110188 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 1988
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 Case 88-20 - Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow LPG
Storage at 4124 Winnetka Avenue North,
Independent School District #281/Gary Dechaine,
Petitioner
3.2 Case 88L23 - Request for a Text Amendment to Allow Outdoor Sales
of Automobiles in an I-1 (Limited Industrial) and
I-2 (General Industrial) Zoning Districts at 7701-
7709 42nd Avenue North,
Autohaus of Minneapolis/Thomas W. Boettcher,
Petitioner
3.3 Case 88-26 - Request for Conditional Use Permit for Home
Occupation at 3564 Flag Avenue North,
Robert M. and Paula S. Kvam, Petitioners.
3.4 Case 88-27 - Comprehensive Sign Plan at 7716-7724 Winpark Drive,
Thyssen Specialty Steels, Petitioner
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS
.4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee
4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee
5. OLD BUSINESS
Discussion regarding New Hope Vacant Land Study Implementation
6. NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of October 4, 1988.
6.2 Review of City Council Minutes of September 26, 1988, and
October 10, 1988.
6.3 Review of HRA Minutes of August 22, 1988 and September 26, 1988.
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS
8. ADJOURNMENT
PC 88-26 r ~'~:
3564 FLAG AVENUE
.?? __~PC 88-27
~'~ 7716-7724
'-.' WINPARK DRIVE
City of New Hope
Planning Case Report
Planning Case: 88-20
Request: Conditional Use Permit to Allow Open Storage of an LPG
Tank
Location: 4124 Winnetka Avenue North
Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial)
Petitioner: Independent School District #28!/Gary Dechaine
Report Date: October 26, 1988
Meeting Date: November 1, 1988
CASE UPDATE
Staff will update the Commission on Tuesday night.
City of New Hope
Planning Case Report
Planning Case: 88-23
Request: Request for a Text Amendment to Allow Automobile
Sales in Industrial Zoning Districts
Location: 7701-7709 42nd Avenue North
-Zoning: I-2 (General Industrial)
Petitioner: Autohaus of Minneapolis/Thomas W. Boettcher
Report Date: October 26, 1988
Meeting Date: November 1, 1988
CASE UPDATE
Staff requests that this case be tabled until February, 1989, for
the following reasons:
1. The public hearing notice must be republished to
reflect B-3 zoning districts rather than industrial
zoning districts, and
2. The petitioner will submit plans in final form for the
Commission's review.
city of New Hope
Planning Case Report
Planning Case: 88-26
Request: Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation
Location: 3564 Flag Avenue North
Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Petitioner: Robert M. and Paula S. Kvam
Report Date: October 26, 1988
Meeting Date: November 1, 1988
BACKGROUND
1. 'The petitioners are requesting a conditional use permit for a home
occupation at 3564 Flag Avenue North. This request is pursuant to
Section 4.038 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The petitioners
are proposing to create a cosmetology salon.
2. Property owners within 350 feet of the site have been notified.
Staff has received no comment to date.
ANALYSIS
1. Section 4.038(4) establishes the criteria for approval of a home
occupation conditional use permit.
A. Adverse Effect on Neiqhborhood
While the property is located on 36th Avenue North, it is
zoned single family residential and persons who wish to go to
the salon would have to access the home via Flag Avenue.
Adverse effect on neighborhood is generally determined by the
amount of traffic, odors, signage needed, etc, that the
business may or may not generate.
For this particular case, staff is concerned with the amount
of traffic that will be generated. Past experience indicates
that when a home occupation generates more than three or four
customers per week, the neighborhood often is affected by
additional traffic.
The petitioner is proposing to create a business setting
which would accommodate two customers at a time. This leads
staff to believe that the amount of traffic generated would
'be better suited in a commercial zoning district rather that
a single family residential zoning district.
Planning Case Report 88-26
Page -2-
B. Screeninq of Exterior Changes
The petitioner is proposing no exterior changes.
C. Interior Changes
The petitioner is proposing interior changes that must comply
with building, electrical, mechanical and fire codes.
D. Traffic
The Planning Commission should question whether the
petitioner plans to have deliveries made for supplies, etc.
and that only vehicles that typically service single family
residences make these deliveries. In addition, the parking
arrangement for customers should be discussed.
2. ~Signage
Home occupations are allowed to have only one identifications sign
that cannot exceed two square feet in height. Lettering,
placement, and illumination of said sign is described in Section
3.465(d) .
RECOMMENDATION
The petitioner is proposing to introduce a commercial business into a
residential zoning district. The petitioner has described the business
levels in a manner which staff believes is unacceptable in a residential
zoning district.
