050388 Planning AGENDA
PLANNNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 3, 1988
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:30 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS
The city of New Hope Planning Commission serves in an
advisory capacity to the City Council. The Commission
is composed of eight New Hope residents who have been
appointed by the city Council to review all special
procedures pertaining to the sign code and zoning code.
The Planning Commission will review a petitioner's case
and may act on the case in the following manner:
1. Recommend that the city Council approve
the request with or without special
conditions;
2. Recommend that the city Council deny the
request; or
3. Table the case for further consideration.
If the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve or deny a request, the planning case
will be placed on the City Council agenda for the
regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to
two weeks of the Planning~Commission meeting.
If the Planning Commission tables the request, the
petitioner will be asked to return for the next
Commission meeting.
Petitioners are asked to come to the podium when the
appropriate case is called. Please state your name,
address, the request before the Commission, and discuss
any information relevant to the request.
citizens who wish to speak to the Commission regarding
the case should be recognized, come to the.~podium, state
your name, address, and concern.
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 3, 1988
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 Case 88-6 - Request for a Three Percent Variance to the
Required 35 Percent Green Area in an I-1 Zoning
District at 7301 37th Avenue North,
AFP Partners/Richard Curry, Petitioner
3.2 Case 88-9 - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a
Veterinarian Clinic in and R-O Zoning District,
and Construction Approval at 3709 Winnetka Avenue
North,
New Hope Animal Hospital/Randall J. Herman,
Petitioner
3.3 Case 88-10 - Request for a Variance of 17 Parking Spaces to the
Required 36 for a Restaurant at 7181 42nd Avenue
North,
Grobe's Cafe/Larry Sandberg, Petitioner
3.4 Case 88-11 - Request for a Variance of Two Feet to the Required
Five-Foot Sideyard Setback at 5908 Boone Avenue N.,
Jim M. and Sandra Larson, Petitioner
3.5 Case 88-12 - Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval at
8801-8821 Science Center Drive,
Prudential Insurance Company of America/Attracta
Sign Company, Petitioner
3.6 Case 88-13 - Request for a Variance to Allow an Expansion of a
Non-Conforming Structure, and a Variance of 12 Feet
to the Required 30 Foot Front Yard Setback, at 3243
Flag Avenue North,
Daniel A. and Barbara L. Nordberg, Petitioners
3.7 Case 88-15 - Request for a Text Amendment to Allow Religious
Buildings in an I-1 (Limited Industrial) Zoning
District at 9000 Science Center Drive,
Church of the Open Door/Timm Lundberg, Petitioner
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS
4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee
4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee
Planning Commission Agenda
May 3, 1988
Page -2-
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of April 5, 1988
6.3 Review of City Council Minutes of March 28, 1988, and
April 11, 1988
6.4 Review of HRA Minutes of March 28, 1988, and April 11, 1988
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS
8. ADJOURNMENT
--1
City of New Hope
Planning Case Report
Planning Case: 88-6
Request: Three percent variance to the required 35 percent
green area in an I-1 zoning district
Location: 7301 36th Avenue North
Zoning: I-1
Petitioner: AFP Partners/Richard Curry
Date: May 3, 1988
CASE UPDATE
1. The Planning Commission tabled this case at its March 1,
1988 meeting and its April 5, 1988 meeting. Staff has
attached minutes of these meetings to the planning case
report.
2. The petitioner was encouraged to research the option of
purchasing~property from either Soo Line Railroad or the
property located at 3531 Nevada Avenue (VIDCO) so that he
could expand his existing lot to meet the green space
requirement.
Staff has reviewed the VIDCO property and found that with
its outdoor storage, it is at 35 percent~green area and
therefore could not sell any of its property and remain in
compliance with the code.~
The petitioner contacted staff on April 29, 1988, and informed us
that he is working with the Soo Line to lease a portion of the
adjacent property as an easement for green space. The city has
no provision in its code to "share" green space. Industrial lots
must stand alone in calculating the required green area. The
petitioner would need to purchase this additional property and
consolidate it with the existing lot to meet the 35 percent green
area requirement.
RECOMMENDATION ~
The petitioner may need additional time to pursue the acquisition
of additional property from the Soo Line Railroad. As a result,
the Commission may wish to consider tabling Planning Case 88-6
until June 7, 1988.
Planning Case 88-6
May 3, 1988
Page -2-
If additional land acquisition is not a possibility, staff
recommends denial of the request for a three percent variance to
the required thirty-five percent green area at 7301 36th Avenue
North, as presented in Planning Case 88-6, because the petitioner
has not presented evidence that demonstrates that the variance
criteria established in Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code of
ordinances has not been met.
Attachments: Planning Commission Minutes (4-5-88)
Planning Case Report (4-5-88)
Planning Case Report (3-1-88)
CITY OFNEWHOPE
4401XYLON AVENUE NO~
HENNEP~~, MINNESOTA55428
PIANNING~qSICNMINUVF~ April 5, 1988
CATI. TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New
Hope was held on Tuesday, April 5, 1988 at the New Hope City
Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North.
The meeting was called to order by f~airman Cameron at 7:30
p.m.
ROLL CATI. Present: Anderson, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards,
Absent: Lutts, Friedrich
I~3RT.~C HEARING
PC 88-6 Mr. Richard Curry stated he was requesting a variance of the
REQtlEST FOR 3% GR~N green area requirement on the property at 7301 36th Avenue
AREA VARIANCE AT He referred to a letter he had written to Doug Sandstad the
7301 36th AVf~UE N. the city's Building Official regarding the problem.
He noted that it was his understanding that variances were not
.granted for economic reasons. He added that the petitioners
had acc,]ired 2 1/2 acres by Right of Purchase Agreement and had
appeared before the City Council and received unofficial
indication that expansion of that particular self storage unit
would be approved. Subsequently a moratorium had been
established. This expansion would have made this property part
of a co~u~Dn driveway. When the moratorium was lifted, a new
ordinance was created prohibiting the construction of any other
self storage units, in the city.
He had a building full of tenants on either side and it would
be almost impossible, in his opinion, to return that building
to its original condition. He stated he would be willing-to
add to the landscaping on the site, if necessary. He felt that
they had created a site that did not look like typical mini-
storage units.
Oo~u~,]ssioner Sonsin stated he felt that it appeared to him that
there had been some "cross over" in procedure. He was
concerned about whether construction approval had been given by
the city. He felt that the changes made in the building had
led directly to the current problem. The city had not been
notified that the building plans had been changed.
Mr. Curry stated that all of the buildings had been designed to
be "clear span" which would allow the adjusting of size of
unit, accordirg to demand.
-2-
Co~m~issioner Sonsin noted that had Mr. Curry checked with the
city staff before proceeding with changes, the present problem
might have been avoided.
Mr. Curry noted that one could not always predict the market.
Co~issioner Sonsin replied that it was this deviation,
however, that had led to the violation of the green space
rec~r~t. He asked the petitioner whether he had given any
consideration to acquiring additional property to the south?
Mr. Curry stated that the property to the south now belonged to
VIDCO.
In response to a question from Co~u~,~ssioner Sonsin, Ms. Dunn
stated that it was the policy of the city that each individual
piece of property had to stand on its own in regard to green
space, and two separate properties could not be combined to
create a total green space that met code rec~rements.
Co~=~Hssioner Sonsin asked how the petitioner might increase
the landscaping on the site?
Mr. Curry said he could perhaps add some trees or shrubs along
Nevada Avenue. He felt that w-as where they would do the most
good.
