directly from the
parking lot through the gated area. The eastern gate would be a service
gate for the store. All cash registers are inside the store. There would be
very limited need for any electrical outside other than possibly lights during
the Christmas holiday season.
Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the 18 or 20-foot discrepancy
for the fence. Mr. Faulkner stated the setback was 20 feet and the piers
and fence would be inside that about one foot. The garden center would be
constructed from the setback toward the building. The surveyor would
complete an as-built survey after construction.
7
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
Chairman Svendsen asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the
Commission.
Mr. Bill Gabrys, 9209 59th Avenue, came forward and asked whether the
photos that were shown became part of the planning file and the answer
was in the affirmative.
There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission, the
public hearing was closed.
Motionseconded
by Commissioner Buggy, by Commissioner Anderson
to close the Public Hearing
on Planning Case 04-11. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion regarding the on-site
landscaping. Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, added that the large
trees between the apartments to the east and the shopping center were on
the apartment’s property. Frattallone’s would be planting several
ornamental items along the north fence that were not intended to screen
the sales area from passing traffic.
Commissioner Buggy wondered why the square footage of the garden
center was based on the shopping center rather than just the hardware
store. Mr. Brixius stated that the conditional use permit would be attached
to the shopping center and the owner rather than the store. The owner
would be restricted on that basis. With every application, the shopping
center owner and the applicant needed to sign the application and agree to
the terms. If another tenant wanted a similar setup, the new area would
need to be sized accordingly.
Discussion ensued on whether or not the proposed landscaping and fence
was adequate for screening for the garden center. Commissioner Brauch
stated he felt it was a business decision. A question was raised as to
whether the area would be utilized for storage in the winter. Chairman
Svendsen added that there was a line of deciduous trees on the store’s
property all the way back to the south property line.
Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, stated that the Commission was to make
a factual determination whether the ordinance relative to screening had
been satisfied. One of the condition for the conditional use permit was that
there be adequate screening as required by the ordinance. If in the future
and the screening from the adjacent property was no longer there, then this
conditional use permit would be subject to review by the Planning
Commission and City Council as it related to the screening requirement.
Mr. Brixius added that the screening toward the street was adequate and
needed some open areas for traffic to see the sales area. The conifer trees
to the east would provide screening year round. The two and four-foot tall
shrubs would be spaced along the north fence line.
Mr. Sondrall clarified that the Commission would be approving a use by the
applicant and property owner for sales and service. The request was not for
outdoor storage unassociated with sales. A question was raised to the
petitioner where shelving, etc. would be stored in the off-season. Mr.
Frattallone responded that anything not in use would be stored in a
warehouse. The sales area would be used mainly for seasonal items.
Basically, the area would not be utilized from about the end of December
until mid-March. Mr. Sondrall stated his personal observation was that the
shelves were a fixture connected with the sales and service in the outdoor
sales area. If shelves were stored there that had nothing to do with the
8
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
garden center that would be different. Shelves used for the garden center
would be an appropriate thing to be allowed to stay there. Commissioner
Brauch stated he felt it was reasonable to assume that any business trying
to attract customers would not allow a condition to remain that would drive
customers away from the store. Mr. Frattallone added that they were
hoping that the garden center would add approximately 25 percent more
sales to the business. Other locations typically sell about 1,200 Christmas
trees and wreaths during the holiday season. There may be water softener
salt in the area year round. He did not picture stacks of pallets or anything
else placed in that area.
Commissioner Anderson concurred with Commissioner Brauch that the
Frattallone store had been good neighbors in the community for many
years and he was not too concerned with having to add specific language
to the conditions of approval stating no other outside storage in that area.
The request for the Commission was to approve outdoor sales not storage.
MOTION Motionsecondedto
by Commissioner Brauch, by Commissioner O’Brien,
Item 4.3 approve Planning Case 04-11, Request for conditional use permit for
outdoor sales and services, 3566 Winnetka Avenue North, Frattallone
Ace Hardware, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of plans by building official.
2. The applicant submit a revised survey that illustrates a scaled 20
foot setback between the fence and the 36th Avenue right-of-way.
Voting in favor:
Anderson, Brauch, Buggy, Landy, O’Brien, Oelkers
Voting against:
None
Abstain:
Svendsen
Absent:
Hemken, Landy
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on May 10 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance.
Mr. Faulkner commended Ms. Baldwin on her work on this project.
PC01-09 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.4, Discussion of
neighborhood issues regarding 9220 Bass Lake Road, Tharp Family
Item 4.4
Partnership, Petitioner.
Chairman Svendsen stated that the Commission would hear only
comments that were new since the April 6 meeting.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, community development director, explained that this
item was tabled at the last Commission meeting and carried over until this
meeting. Detailed minutes had been prepared after the last meeting and
staff and the Tharps tried to address concerns that had been raised. The
goal at this meeting would be to reach a consensus as to how the concerns
could be addressed. Actions that were taken since the April meeting
included: 1) property owners at 9209 59th Avenue submitted additional
photos showing the view of the building from their property, 2) the building
official prepared a memorandum clarifying the type of windows that were
installed, 3) the planning consultant’s office looked at the site to determine
what landscaping was in place compared to the original plan that was
approved and photos were taken of the site; they also prepared a list of
additional plantings that could be provided to supplement the existing
landscaping; a memorandum was prepared regarding the chronology of the
fence, 4) the city attorney was in the process of researching information
9
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
regarding issues relating to the conditions of the CUP, and 5) a copy of the
April Planning Commission minutes were sent to the owner of Mid America
Financial Plaza and city staff met with Mr. Steve Tharp to review the
concerns outlined in the minutes. Mr. Tharp indicated at the meeting with
city staff that he was willing to work with the property owners to try and
address their concerns, and he is present tonight.