Staff recommends that the request for a conditional use permit to allow
a home occupation at 3564 Flag Avenue North, as proposed in Planning
Case 88-26, be denied because the petitioner has not met the criteria
for approval established in Section 4.038(4) of the New Hope Code.
Attachments: Petitioner's Application (10-7-88)
Certificate of Survey (9-4-74)
Site Sketch (10-7-88)
;'/"' /-.- APPLICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION ·
.~CASE NO. AND CITY COUNCIL
/~" f ?"! City of New Hope
~A~ ~It[D 4401 Xylon Avenue North
~ <.~ New Bope, MN 55428
O~ER OF} Name: ~O~I~= m ~ p~ ~[~ ~ ~W~ Phone:
RECORD ) PLEASE
APPLICANT (If Other Than Owner) Name: Phone:
PLEASE PRINI
_Address:
Nature of Legal or Equitable Interest o~
Why Should Request be Granted: ~-~L~,, ~'~. ~-)4.%-~ 'i I~ ~"~J'~ ~ t~z, J
Applicant acknowledges that s/he understands that before this request can be considered and/or
approved, alt fees, including the basic zoning fee and any zoning deposr, s must. be paid to the
city and that, if additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by.the city, the cltv
manacer has a right to recuire additional payment. ~ ....
Signed: ~ ¢ &(_~ff~ ~:Z~ /' L
~/ Fee ~wn~'~ F - -/
" '~.. % -' Contract for .......... Dee~ Owner .~
/
Other Owner In Chain o: Titie ~-~ Purchaser by Purchase Agreemen:
Other Owner in Chain of Title Applicant Other Than Owner
FOR CITY USE ONLY
Evidence of Ownership Submitted: Yes ~ N9 ? Required
Certified
Survey: Yes .~ No Required
Lot
Legal Description Adequate: Yes ~../"", No --
Legal Ad R~quired: Yes ~ /" No ~
Date of Design and Review Meeting:
Date of Planning Commission Meeting:
Approved:__ Denied:__ By t'lanning Commission on:
Approved:__ Denied: By Council on:
Subject to the following conditions:
~ERRIER WINTER & ASSOCIATES INC. ' .~,s=~.~..o~ss,o.^.
SUITE 305
VILLAGE NORTH PROFESSIONAL BLDG. · LAND SURVEYORS
7420 UNITY AVENUE NORTH
BROOKLYN PARK. MINNESOTA 65443 561-2505
.. CertifiCate of Survey ~
PROPERTY O~ Arnold Johnson · ', ....
deGcrlbed as f~llowG Lot 1, BloCk 1 of GILBERT MORK 'ADDITIONs Hennepin .
............. · .,. ..................... ~ ............. .. .............. ; .............................................
........ .~.~.O..u...n~1~..~-:~.~..n..n..e..s..O..t..a..~.s~u...b~..e.~~~~ utility e~se'm.~tits shown
I herel)y Cerlify that thil survey, plan, or report was I)rep4red by me or Scale: I inch eCluall ,~o feet
under mI direct lUpervilion and. ,hat I am a dui), Regilterod Laird Survl),ol, · - Mdicatll Iron' M~'~;;'~';"'.~e,
under f/~e IcLws of the State of Mmnesot4. . , 0 - Indicate~ Iron Moflumen- -ourKI
'. ........ :: ............... .. ~ ......... .~ .......... ,~ ~.?.~--/~'..~'_~_~.,
· '1 ~~1~ ~ I __~ ~ ..... ~-..-~
l
I
City of New Hope
Planning Case Report
Planning Case: 88-27
Request: Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval
Location: 7716-7724 Winpark Drive
Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial)
Petitioner: Harold C. Lyman and Charles Schuler
Report Date: October 26, 1988
Meeting Date: November 1, 1988
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioners are requesting approval of a comprehensive sign
plan for the property at 7716-7724 Winpark Drive pursuant to
Section 3.467 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. Comprehensive
sign plan approval is required for industrial and commercial
buildings with more than one tenant.
2. The property is leased to two tenants; Thyssen Steel and Gaynor
Sales Agency. The Gaynor Sales Agency sign is existing.
ANALYSIS
1. Section 3.465 of the New Hope Code allows a maximum of two (2)
front wall signs. Given the area of the front face of the
buildings, each sign cannot exceed 100 square feet.
The petitioners propose the following signs:
A. Thyssen Steel - 38 square feet
B. Gaynor Sales Agency - 56 square feet
2. The petitioners are proposing to place letters on the existing
brick and are not requesting background lighting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive sign plan at 7716-7724
Winpark Drive as proposed in Planning Case 88-27.