Com~LJ ssioner Gundershaug confirmed with staff that the
petitioner had not been re~]ired to obtain a building permit
for interior modifying. He noted that staff had requested an
up to date survey of the site which would show accurately where
the blacktop W-dS and exactly how much green space did exist.
He asked whether this had been received?
Ms. Dunn stated that the survey presently on file with the city
did not show the modifications. It was the original survey,
submitted when original approval had been given.
Mr. Curry stated he had an "as built" survey.
Co~,~ssioner Gundershaug asked exactly how much green space the
site was short?
Mr. Curry replied that he had blacktopped 2500 square feet.
Otherwise it W-dS built pretty much according to the original
plans.
Ms. Dunn stated that staff had modified the survey to
illustrate the changes and the blacktop as installed. These
modifications reduce the provided green space by 3%.
Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1988
-3-
C~mt,~ssior~_r Gundershaug in~ired what was on that side of the
Mr. Curry said there were narrow stalls, and that originally
there had been a w-~lkway, 50 feet from each end. Those were
shorter units. The building is 30 feet deep. When the tenants
drove through there, they were putting one wheel on the
walkway. They had also ended up with a demand for smaller
C~m:~ssioner Gundershaug noted they could put up a fence to
keep tenants from driving on the vza]Jivray.
Co~dssioner Anderson confirmed with Mr. Brixius, of the
Consulting firm, that the doors on this unit did not need to be
He then inquired as to whether permits were not required for
the blacktopping?
Mr. Brixius stated any change to the site required a building
permit. The changes on this site had been made without the
knowledge of city staff.
In response to a question f¥om Commissioner Anderson regarding
any other units on site that could be modified in a similar
manner, Mr. Curry stated the other units were already smaller
units and were ~11 double-sided.
Commissioner Anderson stated he would be more comfortable with
this site, if more green space could be created between the two
proPerties. He'Was not inclined to go along with what the
petitioner had already done. He did not feel that the Planning
Commission, or the city, were obligated to support this. He
asked whether the petitioner could get an easement for the
neighboring property?
Mr. Curry stated he would prefer to look at any alternatives.
Discussion held regarding the requirements for pulling aa
building permit.
Ms. Dunn stated that the city had adopted the Uniform Building
Code. She noted that she would have the Building Official
prepare a summary of when building permits were required for
the Commission.
Co~m~,~ssioner Edwards stated he wished to defer consideration of
Planning CommissionMinutes April 5, 1988
-4-
this case for one month. In his opinion the addition of the
doors on the south side of the units, constituted a major
structural change and should have recovered a building permit.
Mr. Curry said they didn't do anything but add doors, did not
change the structure.
Cum,~issioner Gundershaug stated he was bothered by the green
space and felt that it should be returned to 35%. He wanted to
know exactly how much green there was on site before acting on
this request. He was not in favor of granting a variance for
There was no one present in re~ard to this case.
Mr. Curry asked whether the landscaping could be intensified
towalxl the street?
Chairman Cameron stated that the requirement for 35% green
space w-as an almost inviolate rule in the City of New Hope.
The city had really tried to stick to this rule, and wished to
treat all citizens the same. He personally could not recall
the Planning C~,,~Hssion ever gz-antir~ a green space variance
-such as was being requested. He also felt that such a variance
would create a future precedent. He questioned whether anyone
on the Commission would vote in favor of such a variance. He
w-as willing to give the petitioner an extension to explore
other options.
FK~ION Motion by Commissioner Anderson to table Planning Case 88-6
· until the meetir~ of May 3, 1988. Commissioner Sonsin second.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug,
Edvrards, C~a
~ Voting against: None
Absent: Friedrich, Lutts
PC 88-9 Ms. Dunn stated that the petitioner had requested that
RMQUEST FOR O3P TO consideration of this request be tabled until the Planning
fDNSTRUCC VETER~I~A~Y Co~,,~,~ssion meeting in May.
~INIC AT
3709 W//qNETEA NO.
F~ION Motion by Commissioner Edwards to ~mhle Case 88-9 ~Lil the
meetir~ of May 3, 1988. Cu~missioner Sonsin secomd.
Planning Co~u~Kssion Minutes April 5, 1988
City of New Hope
Planning Case Report
Planning Case: 88-6
Request: Three percent variance to the required 35 percent
green area in an I-1 zone
Location: 7301 36th Avenue North
Zoning: I-1
Petitioner: AFP Partners/Richard Curry
Date: April 5, 1988
Backqround
1. The Planning Commission tabled this case at its March 1,
1988 meeting to April 5, 1988. The petitioner was not in
attendance at that meeting.
2. Staff has notified the petitioner of the April 5, 1988
Planning Commission meeting.
3. No new information relevant to the case has been submitted
to staff since the preparation of the March 1, 1988 Planning
Case Report. The March 1, 1988 Planning Case Report is
attached.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial! of 'the request for a three percent
variance to the required thirty-five percent green area at 7301
36th Avenue North as presented in Planning Case 88-6 because the
petitioner has not presented evidence that demonstrates that the
variance criteria established in Section 4.22 of the New Hope
Code of Ordinances has been met.
Attachments: Planning Case Report (1 March 1988)
Application (8 February 1988)
David Godrich letter (2 February 1988)
Richard Curry letter (19 January 1988)
Building Official letter (22 September 1987)
Plans
City of New Hope
Planning Case Report
Planning Case: 88-6
Request: Three percent variance to the required 35 percent
green area in an I-1 zone
Location: 7301 36th Avenue North
Zoning: I-1
Petitioner: AFP Partners/Richard Curry
Date: March 1, 1988
Backqround
1. The petitioner is requesting a three percent variance to the
required 35 percent green area in an I-1 zoning district,
pursuant to Section 4.145(3) of the New Hope Code.
2. The construction 'approval for this development was
authorized in 1984 with no variances. The building permit
was issued in September 13, 1984. The certificate of
occupancy was issued on August 14, 1985.
3. In 1987, ~he Building Official found that changes had been
made to the site that were not in accordance with the
approved plans. The Building Officials September 22, 1987
letter is~attached. The basic problem is that the south
yard has been covered with asphalt pavement in order to
provide~ access to an e~tire~row of new storage bays on the
south side of Building'#1. This has effectively reduced the
green area to 31 percent or 32 percent. Section 4.145(3) of
the New Hope Code requires that "35 percent of the lot,
parcel or tract shall remain as a grass plot..."
4. The Building Official sent one subsequent letter serving as
a final warning on ordinance violation, dated January 11,
1988 ordering that the green area be restored, or that the
petitioner file an application for a variance.
5. Property owners within 350 feet have been notified to date,
staff has received no comment.
Analysis
1. Staff has not been provided with a lot survey. Therefore,
the 3 percent reduction in green area is an estimate.
2. Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances describes
the purpose of a variance. A variance may be approved by
the City Council if it can find undue hardship. A variance
should not be approved purely for economic reasons.
3. Richard Curry's letter, dated January 19, 1988, and attached
to this report discusses the rationale for the variance, and
the purpose for the change of plans.
4. Staff is concerned with the precedent that approval of this
case might set.
Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of. the request for a three percent
variance to the required thirty-five percent green area at 7301
36th Avenue North as presented in Planning Case 88-6.
