110585 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1985
City of New Hope, Minnesota
4401 Xylon Avenue North
7:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Case 85-23 - Request for Approval of Preliminary Plat (zero lot line)
8117-19 28th Avenue North - West Suburban Builders, Petitioner.
Planning Case 85,25 - Request for Preliminary Plat, Amendment to PUD, Rezoning
R-3 to R-4, and C6nstruction Approval - 4051 Boone Avenue North - Sandpiper
Cove Homeowners ~ssociation plus Citizens State Bank, Petitioners
Planning Case 85-26 - CUP to Construct a Utility Structure in a B-1 Zone
and Construction Approval - 7980 36th Avenue North and City Owned
Flood Plain - John Parker and A1 Tedesco, Petitioners.
Planning Case 85-28 Request for Variance - 3018 Independence Circle
Jerome Unger, Petitioner. - ,
Planning Case 85-29 - Request for CUP f~ Home Occupation - 4701
Gettysburg North - Denise Bohnert and ~te~e Mueller (owner) Petitioners.
Planning Case 85-31 - Request for Construction Approval for Utility
Building - 5040 Winnetka Avenue North, Northwestern Bell Petitioner.
Planning Case 85-32 - Request for Preliminary Plat - 9200 - 49th
Avenue North - Clarence Brandell, Petitioner.
Planning Case 85-33 - Request for Construction Approval for Apartment
House - 8201 Bass Lake Road - Vernon Stuhr, Petitioner.
Request for Concept Approval of Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, and
Construction Approval of 72 unit Apartment Building - Howard Beal/Jim
Lang, Petitioners.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
12. Report of Design and Review Committee
13. Report of Land Use Committee
14. Report of Codes and Standards Committee
NEW BUSINESS
15. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of October 1, 1985
16. Review of Council Minutes of October 15, and 28, 1985.
17. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests, of Public,
Commissioners and Staff
18. Announcements
19. Adjournment
DATE:
CASE:
PETITIONER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
November 5, 1985
85-23
West Suburban Builders, Inc.
Earl Wilson
Preliminary Plat Approval
(zero lot line)
8117-19 28th Avenue North
R-2
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
This case was tabled from the September Planning Commission
meeting. The petitioner has failed to appear at the last two
meetings and Planning Commission has tabled until the November
hearing date.
This duplex was built in 1975. It is very similar to other
duplexes developed in that area that have been zero lot lined.
The property meets all requirements of the zoning code and the
only matter before the Planning Commission is approval of the
preliminary plat. Staff recommends approval.
-,9,0
0 20 40
IN FEET
DENOTES IRON MONUMENT
ARINGS SHOWN ARE A$SUMEO
N. LINE OF LOT I0, BLIC3, TWIN TERRA LINDA,
ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF~ ~ -
HENN. CO.
EAST 120.00
62.60 t~J 57.40
-',, o T F R F-,,'
LOT I LOT 2:
81_0¢K ~
;
L_ (~
67.40
/ '~ S. LINE OF
*R
= __.*
I-.
,,, o,
,.2
4
,%IF; A
II
:%
DATE:
CASE:
PETITIONER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
November 5, 1985
85-25
Sandpiper Cove Owners Association plus Citizens
State Bank
Preliminary Plat, Amendment to PUD, Rezoning R-3
to R-4, Construction Approval
4051 Boone Avenue North
R-3
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
1. This case was tabled from the last Planning Commission
meeting. This petitioner has yet to come before the commission
as they cancelled out at the last miniute.
2. I am furnishing you my comments from last month along with a
copy of the Planner's report on the case. There have been a few
changes that should be noted. The petitioner has submitted a
narrative description of the project and has .now decided to
include fire sprinklers throughout the building. To my
knowledge, all other design considerations, plus the concerns of
the Planner and myself still remain.
DATE:
CASE:
PETITIONER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
October 1, 1985
85-25
Sandpiper Cove and Citizens State Bank
Preliminary Plat, Amendment to PUD, Rezoning from
R-3 to R-4, Construction Approval
4051 Boone
R-3
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
1. This case has been referred to the Planner. In your packet
is his report. This should pretty well describe what the
petitioner requests and the planner's thoughts in the matter.
Also, the petitioner is seeking approval for the first two stages
of a three stage planned use development permit. If approval is
given for these first two stages, it would then allow the
petitioner to proceed with construction.