Mr. Brixius, planning consultant, reported on the chronology of events
leading to this meeting. In 2001, the Tharp family, representing Mid
America Financial Plaza, purchased the property and pursued a conditional
use permit to allow them to convert the building from a single use office
building to a multi tenant office building. As part of that application, a
planning report was prepared and the NAC report included a
recommendation that the applicant construct a cedar fence from west end
of the existing fence to the west end of site to provide a solid screening
from the building to the residential uses. The planning report dated June
29, 2001, prepared by city staff included a statement that if only eight new
Colorado spruce 6 feet tall were planted the city may wish to increase the
number of plantings along the north side. At the July 10 Planning
Commission meeting, the applicant’s architect explained that the proposal
was to install a cedar fence from the northwest corner of the building to the
property line to provide additional screening due to the fact that some trees
would be taken out for the pond and parking. Through the discussion on
July 10, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
conditional use subject to a number of requirements. Rather than requiring
an eight foot fence the full length of the building, the Planning Commission
agreed to an eight-foot fence from the west end of the building to the west
end of the site. No new screening was required on the north side of the
building. Basically, the change of use was from office to office, the
insertion of windows was part of the approval and the city was reliant on
the existing landscaping to provide some visual screening of the property.
On July 23, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 01-09 which
approved the conditional use permit request subject to a number of
requirements. One condition was that the petitioner meet with neighbors to
determine proper screening, either cedar fence or additional landscaping
on the northwest portion of the property. No new screening north of the
building was required by the city.
Brixius stated that his office staff conducted a site visit to the property to
evaluate the landscape plan as submitted in 2001 versus what was actually
planted. A previous landscape plan had identified plant species. The
landscape plan showed nine 12-inch flowering crab apple trees at the east
end of the north side of the building. The actual plantings were multi-
stemmed amur maples. Both types of trees grow approximately 20 feet tall
and are deciduous so the screening effects of both types of trees are
similar. The location, number and size of trees are similar to what was
identified on the plan. The trees screen much of the building during the
summer months., They do not completely block out the views from the
windows, but do provide some screening. The trees appeared to be in good
health.
The landscape plan showed eight 20-foot Norway and two 30-foot tall pine
trees. In the field, there were a total of five Norway pines and six white
pines. The spacing was not as uniform as illustrated on the plan, but the
number was consistent with what the plan showed. There is a gap in the
screening near the west end of the building where there are currently no
windows. The evergreen trees did not completely hide the building. They
soften the look of the building and provide some screening. The trees
appear to be in good health and are similar in size to what was indicated on
10
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
the landscape plan.
Brixius noted the tree types and locations were not exactly the same as
that shown on the landscape plan, however, the tree quantities, locations,
sizes, and mix of deciduous and evergreen were similar to what was
approved. Several photos were shown of the property.
Another memorandum prepared by Northwest Consultants dated April 28,
2004, indicated there was a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees on
the north side of the building. The existing trees could be supplemented
with new plantings to enhance the screening if that was found to be
necessary. The city’s screening requirement was intended as a means to
mitigate incompatible nuisance issues. It could be argued that an office use
with office employees sitting at their desk and occasionally looking out the
window was not a nuisance. If supplemental screening was required, it
should be placed in areas with existing one-story windows because the
city’s screening requirement was not intended to provide screening from
future second story windows. The maximum requirement is a six-foot
screening device.
Brixius stated that additional screening might include strategic placement
of six to eight-foot Black Hills spruce trees just north of the existing amur
maples. If spruce trees would be required, staff suggests aligning them with
the windows, rather than requiring them along the length of the building.
Another option would be to plant shrubs that grow approximately six feet
tall, such as compact American cranberry bush, between the amur maples
in the window locations. The cranberry bush is deciduous so there would be
seasonal loss of leaves.
This issue was brought to the attention of the Planning Commission and
was discussed with the original concept and original approval. Brixius
reported that Mr. Tharp was in the audience and was willing to cooperate
with the neighbors. Efforts have been made by the petitioner to mitigate the
light issues by utilizing tinted glass, blinds, and light timers so exposure
could be reduced.
Brixius added that this building is in an RB, residential-business district that
allows office uses. It also allows for multiple family and other residential
uses which could be more intensive that the current use.
Mr. Steve Tharp, general partner for Tharp Family Partnership at 9220
Bass Lake Road, came forward to address the Commission. He showed
several summer photographs of the backyard of the Gabrys’ property at
9209 59th Avenue. He pointed out that it was difficult to see any of the
office building windows in those photos. He stated that the Gabrys have a
nice split-entry house and do a good job of keeping up the yard and added
that they had planted seven additional pine trees in their yard. Mr. Tharp
stated that his son owns the property to the west of the Gabrys. He
conceded that there would be times that the adjacent property owners
would see lights on in the building at night through the trees even in the
summer. He thought the biggest concern for the residents was the
screening of the property. There are about four of the homes directly
behind the existing single story windows that would have a direct view. Mr.
Tharp next showed photos of Mrs. O’Bryan’s property at 9315 59th Avenue.
There are 60 trees between her property and the end of the building.
Fifteen or 16 of the trees are on Mrs. O’Bryan’s property. Many of her trees
are taller cottonwood trees and do screen the building quite well. Her house
is approximately 250 feet away from the existing first floor windows in the
building. There is also some dense vegetative growth that provides some
11
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
screening. Mr. Lovcik at 9225 59th Avenue has a considerable amount of
trees on the western side of the property but is fairly barren on the eastern
side of the back yard. He would have some site vision of the first floor
windows. Mr. Tharp stated that Tharp Family Partnership would be willing
to address the screening issue in that area. The photos illustrated that the
maple trees shielded the windows of the office building, but he stated he
felt that no trees would completely shield the light.
Mr. Tharp stated that an engineer completed an independent light survey
indicating a .3-foot candle at the property line, which was compliant with
city code. They want to be good neighbors so timers were installed on the
lights so any lights left on would automatically go off after 10 minutes.
Some interior office windows are adjacent to office doorways and
sometimes those door are left open so that the interior lights can be seen.