Attachments: Application (8 February 1988)
David Godrich letter (2 February 1988)
Richard Curry letter (19 January 1988)
Building Official letter (22 September 1987)
Plans
City of New Hope
Planning Case Report
Planning Case: 88-9
Request: Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Veterinarian
Clinic in an R-O zoning district, and
Construction Approval
Location: 3709 Winnetka Avenue North
Zoning: R-0 (Residential-Office)
Petitioner: New Hope Animal Hospital/Randall J. Herman
Date: May 3, 1988
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to
allow development of a veterinarian clinic in an R-O
(residential-office) zoning district, and construction
approval. This request is pursuant to Section 4.093 of the
New Hope Zoning Code.
2. The petitioner's proposed development requires no variances.
3. The petitioner met with the Design and Review Committee on
April 20, 1988.
4. Property owners within 350 feet of the site have been
notified. Staff has received questions from a few property
owners, but no one has objected to the development.
5. This site was identified in the 1986 Vacant Land Study as a
potential site for townhouses. During the review of this
study, neighbors did object to the use of this property for
housing. It should be noted that the only permitted use in
an R-O zoning district is residential. The veterinarian
clinic, classified as a medical, professional and commercial
use, requires a conditional use permit.
ANALYSIS
1. The Planner's report, completed prior to submission of
revised plan, is attached. Please note that:
1. Loading: The petitioner has revised the plans to
provide an on-site loading area.
Planning Case 88-09
May 3, 1988
Page -2-
2. Parking: The petitioner has created a parking lot
design that will accommodate this loading berth.
He has increased the number of stalls to 46,
although only 27 spaces are required.
3. Landscaping: The Planner's report indicates that
additional plantings should be placed along the
north property line. The revised plans increased
the number of plantings by 68 percent.
4. Utility: The City Engineer is requiring that a
manhole for sanitary sewer be placed at the south
property line.
2. The Planner's report discusses the criteria used to consider
an approval of this conditional use permit. Section 4.093
of the city Code is attached. The petitioner has
demonstrated that these criteria have not been met.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow a
veterinarian clinic in and R-O zoning district and construction
approval, at the property located at 3709 Winnetka Avenue North,
as proposed in Planning Case 88-09.
Attachments: Planner's Report (3/29/88)
New Hope Code (Section 4.093)
northwest associated consultants, inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Dan Donohue
FROM: Mike Ridley/Alan Brixius
DATE: March 29, 1988
RE: New Hope Animal Hospital
FILE NO: 131.00 - 88.09
BACKGROUND
Dr. Randall J. Herman has submitted a proposal to build a
veterinary clinic on Lot 1, Block 1Tedesco addition. The
site in question,is located at 3709 Winnetka Avenue North.
The site is zoned R-O, Residential - Office District.
The site abuts a real estate office to the south, Basset
Creek Floodplain to the west, R-1 Residential to the north
and Winnetka Avenue North to the east.
.ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Land Use:
The pro3ect site is zoned R-O, Residential- Office District.
The purpose of this district is to provide for transitional
low intensity business uses compatible with residential
uses. This district allows animal hospitals as a
conditional use provided it can comply with performance
standards outlined in Section 4.093 (2) of the City code.
Compatibility:
This is a sensitive site because of the single f'amily
district to the north. This proposal needs to p~ovide a
smooth transition from the residential area to the existing
real estate office to the south. The site plan is sensitive
to the compatibility concerns in the following areas which
will be further described in the following sections of this
Oeport.
4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 41 O, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420
1. Architectural features of the building.
2. Location of parking and driveway.
3. Building setbacks.
4. Type of use.
Buildtnq Type
A one story on grade with a walk-out basement with a sloping
roof. This building design is compatible in style, with the
surrounding uses. The building footprint is 4,432 square
feet. The total floor area is 8,864 square feet.
The proposed building use b~eaks down as follows:
~ Main floor (4,432 sq. ft.) - Office/clinic
~ Basement (4,432 sq. ft.) - Storage
The break-off block exterior proposed may not enhance the
buildings transitional qualities. An alternative exterior
wall treatment may be more appropriate to blend this
building into the neighborhood. It should be noted the
plans submitted ~o not appear to provide for any sound
proofing. Also, the plans submitted are not signed by a
Registered Architect.
Lot Size and Width
The R-O Zoning District requires a minimum lot size of
15,000 square feet with a minimum lot width of 100 feet.
The site is approxtmate]y,4?,SOO square feet in tota] area
and approximately 170 feet in width at the front setback
line. Building lot coverage is approximately 9%.
Setbacks
Review of the applicant's site p]an Indicates the proposed
Dui]ding complies with all required setbacks in the R-O
District. The north setback exceeds the required setback to
the north by iS feet. This additional green space further
enhances the transition from north to south.
Reauired PFopo~d
Front Yard Abutting 50' 50'
Winnetka
Side Yard (north) 10~ 25~
Side Yard (south) 10~ 60~
Rear Yard (west) 35~ 100'
Parking:
The site plan shows 29 parking stalls. This Is consistent
with ordinance standards. The New Hope Zoning Ordinance
requires animal hospitals to provide 3 parking spaces plus
space for every 200 square feet of office area; also, one
space is required for every 1,000 square feet of storage
area. Calculations per ordinance are as follows:
Required Spaces
Office/clinic area: 23
Storage area: 4
Total space required: 27
Total space provided: ~q~r ~
The parking lot design, parking stall size, curb and Gutter,
and lot surface all comply with the'City Ordinance.
The proposed parking lot is located to the south of the
Dui]ding. The location minimizes the impact to the
residential area to the north. There is no lighting plan
included with the plans received by our office.
By ordinance, any lighting used to illuminate on off-street
parking area, sign or other structure, shall be arranged to
deflect direct light away from any adjoining residential
zone or from the.public streets.
Vehicle Access:
Requirements for a conditional use of this type in the R-O
District are subject to the following:
a) The site and related parking and service entrances are
served by~ an arterial or collector street of sufficient
capacity to accommodate the traffic which wi]] be
generated.
Vehicular entrances to parking service areas shall
create a minimum of conflict with through traffic
movement.
The proposal complies with these criteria. ·
Loadinq Area:
For c~mmercia] bui'~ings, over.x~5~,000 squar~ feet, the City
ordinah~xe requires aXq~oading berf,~ no less ~kgn~70 feet in
length, ~feet in wid~, and 14 i'~ in heigh~exclusive
of aisle and%maneuvering'~space. The i~ns--submi-tt.¢d ~-o ou¢%
of.£!ce~do not--~P~v~-dc~fo~--a :tgadrng Der~ A-plan-r~e~tsionX'~
or variance must--De--consfdered-to--addpess-th-is performance//
requ~-ement.
Trash Enclosures:
The submittal did not include elevations for a trash
enclosure. The enclosure should be constructed to be
complimentary, in appearance and quality to the main
building and should be fully enclosed.
Landscapi~q:
The proposed landscaping plan conforms to city plant
variety, and size standards. The applicant should be
required to further screen the northern part of the parking
area. Because of the building elevations, the wooden fence
along the north property line will not sufficiently screen
the clinic parking area from the homes to the northwest.
Utility Plan:
Plans submitted did not include a utility plan. This should
be provided to address concern as to utility availability,
RECOMMENDATION
Based on this review, the proposal should be revised in
order to address the problems and issues mentioned earlier
in this report. The concept, which is an allowed
conditional use in this district, could provide a nice
transition from residential property to the north and the
rea] estate office to the south. If the plans are reworked
accordingly, this proposal could be a compatible addition to
the area. The following conditions should be addressed.
1. Material used for the building exterior,
2. The possible need for sound proofing the building.
3. Registered Architects signature on plans.
4. Provision of on-site loading area.
5. Detail of trash enclosure design.
6. Provision of additional landscape treatment along
northwest corner of the parking lot.