2. In addition to the report by the Planner, staff
other concerns that the commissioners and council should
of.
has some
be aware
a. staff ~eeds to have a more narrative description of the
proposed PUD and a complete architectural drawing as detailed in
4.19 (6) of the code, which speaks to the second phase of the PUD
process.
b. the easements have not been shown for water and storm
sewer lines.
c. the preliminary plat has a mis-spelling for"Sandpiper,,.
d. from a procedural standpoint, we must do more than
approve the proposed Sandpiper Cove Second Addition. I believe
you would have to re-plat the original Sandpiper Cove plat to
match, or we are going to end up with two outstanding plats that
describe the eastern portion of the site in different terms.
e. Although the new building would be a condominium
development, it may be reasonable to ask about the useable open
space as required for a townhouse project. There appear to be no
intentions to provide such things as picnic areas, recreational
spaces, play areas, etc.
f. The only amenity in the
tuck-under garage and this will not
normally the case.
submitted documents is the
be served by elevators as is
g. Some of the requests of the Design and Review Committee
and staff recommendations have been taken in the revised drawings
that were received by staff this past Friday. They have not
provided the 24 foot wide driveway throughout the site, nor has
the petitioner clarified if the entire building is to be provided
with fire sprinklers as recommended by the Fire Chief because of
the poor access into and within the site.
h. The rezoning issue does have some merit as it is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the change in the use of
the 7.27 acre site in the last decade and the Council decision to
permit a total of 58 dwelling units on the site in 1975. This
ev~lopment will then bring the total site to
Staff does not recommend exceeding this density. Staff also
points out that the soil problems are now known to be worse
than originally thought on this 2.6 acres of the total site.
i. The Planner in his report on page 4, talks about the
difference in elevation between the driveway and the first
floor of the building. Staff agrees with the Planner on this
point, particularly with the inconvenience to the residents and
the strange look that the east elevation is going to have. It
should be noted that the site plan drawings for the east
elevation do not show the driveway in relation to the elevation
rendering. You may want to re-look at the Crystal Towers
apartment complex, off Bass Lake Road. There the parking lot
and driveway is well below the first floor levels.
k. Staff would recommend concept approval only and not
the second or development stage for the PUD. We think that
there are enough concerns to warrent a more thorough
examination.
northwest
associated
consultants, inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Dan Donahue
Alan Brixius
26 September 1985
Sandpiper Cove Condominium Rezoning and PUD Amendment
131.01 - 85.25
BACKGROUND
Citizens State Bank of St. Louis Park is proposing to amend the approved
Sandpiper. Cove PUD to allow for the development of a 22 unit condominium on
the southwest corner of the 42nd Avenue and Boone Avenue intersection. The
original Sandpiper Cove PUD was approved for the construction of 59 townhome
units on a 7.3 acre site. To date 37 townhomes have been constructed on the
western 4.7 acres of the site. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the
parcel into two lots and an outlot and consolidate the balance of the 22
unconstructed units into a single building on a 2.6 acre site.
Three applications must be processed to consider the applicant's request.
They are as follows:
o
Rezoning: The site is currently zoned R-3 which provides for townhouse
development and multiple family dwellings up to 12 units. The applicant
is requesting to construct a 22 unit complex which requires an R-4
zoning district to permit the use.
PUD: The applicant is proposing a use and design change from the
'originally approved Sandpiper PUD. To accommodate the change in use
and design an amendment to the original PUD must be processed.
Subdivision: The existing Sandpiper Cove PUD consists of 7.3 acres.
The applicant is proposing to divide the site into two lots and an
outlot.
4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, mn, ste. 200 55416 (612) 925-9420
Dan Donahue
.: ,. 26 September 1985
Page Two
REZONING
The applicant is requesting a zoning change from R-3 to R-4 to allow for the
construction of a 22 unit condominium rather than the approved 22 townhomes
on the site.
The City of New Hope has requested that the site be developed. The applicant
is proposing this design due to market constraints and site conditions.
Comprehensive Plan. The New Hope Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as
area in which medium density residential development (6-10 units per acre)
should occur in a planned unit development. The site is characterized by a
wetland and poor soils. The PUD will allow for a more efficient use of the
developable land, clustering the units to allow for the most efficient use
of the site and to preserve the open space.
Land Use ~ompatib~lity. The rezonin§ change is necessary to allow for a change
in the type of building from townhouses to a 22 unit condonimium. The applicant
is not proposing to change the density from what was approved with the original
PUD. The PUD serves to restrict the permitted density on the site. The re-
zoning will allow for a different building type, however, nothing larger than
22 units~]can be constructed on the site. The building appearance is signifi-
cantly different from the previously proposed townhomes. A building this large
and high .constructed on fill raises some compatibility concerns, however, the
applicant has attempted to minimize these impacts through the architectural
appearance of the building, which has been coordinated with the townhomes in
Sandpiper Cove. The site plan shows excessive setback from the adjacent properties
allowing a buffering space. The landscape plan shows the preservation of a
pondin§ area, a landscape screening between the proposed development and adjacent
residential areas.
Traffic. The Comprehensive Plan~s recommendations for medium density residential
development on this site stems from its proximity to 42nd Avenue and Boone.