The interior windows do not have blinds on them. Some of the windows
were darkened as a condition of the conditional use permit and blinds were
installed. Mr. Tharp stated he felt there was not a lot that could be done
other than further screening on Mr. Lovcik’s property. Several pine trees
located at the north end of the parking lot inside the fenced area died and
were replaced in a line adjacent to Mrs. O’Bryan’s property to shield lights
in the back parking lot. Trees were planted adjacent to Mr. Rieder’s
property as well due to the fact that soon there will be windows on the north
side of the west end of the building. Mr. Tharp stated that they were
originally required to plant eight trees, they planted 30 and seven of those
have died, which would be replaced. He stated that he felt the screening
was adequate on the first floor level, except for the area behind Mr.
Lovcik’s home.
Commissioner Brauch questioned whether the Tharp’s had met with any
met with any of the neighbors to come to a resolution. Tharp stated that
when they first purchased the property, they had conversations with the
neighboring residents. The consensus then was that no one knew exactly
what to do to screen the building. For Mrs. O’Bryan the only total screening
would be a 30-foot highway fence to screen the second story windows. The
area of the building with the second story windows would have
underground parking on the first level and no windows would be in stalled
there. No screening has changed or would need to change for the six-foot
high area as stated in the city code. Brauch again inquired whether there
had been any conversations with the adjacent residents since the April
Planning Commission meeting and the response was no. He stated he did
inform the three property owners at the far western end of the property that
the fence would be stained soon, the grading would be finished, and grass
seed planted. The area at the northern end of the building is highly shaded
and it is difficult to get anything to grow. Tharp stated they had received a
permit from the city to install windows on the west end of the building,
which had not yet been started. They installed a drainage receptacle at the
north end of the property and would do a little more grading to be sure the
runoff flows toward the pond. Sixty sprinkler heads were installed in that
area to assist with the irrigation efforts. Grassing the area behind the
building will not be completed until all the windows are installed in that part
of the building. Brauch again questioned whether any conversations had
taken place with the property owners. Tharp indicated that conversations
had taken place with city staff but not the neighbors.
Chairman Svendsen asked whether anyone in the audience wished to
address the Commission. He stated that the Commission would take new
testimony only.
Ms. Trish Toro, 9209 59th Avenue, stated she appreciated Mr. Tharp’s
12
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
photographs of the summer foliage. She showed a photograph of the winter
view of the building and expressed her concern it that did not match the
visual screening as stated in the city code.
th
Mr. Bill Gabrys, 9209 59 Avenue, stated he appreciated the opportunity to
find out whether the photos submitted for a prior planning case were part of
the file. He stated previously when looking through the planning file he
found that no study had been completed on whether or not the change in
use and addition of windows would devalue the adjacent properties. He
indicated there were many people discussing what they wanted and stating
what was in place. There may be a checklist and some may feel the
conditions are compliant, but maybe it is not. When the property tax
statements were received, he stated he talked to several neighbors to try
and get them to contest the property values based on the fact that the
windows had been installed in the building. He contacted Hennepin County.
Ms. Ingrid Schmitz, 9217 59th Avenue, next door neighbor, did not contact
Hennepin County because she was in the process of selling her home and
did not want to make a stand for a lower value or she did not want to find
out if it was worth less. As it turned out, the Tharps purchased her home.
When asked if she had trouble selling her home, he did not know. Mr.
Rieder, 9301 59th Avenue, indicated he would not challenge the value
because he knew someone that did it and their property value was raised
because they had constructed an addition. Gabrys stated he contacted
Hennepin County and the assessor saw that improvements had been
completed since the last time they were at the house, which totaled about
$10,000. With depreciation, the value may be $8,000. He received a letter
from Hennepin County stating in part that “as you requested we have
reviewed the assessment on your real property located in the city of New
Hope. A review of the 2004 assessment of the parcel has resulted in the
following determination. The previous estimated market value was
$204,000, and the estimated market value was reduced to $200,000 and
their records were being adjusted accordingly. Mr. Gabrys stated he felt
this was a depreciation in value of roughly $12,000 to $14,000 on his
property, and he was not happy about that fact. He stated that probably had
the same effect for other property owners as well. He presented a letter to
be entered into the file. He stated this should be taken into consideration
because the city was not satisfying the conditions due to the fact that there
was depreciation of value. At the last meeting, he had stated that it was not
monetary, but the letter from Hennepin County proved it was. There was a
fence at the north end of the site that was compliant so maybe the three
properties there would not be affected. He added he wanted the
Commission to take the devaluation into consideration for a possible
revocation of the conditional use permit or stop the installation of additional
windows in the building to stop further depreciation of the homes.
Mr. Steve Lovcik, 9225 59th Avenue North, came forward. He stated that
the photographs shown by Mr. Tharp were taken at an angle and not
directly behind the house. He has one six-foot high tree in his yard that
provided some screening otherwise all that is seen are tree trunks that do
not screen the building. He had a direct line of sight into the offices and
they have a direct line of sight into his house.
Mr. Gabrys pointed out that the last mailing to him was sent to the wrong
address. He added that the city code stated that it was the responsibility of
the business to provide screening along the residential boundary. He
pointed out that the city attorney had stated in a previous planning case
tonight that if the business relied on screening on the adjacent property and
something happened to that screening, the city may have to revisit the
issue. If all of the property owners had trees that died and they chose not to
13
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
replace them, then they would be left without the screening that Mr. Tharp
was relying on.
Commissioner Anderson initiated discussion on the property that had
minimal screening and confirmed that Mr. Tharp was willing to plant
additional trees in that area.
Commissioner Brauch stated he was disappointed that the Tharps and
neighbors had not worked out a suitable resolution as directed by the
Planning Commission in April. He stated that at that time, the Commission
felt there was no reason that the CUP should be revoked because all of the
conditions had been met. He stated it was now a month later and he did not
see that either party was trying to resolve the matter. Based upon those
facts, the Commission may not be able to solve the problems.