Attachments: Comprehensive Sign Plan (10-26-88)
Correspondence from James Rogers (10-12-88)
COMPREHENSIVE S1.GN PLAN
7716-7724 Winpark Dr.
SIGN "A"
Thyssen Steel Co.-7724 , Gaynor Sa'les Agency-7716
38 square feet / 56 square feet
GAYNOR SALES AGENCY
7716 WINPARK DRIVE
GAYNOR SALES AGENCY
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55427-0'207
TELEPHONE: 612-544-8985
MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVES FAX: 612-544-0133
October 12; 1988
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
Dear Sirs:
We have reviewed the proposal for a sign by Thyssen Specialty Steels
at 7724 Winpark Drive and feel it will be compatible with our existing
sign.
We, therefOre, have no objections to their plans and ask that you
approve thei~ request.
es W. Rogers{ ~sident
JWR:ay
cc: File
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 26, 2988
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Codes and Standards Committee
Subject: Report
The Codes and Standards Committee met on October 25, 1988, to
discuss the following:
1. Corner lots
2. Handicapped Housing
3. 'Automobile sales in Industrial or B-3 zoning districts
The Committee took the following actions:
1. Recommended that a proposed ordinance to allow
expansion of a non-conforming corner lot as a
conditional use permit be forwarded to the Commission.
2. Recommended that a proposed ordinance to allow
handicapped housing developments in an R-5 zoning
district go before the Commission in December, 1988.
This ordinance will be reviewed by a person who
specializes in handicapped accessibility issues before
the ordinance goes to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
3. Recommended that the proposed ordinance to allow
automobile sales in B-3 zoning districts be tabled
until February, 1989.
northwest associated consultants, inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeannine Dunn
FROM: Mike Ridley/Alan Brixius
DATE: 26 October 1988
RE: New Hope - Corner Lot Study
FILE NO: 131.00 - 88.08
The City of New Hope has been studying the situation of non-
conforming residential dwelling units located on corner lots
throughout the City. The study was initiated because of the
large number of variance requests for the expansion of non-
conforming single family residential units.
Apparently, the basis for granting such variances was credited to
hardships created by the current Ordinance, which was adopted in
1980. Review of several sample corner lot situations, provided
by the City Building Official, revealed that the non-conforming
situations were not created by the current Ordinance. Because
criteria to be met for granting a variance is very stringent,
this office suggests an Ordinance amendment whereby expansion of
non-conforming single family structures would be handled on a
case-by-case basis by conditional use permit.
Analysis of existing corner lot conditions was presented in a
July 7, 1988 planners report. This report also outlined a zoning
provision that allowed for the expansion of a non-conforming
single family dwelling by conditional use. Based on discussion
of the July 7 planners report by the Codes and Standards
Committee, we have drafted an alternate ordinance amendment to
Section 4.031(11). The following amendment language is identical
to that contained at the bottom of page two of our 7 July 1988
report (attached) except that it pertains only to corner lots.
"Lawfully existing non-conforming single family individual
dwelling units located on corner lots may be expanded to
improve livability as a conditional use as regulated by
Chapter 4, Section 4.21 of this Ordinance, provided the non-
conformity of the structure is not increased."
4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 410, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420
The amendment above will only allow expansion by conditional use
for corner lots. The amendment in our initial report allows for
this expansion for corner as well as interior lots. By
specifying corner lot, the City is denying interior lot owners
the opportunity to expand their non-conforming structures in this
manner. The Planning Commission should determine the
appropriateness of distinguishing between lot type.
cc: Doug Sandstad
Steve Sondrall
Dan Donahue
northwest associated consultants, inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Dan Donohue --~
FROM: Mike Ridley/Alan Brixius
DATE: July 7, 1988
RE: New Hope - Corner Lot Study
FILE NO: 131.00 - 88.08
EXECUTIVk SUMMARY
Background:
The City has had a number of requests for expansion of non-
conforming single.family structures located on corner lots. By~
ordinance, expansions have to be granted by variance. The basis
for granting these variances has been due to hardships created by
the current ordinance adopted in 1980 that altered the definition
of lot frontage. To avoid further variance requests of this
type, the City has instructed this office to investigate the
application of this definition.
Conclusion
Review of the random cases selected by the City Building
Inspector reveals that the non-conformity of single family
structures on corner lots is not caused by the updated City
Ordinance adopted in 1980. ~This being the case, past variance
requests have not been characterized by a hardship created by
City action.