?. Submission of utility plan for review and approval of
City Engineer.
8. Comments from City Staff.
cc: Jeannine Dunn
Doug Sanstad
' 'i , .
~-.
New I-Iope Anlm~l Ito~pital
DR. RANDY HERMAN D.V.M.
4.09, 4,091, 4.092,
4.093 (1)- (3)
4.09 "R-O" RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE DISTRICT
4.091 Purpose. The purpose of the "R-O" Residential-Office District is to
provide for high density residential use and for the transition in
land use from mid-density residential to low intensity business
allowing for the intermixing of such uses.
4.092 Permitted Accessory Uses~ R-O. The following are permitted accessory
uses in an "R-O" District:
(1) Less Intensity Use District. Ail permitted uses allowed in an
"R-4" District.
4.093 Conditional Uses, R-O. The following are conditional uses in an "R-O"
District: (Requires a Conditional Use Permit based upon procedures
set forth in and regulated by Section 4.20, and compliance with 4.036,
Parking; 4.037, Off-Street Loading; Chapter 3, Signing)
(1) Less Intensive Use District. Ail conditional uses, subject to
the same conditions, as allowed in an "R-2" District.
(2) Medical; Professional and Commercial. Hospitals, medical offices
and clinics, dental offices and clinics, veterinarian clinics
when completely enclosed, professional offices and commercial
offices and funeral homes and mortuaries provided that:
(a) Street Access. The site and related parking and service
entrances are served by an arterial or collector street of
sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
lb) Traffic Elow. Vehicular entrances to parking or service
areas shall create a minimum of conflict with through
traffic movement.
(c) Buffers. When abutting an "R-l", "R-2", "R-3", or "R-4"
District, a buffer area with screening and landscaping in
compliance with Section 4.033 (3) shall be provided.
(3) Parking. Parking facilities for adjacent commercial or multiple
dwelling (Requires a Conditional Use Permit based upon procedures
in 4.20, and compliance with 4.036, Off-Street Parking; 4.033
(3), Screening).
(a) Excess of Requirements for Principal Use. Such parking is
in excess of that required on the lot upon which the
principal use is located.
(b) Street Access. The site of the principal use and its
related parking is served by an arterial or collector street
of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will
be generated.
4-57
0721384
city of New Hope
Planning Case Report
Planning Case: 88-10
Request: Variance of 17 Parking Spaces to the Required 36
Parking Spaces for a Restaurant
Location: 7181 42nd Avenue North
Zoning: B-3 (Auto Oriented Business)
Petitioner: Grobe's Cafe/Larry Sandberg
Date: May 3, 1988
CASE UPDATE
This case was before the Planning Commission of April 5, 1988.
The Commission encouraged the petitioners to research the
possibility of creating additional parking from abutting property
owners.
Mr. Scott Cooper, manager of the Nevada Avenue Apartments
located south of Grobe's Cafe, has discussed with staff the
potential of creating new parking on the apartment complex lot
and leasing this to Grobe's Cafe.
Off-site parking could require a conditional use permit. Staff
has received nothing from the petitioner to pursue this option to
date.
The Planning Commission may consider tabling this case unit June
7, 1988. If the Commission desires to take action, staff
maintains its recommendation listed in the April 5, 1988 Planning
Case report.
Attachments: Planning Commission Minutes (4/5/88)
Planning Case Report (4/5/88)
-5-
Voting in favor: Anderson, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug,
Edwards, Oja
Voting against: none
Absent: Friedrich, Lutts
PC 88-10 Ms. Dunn distributed copies of three letters that had been
~ H]R VARIANCE received by city staff relative to this request. All of the
FRf~ PARKING SPACE letters had indicated no objection to the variance request.
~ AT The letters were fr~m the following persons:
7181 42r~ AVENUE NO.
Apa~ t~_nt~ C~plex behir~ Grebe' s Cafe
41st ar~ Nevada
John Meyer
To~a] Petroleum Store (rickets)
7231 42r~ Ave~-
7141 42nd Avenue
M~2ION Motion by Co~u~,~ssioner Gundershaug to accept these letters into
.the offic~s] r~cord. Commissioner Edwards secc~d.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug,
Edwards, Oja
Voting against: None
Absent: Friedrich, Lutts
Mr. larry Sandberg, operator of Grobe's Cafe, stated he was
requesting a parking variance to allow them to comply with the
City Code or else change the c~de to allow them to continue to
operate as they are. They are leasing the space at this tin~.
He noted that the property owner had signed the application
allowing him to speak to this request. He stated that for the
past 14 years, the building they occupy ha~ had the same square
footage.
After they had taken over the cafe, they had done some fixing
up of the interior which caused the Building Official to
inspect the site. The Building Official had come up with the
fact that they were short some parkigg., spaces. He noted that
he had provided city staff with letters from his adjoining
neighbors stating that they do not antancipate any future
parking problems. There is on-street parking available that
some of their customers use at this tin~. He was willing to
Planning C~,]ssion April 5, 1986
-6-
put up some signage directing customers to the on-street
parking. He requested that the Planning ColL,,~,~ssion consider
his request favorably.
In response to a question from Coim~,~ssioner Anderson, Mr.
Sandberg said they had been at the location for three years.
Co~missioner Anderson noted that when the petitioner had
requested the Conditional Use Permit when he took over, it had
been granted only for the cafe. At that time the present
dining room space had another use. The petitioner had also
requested an amendment to the hours of operation of the cafe.
Co~m~issioner Anderson recalled that even three years ago there
had been a problem with parking on the site. The problem had
been tentatively resolved because the restaurmnt and the video
store ware to share parking, and would have different hours of
operation.
Co~,~ssioner Anderson asked why the petitioner had not gone
through the standard process with the city, when remodeling the
Mr. Sandberg stated that the owner had talked about purchasing
additional space, but had not done this. He added that he had
been told by an employee that this dining room area had been a
dining room back in the 60's.
Chairman Cameron confirmed that the petitioner had not received
a building permit for the remodeling.
Ms. Dunn stated the petitioner had applied for one, after the
the work w-as completed, but that because a zoning .violation
exists, a building permit could not be issued.
Commissioner Anderson stated that because the petitioner had
incremented the seating in the restaurant, he had also increased
the parking need. He added that originally the number of
parking spaces had been inadequate. He asked whether the
petitioner had considered any other options to solve this
problem?
Mr. Sandberg said that from their standpoint it was not
practical for them to attempt to buy more space for parking and
-- - that the owner was not willing to negotiate on this either.
There is a tk3rking lot behind Vickers, and perhaps some kind of
arrang~t could be worked out with them, he had talked to
them about that. However, he had no other alternatives.
Planning Colm~Hssion Minutes April 6, 1988
Co~,,~,~ssioner Anderson stated that the city was not going to re-
write the parking ordinance to accol~Ddate this request and he
was not in favor of granting a variance for the parking. He
added that he had a hard time accepting what the petitioner had
done without city approval. He noted that the petitioner did
have the option of returning the space back into a storeroom.
He re-stated his unwillingness to approve a parking variance
because he felt this would create not only a problem on the
lot, but on 42nd Avenue as well. It would also set a precedent
for future development.
Discussion followed about the hours of operation when the video
store was on the site. It was noted that at that time the
video store opened up after the restaurant closed and that this
Commissioner Gundershaug asked about the amended hours of
operation?