Chairman Svendsen concurred with Brauch. The applicant met all the
conditions for the CUP. All property owners needed to continue to
communicate among themselves. At this point there was nothing else the
Planning Commission could do and the matter did not need to be referred
back to the City Council. If the neighbors still had problems, he informed
the residents the City Council conducts an open forum at the beginning of
each meeting for them to voice their concerns.
Commissioner Oelkers pointed out that the only reason the applicant came
to the city originally was because the use was changing from a single
tenant to a multi tenant building. If Prudential still owned the building and
they decided to install windows, they would only have had to apply for a
building permit and meet the requirements of the building code. He
questioned whether the ordinance stated complete visual screening or just
visual screening. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, responded that there
are three code sections relating to screening and this use of the property.
He said Mr. Gabrys had pointed out one section which talks about a green
belt or fencing for screening. However, that section must be read along
with section 4-33(c)(6) which also relates to conditional use permits in
residential districts and also talks about screening. That particular
ordinance indicates that the screening should be sufficiently separated by
distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned land so that
existing homes would not materially depreciate in value or that there would
be no deterrence in development of vacant land. Regarding the letter from
the Hennepin County assessor’s office concerning the estimated market
value. He felt that the city could not guarantee any property owner that
while development was going on around a particular property that the
property might not be somehow affected in value. Case law in that area
was fairly clear that no one has a vested right in a zoning classification so
that the city, if the city rezoned a property that caused a depreciation in
value, that would be legally upheld. Cities can deal with zoning codes and
building codes in such a way that there may be some depreciation in value.
The city’s ordinance section 4-33(c)(6) states that there shouldn’t be a
material depreciation in value. Planning commissions and councils have to
make a factual determination whether there would be material depreciation
in value or if there was a depreciation in value at all related to the use. The
Hennepin County letter submitted indicated that the Gabrys’ property had
been reduced in value from 2003 to 2004 but the letter does not indicate
why that occurred. It could have occurred for other reasons besides the
construction of windows on the Mid America property. Sondrall stated he
did not believe the code section relative to the green belt issue was
intended to require that there be an absolute, complete screening of the
building or use adjacent to the residential properties. The ordinance
indicated in one section that there be an effective visual screening. It then
14
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
goes on to say that there shall be a complete visual screening. It further
goes on to say that the green belt situation could be handled by plantings
that are either evergreen, deciduous, or a combination of both. Therefore,
a property owner in Mr. Tharp’s position could establish screening that
could be all evergreen, all deciduous, or a combination of both. If all
deciduous were planted, it was obvious that during the winter, there would
be a period of time that no leaves would be on the trees, and there would
not be a total and complete screening. The Code states screening should
be six feet in height, therefore, it was not intended to screen properties
from windows per se, but to screen properties from uses. The Mid America
building was there before the Tharps purchased it. The fact that they
changed the interior of the building required them to obtain a CUP and may
not bear on the issue of whether screening at the time they requested the
CUP was that significant of an issue due to the fact that the building and
screening were already there. The planning consultant’s memo stated that
the existing screening for the Prudential building was effective and it was in
place. The actual screening for the current use would be a similar type of
screening that wouldn’t need much of a change. Sondrall also stated the
ordinance had never been interpreted to mean a complete screening.
Another section of the ordinance allows fencing for screening. Even the
fencing ordinance has a provision that prohibits fencing that would
constitute a complete screening. The fencing ordinance requires that five
percent of the fencing be open so that you can see through the fence for
public safety purposes and other purposes. If the ordinance is read in
conjunction with the interpretation the city has placed on it plus other
provisions in the ordinance, the conclusion must be drawn that 100 percent
complete screening was not what was intended by the ordinance.
Sondrall indicated the job of the Planning Commission was to make a
determination based on the facts and the photographs that were presented
by the property owners and the commercial building owners. The
commission’s experience with the property, the familiarity of the ordinance
and how it had been interpreted in the past, and how staff has been
directed to interpret it, should be what would help the Commission make a
factual determination as to whether the legal requirements of the CUP were
satisfied.
Commissioner Brauch interjected that the Commission deals with
precedent that had been previously established. He felt the Commission
could not take a position on screening multi story buildings from
neighboring properties.
Commissioner Buggy questioned what the Gabrys estimated market value
was on his 2003 property tax statement. Mr. Gabrys stated he did not
know. Buggy wondered whether the 2004 amended statement had been
reduced to a lesser amount than it had been the previous year, as that
would constitute whether the property had truly depreciated in its estimated
market value by the city.
Commissioner Oelkers reported that he lived in the neighborhood and had
taken time to drive past the building at night on several different occasions
to determine whether the windows were an issue. About 75 percent of the
time there were no lights on in the building. About 90 percent of the time
the blinds on the east end of the building were down. He stated he did
notice that on the middle portion of the building the blinds were not down.
From his perspective, he thought the Tharp Family was trying to be good
neighbors. Another time when he drove past the building, lights from
another property and lights from the freeway were quite bright. He agreed
15
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
that the Commission had hoped that the property owners could work out
the details themselves. He suggested that the trees to be replaced be
located to improve the screening situation. Oelkers reiterated that the CUP
was to change the use from a single tenant to a multi tenant use. If the
previous tenant had installed windows, the Commission wouldn’t have
anything to say about it.
Mr. Gabrys stated that he spoke with Minnesota Planning and a
commissioner from another city and both had indicated that residents did
not need to attend the planning or council meetings for the code to be
enforced. It was a law, similar to speeding on the highway. If a person got
caught, he had to pay the fine. If residents were not paying attention or
realized there was a code, it should not matter. If something was not
according to code, it needed to be fixed. If a neighbor called to complain
about his garbage cans stored outside his house, he would hear from the
city to make him abide by the code. Mr. Sondrall responded that
ordinances are laws of the city. All laws are interpreted according to the
facts. The Planning Commission was looking at the facts of the case in
connection with a complaint that a law or zoning code had been violated or
broken. At the present time, the Commission was to determine whether the
facts as presented justified a determination that a code violation had
occurred. In answer to Mr. Gabrys questions, that was what the Planning
Commission was doing. As a property owner, he may not agree. Sondrall
stated that given the facts before the Planning Commission, he was
hearing the Commission say that this law had not been broken, and the
Chairman concurred.