Ordinance criteria to be met for granting variances is very
stringent. Therefore, we suggest handling non-conforming,
single family structure expansion as conditional uses. Also,
when expansions are granted, the area allowed for expansion must
be established.
4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 410, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420
Analysis
Definition:
The pre-1980 definition allowed each homeowner the option of
choosing the front lot of a corner lot.
The current ordinance assigns lot frontage for corner lots by ·
definition:
Lot Frontage. the front of a corner lot shall be that boundary
abutting'the public right-of-way having the least width.
Doug Sandstad, City Building Official has provided ten random
samples of corner lot surveys in the City~ that illustrate
application of both corner lot definitions.
In each case, the current lot front application provides more
buildable area. Also, none of ten samples meet setback
requirements when the old definition is applied, while 7 of 10
meet current definition setbacks. Please see Exhibits 1 - 10.
This information illustrates that the ordinance definition
adopted in 1980 actually did not create the hardships for these
lots.
INTENT:
If intent of the City is not to deny expansion of these non-'
conforming single family homes on corner lots, the City should
attempt to regulate this type of expansion without using a
variance.
With this in mind, our office recommends expansions of non-
conforming single family structures to be dealt with as
conditional uses. We suggest an ordinance amendment to provide
this mechanism.
Ordinance Amendment
We propose amending Section 4.031 (11) to read as follows:
Lawfully existing non-conforming single family residential
dwelling units may be expanded to improve livability as a
conditional use as regulated by Chapter 4, Section 4.21 of
this ordinance provided the nonconformity of the structure
is not increased.
An ordinance interpretation will have to be attached to this
amendment. The City needs to decide which option is more
appropriate.
1. Expansion allowed provided it is contained in the buildable
area of the lot, per existing ordinance.
2. Expansion is allowed provided the existing setback
encroachments are not increased.
Conclusion
The non-conformity of single family structures on corner lots is
not caused in all cases by the updated City Ordinance adopted in
1980. This being the case, past variance requests have not been
characterized by a hardship created by City action.
Ordinance criteria to be met for granting variances is very
stringent. Therefore, we suggest handling non-conforming single
family structure expansions as conditional uses. Also, when
expansions are granted, the area allowed for expansion must be
established.
cc: Jeannine Dunn
Doug Sandstad
Steve Sondrall
'"' 770c,; L'.'keland ,~.v~. [~.-oo,:,¥n Par[<}, :. G'. :3o~o, Minn. · BUILDABLE AREA:
k~ i.-.a ~ ~_ ~' ;..5 ~ ~ u.a ~ '..J ~,~, ~ {,~,.a '- ~ LS ~' ', ';.; ~ ':'{ ' TM ~ '" r.:.-'~ r- ..-. DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE
Regis:ered Profe'ssionol Engineers and L,~nd Su~ SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANCE
~ I~. __~__~'~'=~--"~-//\/x~"~ ~ ,~ r-4 ':-T~(J ,'- Fl=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE
:. i " BUILDI~,'c' ~'I~- p ~-,-.-~-,-,
,.,~ l,~. [:~, ~uR
,..', s,:-o.o ,,-',.~,.; VILLAGE OF lq'-'"
~-W/HOPE
...... ~-' " 'DATE
. '¢"/ ,>-.. Bz'"" ~,-,~--. ~..
'~.'--"-..v-"' -'= /. ~;~"3. '°' i. ....
· (L I {3 --
z. ,~ ,.. o-.. \ ' '"' ';~'~{' ' ' '
t
'l
~ hereby eerlify thai this ;s o true o,~d correct represerftation of o survey of ,he boundaries of the land described above.
:: doe:, t:o: purport Io show improvements or encrcochmenls, i~ any. As surveyud by me Ibis ..... ).~..~.J_ ..... day of
..................... J'~o.c% ~..'-.~ x: ............. 19..~?~ ·
· ' · CASWELL £NGi.',,~.RING CO. .- '
..'- . ~ . ~'- ...~ .~ ~. "'""
· ."" " EXHIBIT
SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANCE
o FRONT YARD:
Fl=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE
.. ...... IZ7.46 ....... .
IO.7 q~..~'~ ' '~.~ _. ~ F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE
i =o ')~ '...~ ~. P1 I ~ .~
I hereby certify:that this isi a tmue and correct representation
of a survey' of the boundaries" of:
Lot 5, Block 3, Terra Linda
And of the location of all ~uildings, thereon, and all visible
encroachments, if any, from or on said land. As surveyd by me
this' 10th day of May, 1973.