Mr. Sandberg stated that they now stay open until 8 p.m. ~ne
barber shop which is in the space formerly occupied by the
video store closes at 6 p.m.
.Col~a~Hssioner Gundershaug stated he could not go along with
approving a variance for parking, and then having customers
told to park on a public street. This was simply over
utilization of the property.
Mr. Sandberg stated that the building was there, and should be
utilized in some fashion.
Coil~missioner Gundermhaug noted that the city did not have to
co~%olicate the problem more than it already is.
Mr. Sandberg replied that he had a problem with seeing that a
problem does exist since all three occupants have agreed that
there is no problem and there have been no complaints.
Chairman Can~ron noted that the city had received at least one
complaint, from the inspector.
Col~umissioner Sonsin com~t~_nted that it w~s one thing for the
petitioner to take the building as it was, but the issue that
brought the problem to the forefront was that he had remodeled
had created an even bigger violation. The issue was not what
he had inherited, but how the changes were made relative to
city code requirements.
Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1988
-8-
Mr. Sandberg said he had questions about how many spaces were
actually were on site since Mr. Sandstad had indicated there
were 19 spaces.
C~L.~,4ssioner Sonsin questioned whether if there were 19 spaces
on site, were they all usable, noting that the tramh is
presently in the middle of what should be three parking spaces.
Chairman Cameron asked about the striping of the lot?
Co~=~Hssioner Sonsin said he had a problem with granting this
variance in light of the way the situation had developed.
Ms limn stated that the Building Official had inspect_~__ the lot
because of the 42nd Avenue Redevelopment Project. City staff
had done preliminary sketches of the site and that staff had
estimated that the maximum parking the site could provide was
19. To provide that many spaces the parking lot would have to
be re-striped, and the pylon sign removed.
In response to a question from Mr. Sandberg, Mr. Brixius stated
that a strictly retail operation would require 14 spaces for
2400 s~re. feet. However, the dining room required more
Co~mmissioner ~ asked staff where this property fit into
the 42nd Avenue Redevelopment Project?
Mr. Brixius said that the site had been looked at along with
all properties, but that it had not been one of the eight
finally selected for redevelopment. This is a sub-standard
site and because of this had not been considered for inclusion
of the redevelopment. It w-as felt it would be cost prohibitive
to include it.
Chairman Cameron stated his understanding was that the plan was
to take the little pieces of property and redevelop them.
Mr. Brixius said that the cafe and Vickers had been looked at
but it had been felt they were sub-standard for re-development
and the uses were already there. They had attempted to solve
the problem by creating a joint parking arrangement.
Commissioner Edwards conf~ that the site would not lose any
of the existing parking spaces, because of the 42nd Avenue
redevelopment.
Co~ssioner Anderson asked whether the driveway for Grobe's
Cafe could not be shared with the Tom Thumb.
Planning Cu~m~ission Minutes April 5, 1988
It was noted that the driveway is entirely on the Grobe Cafe
property at this time.
Co~Jssioner Anderson stated he had counted only 18 parking
spots on the site, including those for employee parking. This
w~s offset by the fact that the petitioner opened up the dining
room in the back, which required more parking spots. In his
opinion the variance being requested w-as more than the Planning
Commission could grant.
Cu~,,~,~ssioner Anderson stated that if the petitioner wished
another month to try and solve the parking space problem, he
would be willing to ~ble the request. He felt that they
basically needed 36 parking spaces for the business.
Ms. Dunn confirmed that the number of parking spaces re~]ired
is 'determined by the sc~are footage of the building and the
usage of the space.
C~Hssioner Sonsin noted that the barber shop also needed
three spaces for customer parking.
-Mrs. Joan Sandberg stated that originally, when the cafe was
"Sully's" the dining room had been in operation, according to
what they had been told. She questioned why they could not now
operate the dining room, and whether the city ordinance had
b~n d~ed?
Chairman Cameron stated that they were .in violation of the city
orclinance.
Co~m~Hssioner Anderson re-stated that the Conditional Use Permit
had been granted for the cafe only, not the dining room.
Mrs. Sandberg said it seemed so unfair, that they did not
really feel they were doing anything wrong, the space had been
a dining room once before.
Co~,,dssioner Anderson replied that many things have changed
over the y~rs and have added to the traffic problems on 42nd.
He felt the cafe was an asset to the community, but that the
Co~m~gssion could not create more problems for the city.
Mr. Sandberg stated t_hat if they were forced to close the
dining room, he could not see staying on the site. It would
then be entirely possible for the building to remain vacant and
subsequently decay.
Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1988
-10-
~3TION Motion by Co~u~,4ssioner Anderson to ea_ble Plannir~ Case 88-10
,,u~-~ ] the meet/r~ of May 3, 1988. Cu~,~ssioner Sonsin secor~.
Chairman Cameron cautioned the petitioner that any shared
parking arrangement he might be able to work out, b~d to be
dcr~ le~]]y, it could not be simply word of mouth agreement.
Ccmmissio~ Fxbrurds stated it would have to be by deed or
lease, with the city receiving a copy of the agreement.
In response to a question from Mrs. Sandberg about the
possibility of using space next to Tom Thumb for parking, the
Chairman said the petitioners would have to explore this option
with city staff.
Design and Review Co'~m,~ttee held one meeting.
Codes and Standards Committee held one meeting. ·
Co'~u~ssioner Anderson reviewed the proposed ordinance change
relating to curb outs, as included in the Planning Cu~,4ssion
packet. It was the unanimous reco'~ndation of the Commission
that this ordinance be sent forward to the City Council.
~DTION Motion by Cu~Hssioner Anderson r~o~ending approval of
Ord/nance No. r~_]at/n~ to ~b cuts, ar~ ser~ng it
forward to the City Council. Cu~=~gssioner Sonsin second.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug,
~, ~a
Voting against: None
Absent: Friedrich, Lutts
NEW ~JSINESS Mark Hanson, the City Engineer, reviewed the proposed 42nd
Avenue Redevelopment Plan for the Planning Commission.
The Plannir~ O,,,,,~-~ic~ m~r~tes of Mar~h 1, 1988 w~re acce~
as printed.
The city Council Minutes of February 22, and March 14, 1988
were reviewed.
The HRA Minutes of February 22, 1988 were reviewed.
\
ADJOURNMenT The meeting w~s adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Boeddeker, Secretary
City of New Hope
Planning Case Report
Planning Case: 88-10
Request: Variance of 17 Parking Spaces to the Required 36
Parking Spaces for a Restaurant
Location: 7181 42nd Avenue North
Zoning: B-3 (Auto Oriented Business)
Petitioner: Grobe's Cafe/Larry Sandberg
Date: April 5, 1988
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting a variance of 17 parking spaces
to the required 36 parking spaces at 7181 42nd Avenue North.
The petitioner has expanded his business to include a 384
square foot dining area. This was done without a building
permit. Staff estimates that the site can accommodate 19
parking spaces.
2. The criteria for calculating parking spaces is found in
Section 4.036(10) (r), New Hope Code of Ordinances. The
standard is for one space for each forty square feet of
gross floor area of dining...and one space for each eighty
square feet of kitchen.
3. The property has been subject to a number of planning cases.
Please refer to thelPlanner's report. In addition to those
cases listed by the Planner, the following action has taken
place:
-Planning Case 83-17 - Conditional Use Permit to Allow a
Video rental facility in a B-3 zoning district with limited
hours (11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and on Sunday from 12:00 noon
to 5:00 p.m.).