PC04-10 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.6, Request for
preliminary plat, rezoning, site/building plan review, sign variance/
Item 4.5
comprehensive sign plan, and administrative permits for drive-through
facilities and outdoor dining, 7901 Bass Lake Road, Bear Creek Capital
and CVS Pharmacy, Petitioners.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, community development director, stated that this was
one of the four site the Livable Communities Task Force studied. The city
had been coordinating with Bear Creek Capital and CVS Pharmacy for
over a year on this project. The city’s role had been to facilitate meetings
and communications among all the property owners, including the Bauer
property, the Sinclair station, and School District 281. He stated it was
important to remember that this was not like the Ryland project where the
city owned the property. This was a private development with no financial
assistance from the city. All of the goals of the Livable Communities Task
Force may not be met, but if the codes of the city are met, the project
should be reviewed fairly.
Mr. Al Brixius, planning consultant, stated that several applications were
being requested including preliminary plat, rezoning, site/building plan
review, sign variance and comprehensive sign plan, and administrative
permits for drive through and outdoor dining facilities. Bear Creek Capital
is proposing to construct a 15,457 square foot retail facility at the corner of
Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenues. CVS Pharmacy would occupy
approximately 13,013 square feet with another 2,430 square feet for an
additional retail or restaurant facility.
Several parcels would be combined to create one lot. The applicant would
be acquiring some property from the School District, the Bauer property,
16
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
the Sinclair site, and exchanging another portion of land with the School
District to make the project work. There are currently two zoning
classifications for the properties including CB, community business, and R-
1, single family residential. To facilitate the redevelopment, all of Lot 1,
Block 1 and Outlot A of CVS Winnetka Addition must be zoned CB. Lot 2,
Block 1 is being conveyed to the School District. The application for
rezoning has three criteria, which were explained by the planning
consultant. The past zoning was appropriate for past uses and property
ownership configuration. The zoning amendment is required to allow for a
larger commercial site and to accommodate a contemporary retail use. The
character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of an
amendment. The Comprehensive Plan and Livable Communities Task
Force identified this site for redevelopment. The proposed zoning change
is consistent with the policies and recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan. The plat shows Lot 1 and Lot 2 with an Outlot A. Outlot A will contain
a stormwater pond. Lot 1 and 2 are compliant with the CB zoning
classification and meets all width and area requirements, as well as
setback requirements. The plat illustrated utility easements around the
perimeter of the plat and in areas where the larger ponding area is
proposed. The preliminary plat is consistent with the policies and standards
of the subdivision ordinance, and staff recommends approval. The
applicant has requested a waiver of the final plat by the Planning
Commission.
This area was a target site for Livable Communities Task Force, who
identified a need to retain some commercial development at this location.
Recommendations included: moving the building closer to the intersection,
promoting pedestrian access points, promoting a high quality development
with a masonry construction, and locating parking away from the
intersection. This is a private redevelopment, and when the Planning
Commission evaluates this request, it may be contrary to some of the task
force objectives. A pharmacy and restaurant/retail use are allowed in the
community business district. The lot area for Lot 1 is 2.35 acres and the lot
width is 202 feet. All setbacks are compliant with the city code and greatly
exceed the setbacks of the CB district. Brixius reported that Design and
Review offered two suggestions for parking. The ordinance requires 70
stalls for this type of retail use and 75 stalls are shown on the revised site
plan. The Design and Review Committee suggested widening the stalls for
easier maneuvering in and out of the site. The Committee suggested
reducing the number of stalls in the plaza area which would increase the
size of the plaza within the site. Traffic circulation would enter the site from
Bass Lake Road to the loading dock on the west side of the building. There
is a 70-foot by 10-foot loading area. The trash compactor would be
accessed from the south. Staff raised a concern with potential conflicts with
drive through traffic. The applicant suggested that to resolve those conflicts
that they would schedule deliveries and trash pick ups in the late evening
or early morning hours when the drive through traffic was minimal.
Administrative permits could be issued for the outdoor dining and the drive
through lanes. The outdoor dining would be located on the southeast corner
of the restaurant facility. The applicant must indicate the locations of
seating and trash receptacles, and the area would be limited to 30 percent
of the interior dining area. The indoor dining area would be approximately
1,100 square feet which equates to 330 square feet of outdoor dining area.
The area would consist of pavers with a landscape hedge located toward
the parking lot. Appropriate walk lanes between the building and dining
area have been provided. The drive through lanes are located in the
southwest corner of the building with a canopy over the two lanes at the
pick up window. The applicant must provide a minimum of 60 feet of
17
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
stacking area for each lane. The applicant submitted details on the audio
equipment to be used. The highest noise level at the speaker mount would
be 75 dB and would quickly disburse as it moves away from the site. The
drive through is approximately 60 feet away from the property line and at
that distance the noise level would be 53 dB, equivalent to a conversation
at three feet. This would be compliant with code. The trash enclosure is at
the southwest corner of the building facing west. The trash compactor is
located along the west side of the building. The trash enclosure would be
constructed of a brick design and blend with the building. Design and
Review requested that the trash compactor replicate what was being done
for the trash enclosure. Details of the enclosure gates should be provided
for the compactor enclosure, which should duplicate the cedar slatted gates
of the freestanding trash enclosure.
Mr. Brixius stated that the landscaping plan was very generous. A number
of discrepancies identified in the planning report should be corrected. Nine
linden trees would be placed around the property. Staff suggested that
additional lindens be placed along Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue.