PLAT ,,?' , L~ /; ";'
~,, ,~ -.=,'.=,~ ~.~QO~-~"""~- Hinn.'X~eg. No. 9066
VILL/~G~ '- OF ?~vv~ .. ;'"~F'~
DATE ~T~/.~/7> ~
.,,. . ..... ~ .. ,.,~o.-, ~ EXHIBIT 2
....... ~ "McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC." 6~ i ~~/ L ~[~'¢ '~
HARVEY ^. CARTWRIGHT ~.&* * ...... ~r ~UILOABLE AREA:
.~..~.,. cou.., su. vc.s l~tt ,~'D' ~ [;[~' t'l~ } 0173 DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE
NIN NEAI}OLI~
· u..~. 4.~o~s L~CCN.Co oY O.O,.ANCC O~ C~T~ O~ "~NNO SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANCE
326 PLyMOUtH DUILDIHG
INDUSTRIAL -- JUOICIAL HENNEPIN AT SIXTH · FINNEAPOLI5 3. Mil FRONT YARD:
BUSINESS -- TOPOG"APHICA~. ' ; ':' ' ~ttC~CPOC'~ C~cnficatr '
.. (. Fl=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE
H ~ Val J; 9.othschi!d ' "
· . J;,ck ii. Ii!! F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE
, ,.. '~no:, : .
.. · ~%- .' .
~ ..... . .
., .~ ......... .
: '~ .' .'... .
.:~.~ -.,:. ~
-'- F1 ~ ~': ·
' ~ ~" I ' "
. -- .. ~,,. ~ .
j..
~:~ -.
~5 F2' .~ --
.,.,. ~-~ ~/ .
and f.s voi~ for a~ other use.
" '* I hereby certiD/ th::t "~n].s' is a tru=. an3 c~r:'_-ct reoresentation, of a s'~-vcy
t , .:..
" .... ""' '"' EXHIBIT
ENGINEERS AND SURVI SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANCE
~.o ~u~Y,-~ FRONT YARD:
G41O- 5GT~ AVENUE
FI=P~EVIOU5 ORDINANCE
KE 7- S. G37 F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE
..
I1~ ~ "~' "
.' _.~ ..... - .... ~. ?. ~--,--,-?~ ~~-~~ , ' . .
" ../~" · ../.
2(0 ..
L~O N~V[ DE~RIBED ANO OPTgE LOCkTIOM OF kLL ~ILDINGS, IF ~, T~REOM, ~O ~ VISIBLE ENCROKC~MEMTS~
? ! ,-- I~!(
' ': ~ .... ~ (' ~U~DA~,~ ^~A:
5722 Wayzata Blvd.
Mmneapo!~s 16, Minn. DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE
C A S W E L L . E N G I N E E R I so.,~ .,.~=c...~.~ o.~,.^.c[
Registered Professional Engineers and Land S~ FRONT YARD:
CERTIFICATE OF SURV! F~=..Ev,ous ORD,.^.CE
F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE
,For ~~~ ~ - ;..
.... //~. ~ .....
It does not purport to show improvements or encroachmenls, if any.~s surveyed by me thisbe/ day of
CASWELL ENGtNEERING CO.
,,~ EXHIBIT 5
File ~o, /]~7- ~__Book Page_ ~innesola Registration ~o.~3
I
,,' ;~ .'..- '.: LE A~EA:
.-, : ~, [... ~ ,..
· '"" ',iii~Ii ~ OAS.ED '~.E=PREV,OUS ORDI.A.CE
":': '' ~ '"~., -' SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANCE
"; :' Fl=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE
· ~....~:.~;.; .~-. . :.,- . · .....
,L''~ :;':;' .;..L, · - ."
F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE
'-'. ~. ".. ~ ":;~:.
..~.,?..?, ~'..'...,,~..="~..-,- ... '~Z : .
. ,....., .~.:..: ', ..,~.~ ~. , ~'~ ~ .'~ ·..
,..~.. , ..~ .~.' ~.
~,... ,~' .= ~.,~.. , ..;.. ~ . ~
. ?~..~...,.-,.,,..' - .
.~. ~.~ ' ,
~"~"'"='~ '"'~" '"'"'" "-~ ~ (-, .' .."' .. F2 ,, _. ~,,
.?:'- ; "..:~.~ .~. ".' .' ~: ~ .. ':. ·
., ~,.~.~.~ ~.,.~ ~,..~...?.,,..~.?~ ..~ ..~.~'~.~.:~'.. ~l . ...~'" . ,.. ~..~.~.. .. :.'~ . . ~ .. · .~,
', -?. ~ - ~ - .