-Planning Case 84-25 - Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
to amend hours of operation for Grobe's Cafe to:
6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday - Friday
7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Saturday
8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Sunday
Attached are minutes for the Commission's information and
review.
Planning Case Report 88-10
April 5, 1988
Page -2-
4. Approximately a year-and-a-half ago, the petitioner informed
the City that he was interested in expanding his business.
Staff researched this and advised him that he did not have
adequate parking on site and gave him a few possible
options for obtaining additional parking. These options
would have required conditional use permits, and no filing
was made.
5. On December 18, 1987 a grease fire occurred at Grobe's Cafe.
Members of the Fire Department noticed the new dining area
and reported it to the Building Official. The Building
official notified the property owner of the zoning
violations in his January 6, 1988 letter (see attached).
6. Property owners within 350' have been notified. Staff has
received no comment to date.
ANALYSIS
1. The parking calculation is as follows:
Square Footaqe Required Spaces
Restaurant Dining 1019/40 25.47
Kitchen 591/80 7.38
Barber 432/180 2.88
35.73
or 36 spaces
2. The site sketch submitted by Grobe's Cafe shows 17 parking
spaces. The design of the parking lot is such that it would
be difficult to utilize 3 of the spaces. Staff has prepared
a site sketch listed as Exhibit A in the packet. Please
note that the pylon sign in parking space 6 would need to be
removed in order to utilize that space.
3. The 42nd Avenue street improvement project will require a
permanent easement. The impact of the street improvement is
minimal.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance of 17
parking spaces to the required 36 parking spaces at 7181 42nd
Avenue North because the petitioner has not demonstrated that he
meets the variance criteria established in Section 4.22 of the
New Hope Code of Ordinances.
Planning Case 88-10
April 5, 1988
Page -3-
Attachments: Planner's Letter (30 March 1988)
Staff Sketch (Exhibit A)
Site Plan (28 March 1988)
Building official's Letter (6 January 1988)
Minutes-Planning Case 80-58
Minutes-Planning Case 82-5
Minutes-Planning Case 83-17
Minutes-Planning Case 84-25
City of New Hope
Planning Case Report
Planning Case: 88-11
Request: Variance of Two Feet to the Required Five-Foot
Sideyard Setback
Location: 5908 Boone Avenue North
Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Petitioner: Jim and Sandra Larson
Date: May 3, 1988
.BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting a two-foot variance to the
required five-foot sideyard setback to allow construction of
a 9.5' x 24' garage addition. This would place the new
structure three feet from the property line. The request is
pursuant to Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
2. The property is legal non-conforming. The site was
developed in 1959 and met the 30 foot frontyard setback. In
1979 the code was amended to require a 50 foot frontyard
setback along Boone Avenue. This request, if approved,
would not increase the non-conformity of the property.
3. Property owners within 350' of the request have been
notified. The adjacent property owner, Mr. Delbert Dieter
(5904 Boone Avenue) h&~ contacted staff and verbally
objected to the proposed variance. He believes that the
addition would be too close to his home and would possibly
result in diminished property value.
ANALYSIS
1. Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code establishes the criteria
for approval of a variance.
2. The petitioner could build a 7'x 6' addition without needing
a variance. This would result in a 19'6" wide garage.
3. Staff does not find that the petitioner has met the variance
criteria. The lot is not narrow, irregular in shape, nor
does it have topography problems. In addition, the criteria
established in the code has not resulted in an undue
hardship that would prevent the use of this property.
Planning Case 88-1
May 3, 1988
Page -3-
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the request for a two-foot variance to
the required five-foot sideyard setback at 5908 Boone Avenue as
proposed in Planning Case 88-11 because the petitioner has not
met the variance criteria established in Section 4.22 of the New
Hope Code of Ordinances.
Attachments: Petitioner's Application (3/22/88)
Lot Survey (7/13/84)
Elevation (4/5/88)
Floor Plan (4/5/88)
APPLICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
" AND CITY COUNCIL
CAS N ' .
~'"~'~$ Ci t% o~ New .ope
TE FI~ 4401 X%lon Avenue No~th
RECElV[D B~
RECORD ) '
~PPLIC~NT {If Other Than Owner) ~ame: Phone:
PLEASE PRINt
Add~ess:
Nature o~ %egal o~ gquitable Interest o( Applicant:
Description of Request: 9'tZ %~' Cb~"~'~'~ ~ , ¢~h-<
Why Should Request be Granted:
Applicant acknowledges that s/he understands that before this request can be considered and/or
approved, all fees, including the basic zoning fee and any zoning deposts must be paid to the
city and that, if additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by.the city, the city
manager has a right to require additional payment.
¢ Fee Owner Contract for Deed Owner
Other Owner In Chain of Title Purchaser by Purchase Agreement
Other Owner in Chain of Title Applicant Other Than Owner
FOR CITY USE ONLY
Evidence of Ownership Submitted: YeseS'/ No ' Required '~
Certified Lot Survey: YesX~MO~ Required ~
Legal Description Adequate: Yes ~/~ No '' · -
Legal Ad Required: Yes No" ',
Date of Design and Review Meeting:
Date of Planning Commission Meeting:
Approved: Denied: By Planning Commission on:
Approved:~ Denied: By Council on:
Subject to the following conditions: ~
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE' SANDR^K. LARSDN
NOTES
* ONLY EASEMENTS WHICH ARE SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF HEADOW LAKE TERRACE ARE SHOWN
ON THIS SURVEY. NO OTHER SEARCH FOR EASEMENTS, RECORDED OR UNRECORDED, WAS
~DE BY THE SURVEYOR.
* ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS ASSUMED.
* THIS SURVEY DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES OR OTHER
UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES.
LEGEND
· DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND
0 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET
~E HEREBY CERTIFY TO SANDRA K. LARSON THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION
OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF:
Lot 11, Block 2, MEADOW LAKE TERRACE, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
AND OF THE LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS, THEREON, AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, IF ANY,
FROM OR ON SAID LAND. AS SURVEYED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISON THIS 13TH
DAY OF JULY, 1984.
SIGNED: JAMES]R. HILL, INC.
HAROLD C. PETERSON, LAND SURVEYOR
MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. 12294
SHEET ! OF 2 SHEETS
PROJECT "0. BOOK / PAGE JAMES R. _____HILL,
INC.
~l ~ Planners / Engineers / Surveyors
FILE NO. 8200 Humboldt A~enue South
FOLDER Bloomingto~ M~ 65431 612-884-3029
J
SURVEYOR'SCERTIFICATE' SANDRA K. LARSON
, ~-, ~- /,~
L- ~../ / /
L_ L,/ /
~ N O"04'E 80.00
/ zx~sn#e FZ~Ce.~J
- ~I ~-'
/.~. , ~ ~"~
LOT
C,q
..:~
~. NO°O4'E BO. OO(PL T) '~"~<~' --
~ \ "..
~ ~ ,-cu,, 79. 8?(ME~4S.).. \
XYLON AVENUE (PER PLAT)
(BOONE AVENUE NORTH )
_ I INCH -- 20 FEET
SH~
P,O~c~',o. .oo~ / ~^.£ .JAMES R HILL, INC.
8~787
85/59 Planners / Engineers / Surveyors
FILE
8200 Humboldt Avenue South
FOLDER Bloomington, Mn. 55431 612-884-3029
City of New Hope
Planning Case Report
Planning Case: 88-12
Request: Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval
Location: 8801-8821 Science Center Drive
Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial)
Petitioner: Prudential Insurance Co. of America/Attracta Sign
Date: May 3, 1988
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting approval of a comprehensive
sign plan pursuant to section 3.467 of the New Hope Code.