Alpine currents would be placed around the perimeter of the site. A fence
would also be placed around the property with stone pillars to add some
attraction to the site and offer a livable communities urban appeal. Low
growing junipers would be located at the entrance and should not create a
problem with sight lines. Serviceberry and balsam fir would be located
along the south and west property lines. Black chokecherry are at the
entrance points and would become a thick hedge material. A major
concern would be to keep the sight lines clear at the Winnetka Avenue
access point. Another issue is that the plaza area extends into the right-of-
way along Bass Lake Road. Both the landscaping and the insertion of brick
pavers in that area would need to be approved by Hennepin County. Staff
believes this has been accomplished. The applicant illustrated retaining
walls along the east and west property lines by the parking lots. For a
retaining wall over four feet the applicant should submit detailed plans for
engineering and building official approval. A railing would be required on
top of the west retaining wall.
Brixius noted that the lighting plan and photometric plan complies with light
levels allowed by the New Hope Code. Details on the light fixtures have
been provided. Staff recommends flat lens light fixtures as a means of
reducing glare. The fence would consist of wrought iron and masonry piers
and be located along the north and east property lines. The applicant has
identified an intersection plaza and a physical delineation for a pedestrian
way to the front entrance. Staff felt that the applicant should bring the same
treatment across the parking lot from both access points on Bass Lake
Road and Winnetka due to the amount of foot traffic along those streets,
and to segregate pedestrian and automobile traffic.
The building elevations indicate the primary material would be an EFIS
with a brick treatment for the lower 3.5 feet and up the column areas. The
applicant added windows in areas where previously blank walls were
proposed. The applicant changed the screen wall for the trash compactor
to brick per the recommendations of the Design and Review Committee.
Brixius indicated a number of sign variances were being requested and a
comprehensive sign plan was submitted. Wall signage is limited for a
multi-tenant building to 15 percent of the tenant bay or 100 square feet.
The applicant was requesting two 112 square foot signs for CVS. They
were requesting the larger sign due to the store being set back some
distance from the street. Design and Review felt this variance would be
appropriate in exchange for no additional signage above the windows. The
18
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
planning consultant stated that staff was recommending approval of the
tenant identification wall signs but prohibiting the accessory “drive-through
pharmacy/ 1-hour photo/food shoppe signs.” Two freestanding signs were
being requested at the entrance at Bass Lake Road and the entrance at
Winnetka Avenue. The Bass Lake Road freestanding sign is proposed to
be 24 feet high and 132 square feet in sign face area. By ordinance, the
applicant would be allowed 100 square feet. Brixius stated that staff could
not find a hardship to justify the larger sign and would recommend 100
square feet, but the Planning Commission can make the final
determination on the size. The second freestanding sign would be a
monument sign located at the Winnetka Avenue entrance and is 22 square
feet in area. An area of concern regarding this sign would be visibility for
northbound traffic. There is a fairly steep slope along the south property
line that would limit the visibility to the north. The location of the sign raises
visibility concerns at a busy egress location. Staff recommends that the
monument sign variance be denied. The information signs include “drive
through pharmacy, full service drop off only, drive through instruction
panel” and driveway signs at the back of the building. Based on the
configuration and traffic circulation of the site, staff recommends approval
of these signs. The directional signs shown on the plans are sized at three
feet instead of two feet. Staff recommends that the “drive through
pharmacy” and “do not enter” signs be approved. The enter and exit signs
are redundant and staff recommends denial of those signs.
The applicant demonstrated snow storage for the site to be located in the
storm water pond. The landscaping plan shows an opening in this area to
accommodate pushing snow from the parking lot into the pond.
Brixius stated that staff recommends approval subject to the conditions in
the planning report.
Mr. Vince Vander Top, city engineer, mentioned that a memorandum dated
April 29, 2004, regarding the stormwater ponding was handed out at this
meeting. Any approval should be subject to the city engineer’s
recommendations in this memo as well as two previous memos dated April
29 and April 15 about the development. Mr. Vander Top explained that the
elevation of the Sinclair site was lower than the residential lots. With the
redevelopment of the site, the applicant had provided a storm water pond.
Runoff from this site would be directed through a storm sewer back to the
pond at the southwest corner of the site. The pond would discharge to a
storm sewer behind the new Frank’s site. There is a low area at the back of
Frank’s lot that floods during a large rain event. The City Council
previously directed the city engineer to complete a Livable Communities
storm water study for the entire area. Future drainage improvements were
considered for existing conditions such as the Frank’s site as well as other
conditions in the redevelopment area. Specifically with this development,
the city wanted to be sure that the collection of storm water from the CVS
site and running it to the pond and then discharging the water through the
existing storm sewer that the existing conditions would not be worsened.
Vander Top pointed out that, as stated in the April 29 memorandum, this
proposal would not make the flooding worse on the Frank’s site.
Mr. Vander Top stated that with the general slope of the property, the grade
of the northern driveway would slope down five percent, the maximum
slope allowed for a commercial property, toward Bass Lake Road. CVS
made adjustments in the grading plan to provide a limited landing area
near the end of the driveway toward Bass Lake Road. The driveway on the
east goes up at a five percent slope toward Winnetka Avenue.
19
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
Vander Top pointed out that Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue are
both county roads. The applicant must obtain driveway permits from
Hennepin County. Hennepin County recommended that the northern
driveway at Bass Lake Road be a “right in” only with no egress movement.
The reason is that there are 23,000 vehicles per day on Bass Lake Road.
Hennepin County was concerned that some vehicles exiting the driveway
would seek to cross both lanes of traffic to utilize the left turn lane to go
northbound on Winnetka and/or the left turn lane to make a u-turn to go
westbound on Bass Lake Road. This would present a safety concern from
Hennepin County’s standpoint. Vander Top added that there was a median
in Bass Lake Road along the northern length of the property to prevent a
left turn from Bass Lake Road into the driveway. Hennepin County does
not have any concerns with right or left turn movements onto Winnetka
Avenue. The county did recommend three lanes for the eastern driveway,
two outbound and one inbound lane.