· .'~,'[. I '-'. ·
L~. ~.. ~ .,.~ ~; · ~ ,. ~.. '
.... .. ,: ... .... .,. .~ ~
:...:. · '-"i~ ·
F1 ,.
.- .
-,' ~ ~ . ~ ' .
?l.p~ . - .
. ·., · . . ~ , . .. ,:. ,.l .... ,~, ,'..;~..,~ ~.'.
.': ~. . .~ ..,; ~ :.;:~: .. . ,' ~ · . .: .,, .... ~.,.~..~, ~'
.' :.~ ," . -,. -..:~., '::.:~,.:..; .':;.':. :' ,..':. .: , .:'.,,, ,, .... .
,' ..~.. :: '.... '.. ..... ~: 'T ' ' "' ~"~'~z .... '."
· ' --" ' :' -:~¥'~:"~..'~;'~'.;' - ' i~':~ '. '"" :'"~J"' ; "" ' ' ""; ""~"" ":'~'~i~"~"~ ";'~'
..... ,: '~...~ · ,,.~. .. ~': ,:. -~..:~' .,~..~.,.:..~:, ~:-. .':.:.}
.. '.". . ,~.;..:~...;,'i. :.'. · , . .": ~ .....
- ' ' ' ; "'" EXHIBIT 7
.. ,: , ........,.~ ..~ ~."-~ :::~.I~,~ ~" ...:,
.~' i~'.-. '. "'.. ;- ~ · '~','.,~'. ' ' . :-:'. l:,;,i, ."i~:.~' ,~?'~"-.'~ ,:. .... '
.~-~'~.'~'~'~ '- . ~' ~ ~i ~. ~ -'."~ ~ "~'9 '~'".",- ." ' '; ~' ,,.. ''' }':~' ,'~ ~z' ~'~" ...'~"~' .~ : ' · ~" -' ~'~,. ' ,.-~
.... ..~ .... ..,~ ~ :.~ ~ - ,..,, :...... , ,..:.~ ,...:.. ~.. ,......~.,~..: ~'.~ ,. ?~., ,*;.~ :~,~.i~:,¥~.;~.::;, ,.~;~,,~,~,
· ..~,~I.,,~.-.~ ~ ..., ....
MZ:~TD~:~ :~-~GI~:~__jI~RI~ DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE
E. ~ G i ~ E E ~ ~ A~ D ~ ~ ~VI SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANCE
L~.o ~u~vEY~.~ FRONT YARD:
G4~6-SGTM AVENUE ~. Fl=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE
MINNEAPOLIS ~?.~INN.
KE ~- 5,G37 F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE
,, ~. ~
!
'' · ....
I{VE~ (~1{5 : DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE
,-,...::, ,~.' ..-',~, ...~:. , SOLIO LINE-OUtWENT O~OlNANO~
.~in,;.~,,~ r,~l~' -' "~
.-
-.~ . :- . .~' ~ .. "~ 4' . .-..~..j: .' .~" ';' ' . ~[ ·
. :.. :- .
. ....~. ...... -....
..,:.~V[....,.'~. '..' · .- · ..:,~..?:~.:: :..
~
.... · '. .... " '~-' .... ·
- ' ~ '. . '.:" Y.~'"L ..'_ '.',..'
..... · . . . . . i . ., .....:.,... ~ ~.[; ,.:..;-
'~/ ..... l~] '. 't. ':-'.--'., '?
./s/ , ... . ... ,
....... . '.. -. ' ,' ' I /' "--":.'~..'~:'~-~".':;~?-"i
" "' ' ' ' "'"~:" "' ~'"'~'"~
-. .--.'. - .:" .I /.',:.,,.'-:',,;~",..-, ~f~-:.-',,~
........ =~'~
~ .: ': ,' ~, /J //.. '..',..'.1 ~"-~':'-'-'~ ~'-.:1.:.'
· - '
. .. .. '¢..,
' : ' ' I ":" ........"; ::'"'~"~
........ ...: .... , .., ...... .,. ~.,.
. · ' ' ' '
. - , . · ~ .., I ~..~ ....
'.
Dna ~.~6~
..........
..... ',';;... ' .... -,: ~4~;~. ~" ~ ,-.. '
Of ' . ' '. '
. · "· .~ · I '~ > ~ .. . ' -~ .'. ~:'-'~,' .:' - ,~ -' ·
~-~'- ~ ' · .
. . ~ . .' .:..~ ,..x~.:~, ~,.' "....:~..:
· ' .... ,'..,~ ...... ~
.. . ... ..... .... ,.., .....
-. . ..
:., · . ....