2. The property is leased to two tenants. Cinch (formerly TRW)
leases the west two-thirds, and Keelor Steel leases the east
one-third.
3. No variances are required given the proposed signage.
ANALYSIS
The sign plan is as follows:
1. Ground Signage
Requirement Allowed Existing Proposed Compliance
Number of signs 2 1 1 Yes
Maximum area 40 sq. ft. 18 30 Yes
(per sign)
Maximum height 15 feet 6'-8' 6 Yes
(approx.)
2. Wall Signage
Requirement Allowed Existing Proposed Compliance
Number of signs 3 1 1 Yes
Maximum area 125 18 30 Yes
(square feet)
Planning Case 88-12
May 3, 1988
Page -2-
3. Directional Signage
Two 3 square foot signs will be placed on the east wall
to designate delivery areas. These signs are allowed by
code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive sign plan for the
property at 8801-8821 Science Center Drive, as proposed in
Planning Case 88-12.
Attachments: Sketch (4/29/88)
Elevation (4/29/88)
Sign Placement (4/29/88)
Keelor Steel Ground Sign (3//18/88)
Sign Placement (3/18/88)
City of New Hope
Planning Case Report
Planning Case: 88-13
Request: Request for a Variance to Allow an Expansion for a
Non-Conforming Structure, and a Variance of Twelve
Feet to the Required Thirty-Foot Frontyard Setback
Location: 3243 Flag Avenue North
Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Petitioner: Daniel and Barbara Nordbe~g
Date: May 3, 1988
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting two variances:
-A variance to allow an expansion of a non-conforming
structure where the expansion will increase the non-
conformity of the property (Section 4.031.11 of the
New Hope Code of Ordinances
-A variance of 12 feet to the required 30-foot
frontyard setback
These variances will allow the construction of a garage
addition. The~ garage proposed will be an attached garage
with a flat roof. The roof area could be used as a deck
area. ~ .~
2. The property is a corner lot and was developed in 1971. At
the time of development, the City's definition of a front
yard did not required that "it be the boundary abutting a
public right-of-way having the least width". By reviewing
the lot, we might assume that the property was developed
with Flag Avenue being its front yard, and Flag Court
existing as the side yard. Given this layout, the property
met all setback requirements.
In 1978, a building permit was issued to allow construction
of an addition on the north end of the lot. With this
addition, the property continued to meet all setback
requirements.
In 1979, the City adopted an ordinance which establishes the
front of the lot to be "that boundary abutting a public
right-of-way having the least width". With the adoption of
this code, the property became a legal non-conforming use.
Planning Case 88-13
May 3, 1988
Page -2-
3. Property owners within 350' of the request have been
notified. Staff has received no comment to date.
ANALYSIS
1. The Planning Commission must consider the variance criteria
established in Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code.
2. The adoption of the 1979 Code did not create a hardship that
would prevent the expansion of this home. Note that if the
petitioner is allowed to claim Flag Avenue as the front
yard, the proposed addition would require a 12-foot
variance to the required 35-foot rearyard setback.
3. The lot has an irregular shape as do many lots on a cul-de-
sac. However, it is not considered narrow or shallow and
meets the width and size requirements of the City Code.
4. Staff has reviewed the property files of the other homes on
Flag Circle and found that three of the five meet or exceed
the front yard setbacks. One of the files did not contain a
lot survey.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance to allow
expansion of a non-conforming structure, and a variance of 12
feet to the required 30-foot sideyard setback at 3243 Flag Avenue
North because the petitioner has not met the variance criteria
established in Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
Attachments: Site Sketch (4/27/88-Staff Prepared)
Elevation (4/12/88)
City of New Hope
Planning Case Report
Planning Case: 88-15
Request: Text Amendment to Allow Religious Buildings in an
I-1 (Limited Industrial) Zoning District
Location: 9000 Science Center Drive
Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial)
Petitioner: Church of the Open Door/Timm Lundberg
Date: May 3, 1988
BACKGROUND
1. The Church of the Open Door and Durkee Atwood are requesting
a text amendment to allow a church in an I-1 zoning
district. This request is made pursuant to Section 4.231 of
the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
2. The Church of the Open Door is currently using the Cooper
High School to conduct its Sunday church services. The city
approved a conditional use permit for this in January, 1988
(Planning Case 88-03).
3. Property owners within 350' of the site have been notified.
Staff has received no comment.
ANALYS I S
1. The Planner's report is attached.
2. A change in the text would affect all limited industrial
zoned properties.
3. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve this case, it
should be referred to staff and the Codes and Standards
Committee for study and preparation of a text amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the request to amend the New Hope
Zoning Code text to allow church services in a Limited Industrial
Zoning District, as proposed in Planning Case 88-15, because of
the potential conflict with the comprehensive plan and the impact
on all limited industrial zoning districts.
Attachments: Planner's Report (4/26/88)
Petitioner's Application (4/15/88)
northwest associated consultants, inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Dan Donahue
FROM: Mike Ridle¥/Alan Brixius
DATE: 26 April 1988
RE: New Hope - Church of the Open Door
FILE NO: 131.00 - 88=1~
BACKGROUND
The Church of the Open Door wishes to lease the building at
9000 Science Center Drive for the purpose of ho]ding their
services. This site is located within the New Hope Science
and Industry Park and is zoned I-l, General Industrial
District.
The New Hope Zoning Ordinance allows religious institutions
such as churches by conditional use permit only within
residential zoning districts. As the ordinance currently
exists, the church is prohibited from locating within the
Industrial Park. To accommodate the wishes of the Church of
the Open Door a zoning text amendment would be required.
ZONING
The New Hope Zoning Ordinance divides the City~ into use
districts and outlines performance standards to provide
compatib]e ]and use patterns.
4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 41 O, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420
The Industrial District, by nature, exists as a homogeneous
setting. The conditions inherent to these districts, eg.
noise, dust, traffic, odors, etc. are acceptable to
businesses that locate there. This is the reason these
districts ace generally secluded from other less intense
uses. This type of land use segregation benefits the
industries in that they can freely operate without
negatively impacting adjacent land uses. This freedom of
operation is an incentive loc the attraction of new
industries and the growth of existing industries.
Industrial parks also benefit from the priniciple of
accumlative attraction, whereby similac or complementary
businesses locate in a common setting, each benefitting
through business interchange among the various industrial
uses.
Introducing a non-industrial use into this area may
compromise the integrity of and be contrary to the intent of
such a district. In 1984, the City of New Hope encountered
such a compatibility proD]em when S.R. Harris introduced a
non-industrial use (retail sales) into his industrial site
at 5100 County Road 18. The introduction of this use into
the industrial park was distrubtive to the neighboring
businesses and presented public safety concerns with regard
to traffic circulation and packing.
The introductioh of a church into an industrial district
presents similar concerns as the previous case. While
church services may occur during off peak operational hours
of most businesses, other services provided by a church
facility do occur during times other than Sunday.
Another issue c6eated by the introduction of churches into
an industrial area is its impact on the established tax
base. Tax exempt s:tatus lis aOa'ilable to churches. This tax
designation would result in the loss of current industrial
tax revenues. The impact of a single church may not be
significantly negative, however, a change in the current
ordinance would establish the avenue for other churches.