Hennepin County would allow improvements for the plaza in the right-of-
way with the understanding in the future if there were transportation
improvements required in the right-of-way that would require the removal
of the plaza, it would be done at the owner’s cost. Through maintenance
agreements and easements, the city would perform the work to remove the
plaza with the cost paid by the property owner. Vander Top stressed that
Hennepin County seeks relationships with cities to perform the work rather
than each property owner.
Mr. Bill Tippman, vice president of Bear Creek Capital of Cincinnati, Ohio,
and designated developer for CVS on projects in the Hennepin County
area, came forward. He explained that CVS was currently the largest
pharmaceutical company in the country with about 5,000 locations, mostly
on the east coast. About one and one-half years ago, the company
identified the greater Twin Cities area as a designated market. Bear Creek
Capital was chosen as the developer for the west side of the river and
another developer for the east side. He stated they have enjoyed working
with city staff on this project.
Commissioner Oelkers wondered how CVS felt about the recommended
three lanes for the eastern driveway, and Tippmann responded that they
would be receptive to the three lanes. Oelkers thought that at the Design
and Review Committee meeting there had been discussion about taking
the half circle plaza out of the right-of-way and incorporating it into the
parking lot, and to provide a mirror effect with the Winnetka Green corner
aesthetics. McDonald stated that the petitioner had submitted a prospectus
of how this property would blend in with the Ryland development. It was
noted that there was some concern at the loss of parking stalls if the plaza
was to be incorporated onto the CVS site. The plaza area is approximately
50 to 60 feet in diameter in a half-round design. The applicant stated he
envisioned benches in the plaza area. The Commission agreed that the
proposed size would be large enough. Commissioner Brauch wondered
whether pedestrians would cross at the intersection.
Chairman Svendsen mentioned that he remembered discussion about
relocating the pylon sign at the driveway on Bass Lake Road closer to the
intersection to serve both Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. Mr.
Tippmann stated that the purpose of the pylon sign by the driveway was to
identify the entrance for eastbound traffic on Bass Lake Road. The reason
for the monument sign at the Winnetka driveway was that it was the only
opportunity for northbound traffic and westbound traffic to enter the
property. Discussion ensued on the setback of 10 feet for the signs. Mr.
Tippmann questioned whether one of the fence posts could be enlarged
20
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
near the Winnetka Avenue driveway and incorporate signage into the post.
Brixius added that a corner property was allowed only one freestanding
sign. When asked, Mr. Tippmann stated that CVS could agree to a 100-
foot pylon sign, but stressed they would like to have some form of
identification at the Winnetka entrance. Both signs would be internally
illuminated. Brixius added that staff and the Design and Review Committee
would agree to a 112 square foot wall sign for CVS and a 100 square foot
wall sign for the second tenant, and Tippmann concurred.
Commissioner Oelkers wondered how the petitioner felt about continuing
the pedestrian paver areas from the sidewalk at each entrance through the
parking area to the store’s entrance. Mr. Tippmann stated he did not feel it
would serve any purpose except to eliminate green space in the islands.
Brixius added that the paver treatment could be between the islands.
Commissioner Anderson mentioned that typically people take the shortest
distance between two points. Mr. Ross Fairbrother, engineer for CVS,
pointed out that there was a 12 percent grade change upward in the site
toward the driveway on Winnetka.
Commissioner Oelkers wondered whether there had been any information
provided for the demolition of the house on the Bauer property. McDonald
reported that was identified on the plat. Tippmann interjected that CVS had
an agreement with the school district where CVS and the school district
would trade approximately 15,000 square feet of land. CVS would either
purchase additional land from the school district or, through the use of an
easement, utilize land for the pond. The agreement states that CVS would
demolish the single family home and take care of any environmental
issues. The staff report recommends that CVS also remove the curb cut
and repair the sidewalk.
Oelkers initiated discussion on the future pond on the School District site.
Vander Top responded that the Livable Communities Storm Water Study
anticipated the redevelopment of the school property. If that
redevelopment would happen, there would be a much larger pond on the
school property. Staff encouraged the applicant and school district to work
together to build the smaller pond in the permanent location. The
arrangement the two entities have come to is to construct a temporary
pond. City staff encouraged CVS to seek an easement from the school
district so whenever the school property would be redeveloped the
easement could be vacated. The school district would still own the property
and could construct the pond in its permanent location and redevelop this
ponding area. In the long-term, this pond would be replaced in a more
permanent location.
Brixius clarified the location of several trees on the landscaping plan along
Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue.
Chairman Svendsen pointed out the recommendation from West Metro
Fire with regard to a no parking zone at the end of the loading dock.
Commissioner Anderson questioned the hours of operation. Mr. Tippmann
replied that CVS operates basically the same as Walgreens, its biggest
competitor. CVS intends to have five or six locations throughout the metro
area that would operate 24 hours. They were requesting 24-hour operation
for all of the locations, due to the fact they had not yet determined which
stores would be open 24-hours. The entire store would be open 24 hours,
but was geared toward the pharmacy. Brixius stated that there was no
restriction on hours of operation for retail facilities. It was noted that the
New Hope Walgreens store was not a 24-hour operation.
21
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
Mr. Tippmann stated that he and CVS were in total agreement with the
conditions in the planning report with the following exceptions: 1) flat lens
light fixtures – Brixius interjected that the city did not want a bare bulb
exposure, but a hooded illuminary would be acceptable – the petitioner
agreed with that suggestion; 2) asked that the auxiliary signs stating drive
through pharmacy be allowed due to the fact that portion of the business
was an important element to CVS and the way the site was configured the
drive through would be completely shielded at the back of the store –
Brixius interjected that some of the wall signage for drive through would be
approved. Svendsen added that signage for the drive through at the back
was all right.