- ?" .' ''~ ,.- .':': ~:,.~-~:: .'v '., .~
"'. ' ". ' ' ~ .....;t~" '''~ ..... ":
.. .... .. ,.- ... . -,.' ........ ~,.'~.:,." .
. - .,
.. . ......, . '. ,: ~ ,~,~ · ~ ~." ~,:' ~ · .
· .. ,.__ .,,.. ..... ..,..,~
. -.
- ..
.
. .. . · ,~.h .... - .::.~ ~.~.~..
.......... i .... , .
~ · · . :.-.,.. : . , .. ~'.~:.~. ....
.~ . '' ' · ·
;..: ...... , ~. -... . ,...., :::'.~,~ y, ,:' ~ :~.~ ';~:-..~
.' i . '. ·
.. ; .., . ..
..'. ,.. ~, ~.. . ~::':~,' ...'.. ~,,.~..,. ...,...~. , .~.- .~,.~.~ ~ ~i~.:',-~;.,.T~ '...
'": '." '
' '"/'
.... EXHIBIT
' :..,~" , ;.'~t' ~'- ". ' ~'
......... ~,, ,,,~ ......... :~
........... I~'.~, ~,,
'"'.'.':'-. ~'...".' '.
,:-..-... ~'~ ~..' '-.. ...................... -..
~ ' ~ ' "" ' · . v.. . ,. · ,
........... ,.: .~
....... "" '"' .'.
7708 Lakeland Ave. (Brooklyn Park), P. O. O$$eo, Minn.
DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE
C A S W E L L ' E N G I N E E R il so~,o ~,.~:c...~.~ o..,.^.c.
Registered Professional Engineers and Land $~ FRONT YARD:
iCERTIFICATE OF SURVI F~=PREWOUSORD~.A.CE
For ~ I C i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [ C t~ ~2~CURRRENT ORDIANACE
0
0
~ F2 -
/
~ ~0- O~ ~/ I'
I ~c~c. ~. ~ X~ , ~ ~ '
~ere~y ~ertify thor this is o true on~ correct represenlotion o~ o survey of the ~oun~ories of Ihe Iond ~escri~e~ o~ove.
If does nol p~rporl fo show improvements or encroachments, if any. As surveyed by me this ~O~t~ day of
CASWE[[ ENG[NEEEING CO._ '~ j
~ EXHIBIT 10
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 1, 1988
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: M. Jeannine Dunn, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Vacant Land Study
The City is proposing to amend its comprehensive plan to include
the Vacant Land Study Phases I and II. The amendment process is
defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355. I have attached
the requirements for your information.
Given the legal requirements of this action, I propose the
following schedule:
Activity Date
-Legal Notice published November 23, 1988
-P~anning Commission holds public
hearing and makes recommendation
to the city Council December 6, 1988
-City Council considers recommendation
of Planning Commission and adoption
of the study February 13, 198%
The City council must adopt the study as an amendment to the
plan with a two-thirds vote.
If you have questions aboUt the process, please contact me.
462.354 HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING 8090
of appeals and adjustments, and it may provide an appropriate name for the board.
The board may be given such other duties as the governing body may direct.
In any municipality where the council does not serve as the board, the governing
body may, except as otherwise provided by charter, provide that the decisions of the
board on matters within its jurisdiction are final subject to judicial review or are final
subject to appeal to the council and the right of later judicial review or are advisory to
the council. Hearings by the board of appeals and adjustments shall be held within such
time and upon such notice to interested parties as is provided in the ordinance
establishing the board. The board shall within a reasonable time make its order
deciding the matter and shall serve a copy of such order upon the appellant or petitioner
by mail. Any party may appear at the hearing in person or by agent or attorney. Subject
to such limitations as may be imposed by the governing body, the board may adopt
rules for the conduct of proceedings before it. Such rules may include provisions for
the giving of oaths to witnesses and the filing of written briefs by the parties. The board
shall provide for a record of its proceedings which shall include the minutes of its
meetings, its findings, and the action taken on each matter heard by it, including the
final order. In any municipality in which the planning agency does not act as the board
of adjustments and appeals, the board shall make no decision on an appeal or petition
until the planning agency, if there is one, or a representative authorized by it has had
reasonable opportunity, not to exceed 60 days, to review and report to the board of
adjustments and appeals upon the appeal or petition.
History: 1965 c 670 s 4; 1967 c 493 s 1
462.355 PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND AMENDMENT OF COMPREHEN-
SIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN.