This land use was proposed to limit access points onto these busy streets and to
buffer the lower density single family development to the south.
New Hope's policies for considering a rezoning are as follows:
The character of the area has changed warranting the change in zoning
designation.
2. The existing zoning represents a mistake during the initial zoning.
Review of the applicant's request does not appear to comply with either of the
aforementioned criteria, however, the following items must be weighed in any
rezoning decision:
1. The City has requested that some development occur on the site.
Dan Donahue
26 September 1985
Page Three'
e
The PUD controls the density and design of the site, providing added City
controls when evaluating the proposal.
The site has natural physical limitations that restrict the development.
The proposed land use is consistent with the land use objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan.
The City must make a policy decision as to the acceptability of the requested
R-4 rezoning.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
If the R-4 rezoning is approved, an amendment to the existing Sandpiper Cove
PUD is required. The following is our review of the PUD development based
on City zoning standards:
Lot Area and Density. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site into
two lots and an outlot. The first lot contains the existing 36 townhomes and
will be 4.7 acres, having a density of 7.6 units per acre. The outlot will
be 6,050 square feet in area and cannot be developed. The second lot which is
proposed to contain the 22 unit condominium will be 2.6 acres, having a density
of 8.4 units per acre. The overall PUD will have a density of 7.9 units per
acre, which is the same as the previously approved PUD.
Setbacks. The R-4 district requires the following building setbacks:
Required Proposed
Front 50 feet 165 feet
Side abutting Boone
Avenue 50 feet 54 feet
Side 20 feet 125 feet
Rear 35 feet 85 feet
The site plan shows setbacks that in each case exceed the established R-4
standard.
.Parking. The site plan shows that 68 parking stalls are proposed. Thirty
stalls are to be outside and 38 stalls are proposed to be located under ground.
The New Hope Ordinance requires I covered parking stall plus 1.25 other parking
stall per unit. This 22 unit condominium is required to provide 50 parking
stalls, 22 of which must be covered. The applicant's proposal exceeds this
req ui rement.
Dan Donahue
26 September 1985
Page Four
Parking Lot Design. Exterior lot raises the following design concerns which
should be corrected:
The driveway aisle for double loaded, 90o parking lot should be at a
minimum of 24 feet.
o
The parking stalls on the west side of the parking lot dimension out
to 10' x 17' These stalls are required to have a 20 foot depth.
3. A perimeter barrier curb is required around the entire parking lot.
4. The parking lot must have a bituminous surface and be striped.
5. Parking lot lighting should be indicated. Said lighting must be hooded.
6. Handicapped parking must be provided.
Interior lot raises the following concerns that must be corrected:
The New Hope Zoning Ordinance requires parking lots with 90o parking to
have 64 feet from wall to wall. The interior lot scaled out to be 62
feet in width.
e
The two northerly parking stalls closest to the garage door should be
eliminated. Access to these stalls would be difficult, as the manuevering
space would be obstructed by the garage entrance.
3. Handicapped parking must be provided.
Site Access. The site access is restricted by several site characteristics.
The curb cut location is limited due to the existence of a merging lane on, Boone
Avenue. Also the building location is restricted by the existence of poor soils
and the existing sanitary sewer easement. As such, the building placement attempts
to take advantage of the better soil conditions.
As a result of these conditions, the following concerns arise from the circula-
tion pattern:
The sharp curves restrict site access' for large vehicles, such as moving
trucks.
e
The driveway and the parking lot attempt to take advantage of the natural
site contours which are 910 to 912 feet above sea level. The first floor
building elevation is at 920. An increase of 8 feet in elevation at the
front of the building occurs in just 15 feet between the driveway and the
building. Building access is proposed to be provided through a series of
ramps and stairways. The concern for convenient access for the residents,
handicapped people and moving of furniture in and out of the apartments is
ra i sed.
Dan Donahue
26 September 1985
Page Five ·
The site lacks a designated loading area. A loading and unloading area
should be provided exclusive of the parking and driveway area. In a phone
conversation with the applicant's architect, it was indicated that the site
plan was being revised to provide some type of loading area.
In an effort to alleviate the access and circulation concerns, we spoke to the
site architect about moving the building further west to provide more area for
the driveway. The architect indicated that moving the building is very difficult
due to the site's soil conditions. We do feel that correction of the parking lot
design and the provision of a designated loading area will help to reduce the
some of the concerns.
Utilities. The site has access to municipal sewer which runs east and west
through the site and is covered by a 20 foot utility easement. Municipal water
is proposed to be looped through the site from the existing Sandpiper Cove
townhomes and 42nd Avenue east to Boone Avenue. The alignment of the water-
main abuts the southern boundary of the outdoor parking area. We would recommend
that this watermafn be relocated within the existing sanitary sewer easement to
avoid the need for a second easement and to prevent the disruption of the parking
lot if there is need for watermain repair.