There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motionsecondedto
by Commissioner Brauch, by Commissioner Buggy
close the Public Hearing
on Planning Case 04-10. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Oelkers stated he felt the biggest issue for the project was
the large amount of signage requested for the front of the building. The
pylon sign sized at 100 square feet was fine, but another monument sign
was too much signage. The informational signs should be according to
code. Brixius stated that he felt all the signage related to the drive through
was appropriate; the construction panels, the stacking lanes, directional
signs were all recommended for approval. His recommendation for the
freestanding sign was 100 square feet and denial of the secondary
monument sign. The 10-foot setback should be met. His wall sign
recommendation was a variance for 112 square feet, but all miscellaneous
signs including the drive through, one hour photo, and food service would
be prohibited. Svendsen questioned whether there would be any proposed
pylon signage area for the second tenant. Mr. Tippmann stated that tenant
could share the pylon sign. Commissioner Buggy suggested that the
petitioner incorporate the Winnetka signage into the fence post and bring
details to the City Council meeting. It was noted that there would not be
any digital or electronic type readerboard sign.
MOTION Motionsecondedto
by Commissioner Oelkers, by Commissioner Buggy,
Item 4.5 approve Planning Case 04-10, Request for preliminary plat, rezoning,
site/building plan review, sign variance/Comprehensive Sign Plan,
and administrative permits for drive-through facilities and outdoor
dining, 7901 Bass Lake Road, Bear Creek Capital and CVS Pharmacy,
Petitioners.
Rezoning – Staff finds that conditions have changed that warrant the
expansion of the CB zoning in conjunction with this application. This
site has been identified for redevelopment and the Comprehensive
Plan identifies this area for commercial land use. Under these
circumstances, staff recommends approval of the zoning change.
Preliminary Plat – The proposed preliminary plat meets the standards
of the New Hope Subdivision Ordinance and CB Zoning District. Staff
recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. Comply with recommendations of city engineer (April 15 and 29,
2004, correspondence).
2. Comply with recommendations of city attorney (April 23, 2004,
correspondence).
22
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
3. Subject to Hennepin County plat review and approval of street
access permits (May 6, 2004, correspondence received after
Planning Commission meeting).
4. Planning Commission agrees to waive review of final plat.
5. Park fees to be paid at time of final plat approval (2.35 acres x
$2,500 = $5,875).
Site and Building Plan Review
Execute development agreement with city and provide the
1.
appropriate financial security for site improvement work (amount
to be determined by building official and city engineer).
Comply with city engineer recommendations, per April 15 and 29,
2.
and stormwater ponding memo dated April 29, 2004, attached
correspondence.
Approval of plans by building official.
3.
Approval of plans by West Metro Fire.
4.
Comply with planner recommendations, as follows:
5.
a. Hennepin County providing written approval of the plaza
improvements and landscaping. Without this approval, the
proposed plaza should be expanded on site. This will change
the site plan design.
b. Provide a detail for trash compactor enclosure gates. Said
gates should duplicate the trash enclosure gates.
c. Landscape plan:
1) Extending over-story tree treatment along Bass Lake
Road and Winnetka Avenue.
2) Details on the retaining walls over four feet in height
must be submitted for review and approval by the New
Hope building official and city engineer. Railings must
be installed atop the west retaining wall.
3) Correct discrepancies between landscape plan and
schedule.
d. Parking lot lights shall use the hooded luminaire fixtures.
e. The following signage is approved for the CVS multi tenant
building:
1) Wall Signs:
a) Approves a variance for two CVS walls signs at 112
square feet each (4 feet by 28 feet) in area.
b) Other miscellaneous signs (i.e., drive through, one
hour photo, food center) shall be prohibited.
c) The other tenant bay shall receive a wall sign up to
100 square feet in area.
2) Freestanding Signs:
a) Freestanding sign on Bass Lake Road be reduced
from 132 to 100 square feet.
b) Second freestanding sign on Winnetka to be 22
square feet, incorporated into fence, detail to be
provided.
c) The freestanding signs be set back 10 feet from all
property lines.
3) Informational Signs – Per the sign packet submitted by
the applicant, the city approves the sign size and
location for Signs D, E, F, G, and H.
4) Directional Signs:
a) The city approves the size and location for Signs I
and L per the applicant’s sign plan.
b) The proposed Sign J (enter) and Sign K (exit) are
23
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
prohibited.
Administrative Permit – Outdoor Dining – Administrative permit for
outdoor dining is approved with the following criteria:
Outdoor dining area shall be limited to 330 square feet,
1.
delineated by landscaping and brick pavers.
The applicant is required to provide indoor storage space for
2.
any movable dining area furniture for winter month storage.
Administrative Permit – Drive Through Facilities – Administrative
permit for drive through facilities is approved with the following
condition:
1.
All deliveries and trash pick up shall be scheduled for late
evening hours or early morning hours when drive through traffic
is minimal.
Voting in favor:
Anderson, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, O’Brien,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against:
None
Absent:
Barrick, Landy
Motion carried.
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on May 10 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance.
Design and Review Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met with the
petitioners in April and had a special meeting with Tharps. He added that
Committee
staff was expecting two or three applications for the May meeting. The
Item 5.1
Committee would meet on May 13 at 7:30 a.m.
Codes and Standards McDonald reported that the Codes and Standards Committee would be
meeting on May 19 at 7 a.m. to discuss several items.
Committee
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESSMotionseconded
was made by Commissioner Buggy, by Commissioner
to approve the Planning Commission minutes of April 6,
Oelkers,
2004.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
ANNOUNCEMENTSChairman Svendsen acknowledged the letter of resignation from Cindy
Barrick and thanked her for her years of service on the commission.
McDonald added that the city would be advertising for a new
commissioner.
Commissioner Oelkers stated he had never felt forced to vote either for or
against a project they did not feel was an appropriate use for the site.
McDonald added that city staff tries very hard to give the Commission all
the facts so it can made the best decision.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:25
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
24
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004
Pamela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
25
Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 2004