Subdivision 1. Preparation and review. The planning agency shall prepare the
compreh'ensive municipal plan. In discharging this duty the planning agency shall
consult with and coordinate the planning activities of other departments and agencies
of the municipality to insure conformity with and to assist in the development of the
comprehensive municipal plan. In its planning activities the planning agency shall take
due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government and other
affected public agencies. The planning agency shall periodically review the plan and
recommend amendments whenever necessary.
Subd. 2. Procedure for plan adoption and amendment. The planning agency may,
unless otherwise provided by charter or ordinance consistent with the municipal
charter, recommend to the governing body the adoption and amendment from time to
time of a comprehensive municipal plan. The plan may be prepared and adopted in
sections, each of which relates to a major subject of the plan o.r to a major geographical
section of the municipality. The governing body may propose the comprehensive
municipal plan and amendments to it by resolution submitted to the planning agency.
Before adopting the comprehensive municipal plan or any section or amendment of the
plan, the planning agency shall hold at least one public hearing thereon. A notice of the
time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published once in the official newspaper
of the municipality at least ten days before the day of the hearing.
Subd. 3. Adoption by governing body. A proposed comprehensive plan or an
amendment to it may not be acted upon by the governing body until it has received
the recommendation of the planning agency or until 60 days have elapsed from the date
an amendment proposed by the governing body has been submitted to the planning
agency for its recommendation. Unless otherwise provided by charter, the governing
body may by resolution by a two-thirds vote of all of its members adopt and amend
the comprehensive plan or portion thereof as the official municipal plan upon such
notice and hearing as may be prescribed by ordinance.
Subd. 4. Interim ordinance. If a municipality is conducting studies or has
authorized a study to be conducted or has held or has scheduled a hearing for the
purpose of considering adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or official
controls as defined in section 462.352, subdivision 15, or if new territory for which
8091 HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING 462.357
plans or controls have not been adopted is annexed to a municipality, the governing
body of the municipality may adopt an interim ordinance applicable to all or part of
its jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety
and welfare of its citizens. The interim ordinance may regulate, restrict or prohibit any
use, development, or subdivision within the jurisdiction or a portion thereof for a
period not to exceed-one year from the date it is effective, and may be extended for such
additional periods as the municipality may deem appropriate, not exceeding a total
additional period of 18 months. No interim ordinance may halt, delay, or impede a
subdivision which has been given preliminary approval prior to the effective date of
the interim ordinance.
History: 1965 c 670 s 5; 1976 c 127 s 21; 1977 c 347 s 68; 1980 c 566 s 24; 1983 c
216 art 1 s 67; 1985 c 62 s 1,2
462.356 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION; GENERALLY.
Subdivision 1. Recommendations for plan execution. Upon the recommendation
by the planning agency of ~he comprehensive municipal plan or sections thereof, the
planning agency shall study and propose to the governing body reasonable and practica-
ble means for putting the plan or section of the plan into effect. Subject to the
limitations of the following sections, such means include, but are not limited to, zoning
regulations, regulations for the subdivision of land, an official map, a program for
coordination of the normal public improvements and services of the municipality,
urban renewal and a capital improvements program.
Subd. 2. Compliance with plan. After a comprehensive municipal plan or section
thereof has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with the
governing ~ody, no publicly owned interest in real property within the municipality
shall be acquired or disposed of, nor shall any capital improvement be authorized by
the municipality or special district or agency thereof or any other political subdivision
having jurisdiction within the municipality until after the planning agency has reviewed
the proposed acquisition, disposal, or capital improvement and reported in writing to
the governing body or other special district or agency or political subdivision con-
cerned, its findings as to compliance of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improve-
ment with the comprehensive municipal plan. Failure of the planning agency to report
on the proposal within 45 days after such a reference, or such other period as may be
designated by the governing body shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements
of this subdivision. The governing body may, by resolution adopted by two-thirds vote
dispense with the requirements of this subdivision when in its judgment it finds that
the proposed acquisition or disposal of real property or capital improvement has no
relationship to the comprehensive municipal plan.
History: 1965 c 670 s 6
462.357 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION; ZONING.
Subdivision I. Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the public
health, safety, morals and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate
on the earth's surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the
location, height, width, bulk, type of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings
and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and
other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and
structures for trade, industry, residence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes,
and the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, agriculture, forestry, soil
conservation, water supply conservation, conservation of shorelands, as defined in
section 105.485, access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems as defined in section
116J.06, flood control or other purposes, and may establish standards and procedures
regulating such uses. No regulation may prohibit earth sheltered construction as
defined in section 116J.06, subdivision 2, or manufactured homes built in conformance
with sections 327.31 to 327.35 that comply with all other zoning ordinances promul-
gated pursuant to this section. The regulations may divide the surface, above surface,