The previously mentioned tax issues are contrary to the City
of New Hope~s Community Development Plan, which addresses
industrial policies. One policy is:
"Continue to maintain and expand the Cityzs industrial
and commercial tax base to assist in paying for needed
services and reducing tax impact on housing costs."
CONCLUSION
Based on our review, this introduction of the church use
into an industrial zoning district is contrary to the land
use goals the City has established for its industrial parks.
The goals from the Comprehensive Plan are outlined below:
Industrial Goals
o. Provide for a sound industrial base for 'the City
that wi]] be stable and on-going.
o Concentrate industrial development in the existing
industrial packs (Science and Industry Center,
Olson, Winnetka).
o Fully develop existing industrial parks.
o Promote continued industrial development in order
to create an expanded employment base and
opportunity within New Hope.
Allowing the Church of the Open Door to locate in an
industrial district would establish the precedent for any
church, that wishes, to locate in an industrial district.
This is not a positive precedent to set. Churches are
viewed as related residential uses and by ordinance are only
permitted in such districts.
Our office does not view this situation as a hardship,
therefore we do not recommend a deviation from, or text
amendment to, the City Zoning Ordinance to permit a
religious use i~ the industrial district.
cc: Jeanine Dunn
Doug Sanstad
Steve Sondra]l
dAlE FILEO 4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
,freer ~cation of Property: ¢~ ~0,
kgaI De~ription of Property:
O~ER OF~ Name: Phone:
~CORD )
Address:
APPLICA,~T (I~ Other Tha~Owner, .~e:~Of6koF~
Address: ~ ~--' ~0- ~~ / ~'-
Nature of Legal or Equitable Interest of Applicant:
/
Why Should Request be Granted: O0~
Applican acknowledges that s/he understands that before this request can be considered and/o~
a~proved, all fees, including the basic zoning fee and any zoning deposts must be paid to the
city and that, if additional fees are~requ~red to cover costs incurred by.the city, the city
manager ha~-'"~' rifht k~eguireiaddi~onal payment.
Fee Owner ~ / - Contract ~or Deed Owner
Other Owner In Chain of Title ~ Purchaser by Pur
Other Owner ~n Chaln of Title Appligant Othe~, ~han Owner
FOR CITY USE ONLY
Ownership Submitted: Yes~ No ~ Required ~
Evidence
of
Certified Lot Survey: Yes NoL//, Required ~'~5
Legal Oescription Adequate: Yes~ No ~ "
Date of Design and Review Meeting:
Approved:~ Denied:~ By Planning Commission on:
Approved: Denxed: By CouncZl on:
Subject to the fo]lowing conditions:
I.tEI~ORANDUM
City of New Hope
TO: JEANNINE DUNN, AD~tINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
FROI~: DOUG SANDSTAD, BUILDING OFFICIAL
DATE: ~IAY 2, 1988
SUBJECT: BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
There are two different types of local review that may be required of
a "construction-type" project in our city that does not otherwise
have to be considered by Planning Commission and Council. First,
a project may require what I call "Zoning-Only" review. Second, a
construction project generally requires "Building & Zoning" reviews.
The "Zoning-Only" (Z-O) process is referenced in Section 4.031 and
4.033 of our code, where the Building Official-Zoning Administrator
is required to consider the impact of any significant change in use,
development or facilities on property within the city. In many Z-O
cases, no plan is necessary in order to answer a question about a
proposed project; I may illustrate the permitted driveway expansion
for a homeowner on her lot survey, where permits are not required
unless the lot is on a County road. If an industrial warehouse
owner wants to add 32 parking spaces on the property they control,
I require them to submit a scale plan of the site showing all changes
to the lot. My review will include a visit to the site, checking
our blueprints and file data on the site, in addition to a Site Plan
Review to determine if our performance standards will be met. Neither
of these examples requires a Building Permit.
The Building & Zoning review (B-Z) is usually started by a property
owner or contracter approaching my office to start a construction
project. In the B-Z process, I always address the "Z" first, for
efficiency-sake: If Jane Q. Public wants to build a family room in
her rear yard, I can usually determine quickly whether that is possible
by checking a lot survey or accurate site plan. If the location is
routine, I proceed with a construction plan review on a first-come,
first-served rotation, as time permits. On deck plans, I will review
the plan while they wait, if the applicant has scheduled an appoint-
ment with me and has complete information.
Most commercial-indutrial construction projects do not require referral
to the Planning Commission and Council, but fit into the B-Z scheme,
with many more potential complicating factors.
Building Permits are required by the State Building Code for nearly
any construction project, whether it involves enlarging, repairing
removing, constructing, converting or demolishing a building or structure.
continued...
A Building Permit is an "umbrella-type" permit in one sense; if
plumbing, heating, excavation and carpentry is involved, the Building
Permit will cover the scope of all work, even down to the flooring
and painting. Separate minor permits would still be required for
the plumber, heating contractor, electrician etc in addition to the
major permit- Building. It is important to note that the only permit
with major fees is the Building Permit. There are a few exceptions
to this requirement, listed in the Uniform Building Code. I have
attached a copy of the 11 exceptions. In addition, I encourage
owners and builders to call me and ask if a Building Permit is required
on very small projects. If an owner wants to change a couple windows
or doors, I may well discuss the project and inform them that a
Building permit would serve no purpose and therefore waive the re-
quirement, on a "low-value,simple" scale. In many cases, installing
insulation can be done without a Building Permit, such as blowing
another 6" of fiberglass into an existing homes attic. Installing
foam insulation, however, is more complex: The same home can not
install rigid foam insulation on its basement walls without covering
it with N" drywall and obtaining a building permit.
In summary, construction projects generally always require a Building
Permit, after I have made a B-Z review. Other projects may require
a Z-O review or referral to Planning Commission and Council or both.
The larger projects involve all three. The "Z" rules are local
ordinance, while the Building Code is State Law.
cc: Smith
(enclosure)
file - Planning Commission
1985 EDITION 301-302
Chapter 3
PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS
Permits
Sec. 301. (a) Permits Required, Except as specified in Subsection (b) of this
section, no building or structure regulated by this code shall be erected, con-
strutted, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or
demolished unless a separate permit for each building or structure has first been
obtained from the building offic, ial.
k~/,---~--'-~'b) Exempted Work. A building permit shall not be required for the following:
~1. One-story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds,
~ playhouses and similar uses, provided the projected roof area does not
exceed 120 square feet.
2. Fences not over 6 feet high.
3. Oil derricks.
4. Movable cases, counters and partitions not over 5 feet high.
5. Retaining walls which are not over 4 feet in height measured from the
bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supportine a surcharge or
impounding flammable liquids.
6. Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed
5000 and the ratio of diameter width does exceed
gallons
height
to
or
not
two to one.
7. Platforms, walks and driveways not more than 30 inches above grade and
not over any basement or story below.
8. Painting, papering and similar finish work.
9. Temporary motion picture, television and theater stage sets and scenery.
10. Window awnings supported by an exterior wall of Group R, Division 3,
and Group M Occupancies when projecting not more than 54 inches.
11. Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Group R. Division 3 Occu-
pancy in which the pool walls are entirely above the adjacent grade and if
--~.~ the capacity does not exceed 5000 gallons.
Unless otherwise exempted, separate plumbing, electrical and mechanical
permits will be required for the above exempted items.
Exemption from the permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to
grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the
provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction.
Application for Permit
Sec. 302. (a) Application. To obtain a permit, the applicant shall first file an
application therefor in writing on a form furnished by the code enforcement
agency for that purpose. Every such application shall:
1. Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit for which
application is made.
?