The Fire Chief indicated that the proposed fire hydrant should be located near
the street. In light of the poor on-site circulation, the hydrant location
near the site would be more accessible for the fire department in an emergency
situation;
Trash Container. The proposed trash handling equipment is located in the base-
ment near the center of the building. Access to this area by a garbage truck is
prohibited because there is only 10 feet between the basement floor and the
first floor. The basement lacks sufficient manuevering space for a garbage
truck. The applicant should provide some description of how garbage removal is
proposed. --
Fire Protection. The New Hope Fire Chief indicated that the site's circulation
creates a problem for accessibility with a fire truck. To overcome these site
circulation limitations, the Fire Chief recommended that the applicant provide
an automatic fire sprinkler for the entire building. The applicant indicated
that they would follow this recommendation.
Architectural Appearance. The applicant is proposing a building design that
is similar to the existing townhomes. The building is proposed to have an
exterior finish of aluminium siding with asphalt shingles.
The building will be built on fill and will have an elevation consistent with
the townhomes to the west. The building height will also be consistent with
the roof heights of the existing townhomes, however, the buildings will be
above the single family homes to the south. Screening will be necessary to
reduce the visual impact on these 'properties.
Dan Donahue
26 Septe~er 1985
Page Six ·
Landscaping. The landscape plan indicates that the plant materials being
proposed comply with the type and size requirements of the New Hope Ordinance.
The Design and Review Committee indicated that the Russian Olive proposed as
screens on the north, south and west are ineffective. As such, a different
type of tree should be selected. We recommend that the landscape screen be
staggered to provide a more effective screen.
Developer Agreement. A new development contract must be entered into between
the developer and the City to insure the terms of the PUD are followed through.
The applicant is requesting the approval of the PUD concept and development stage.
We have outlined a number of needed revisions to the site plan_in our review.
Based on our review of the site plan, we recommend approval of the PUD concept
and development plan provided the applicant revises the site plan in accordance
with the revisions outlined in this report and the recommendations of the Design
and Review Committee and the Planning Commission.
SUBDIVISION
Review of the subdivision indicates that the newly created lots conform to the
standards of the New Hope Ordinance. Preliminary plat approval can be given
with final plat approval occurring with the final stage of the PUD.
CONCLUSION
The development of this site will depend on the City's decision on the requested
R-4 rezoning. Without this approval, the PUD amendment cannot be processed, as
the proposed development would not be permitted in the R-3 district.
CC:
Doug Sandstad
David Namie
Steve Sondrall
OFFIC~. PtAr ?~RS,
SANDPIPER COVE
· LOT_...~VEY_~_ ~'~
.4D~. I ~ I .....
..... · ~ ~e.~ ~,
B .4 RRE TT'~
LOT
BLOCK
R-I
1TM : 'TERRACE
800K 2.,~. PAGE_.I.~.- I
c.,.D(~.,o..4,,'-', j
I
LOCATION MAP ~
DESCRIPTION
,..-~,'-,--;7.1'.-'-';'?t-='~,=!,, ) , ",'- ...... ,, ,,,,.,,,
...., -, ,-. _.., -: ..~;,...--,.=.~, · -., .-~ . .. ~
HERMAN ADD. .. J
.J
0
~ BARR{ETT'S I i' I
I
TERRACE
;L )
e , T£~RA'CE
i
LOCATION MAP
ERSIZED DRIVEWAY AISLES
UNLOADING AREA NEEDED
,,,, STREET SECTION
ARRO ,_~
TURNING
RADIUS
I; ,.,;" :~ ,"LL I
I ," . .I ',:=,~.:====:
N
FINAL SITE PLAN.
0 ..d ·
:..o ..-'.
fib f3
2:'__.
.J
HERMAN ADD. R.L, S NO.
CQ Rn NO. g ) ~
RO C__~K.F'O__RD RD.
.. ~ STAGGERED PLANTING FOR SCREEN
o4`
I '~ , I TERRACE
MATERIALs.USE ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE
LOT I
BLOCK
TERRACE
LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE
'
~,, ~. ,.,,,..,. ::
oo
I' I
LOCATION MAP
~)81TE'~
' 8lIE DATA
!
L&J R~RK lNG DATA
STAGGERED PLANTING FOR SCREEN
USE ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE
MATERIALS,
· FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
AVE N~ I
LOCATION MAP
81TE DATA
POOR SOILS
FILL AREA
RELOCATE WATER MAIN TO
EXISTING SEWER EASEMENT
WI ;~',. ........
~'~t~. '
I
I
STEEP SLOPES
,'1'
I
I
I
PARKING DATA
FINAL GRADING & UTILITY PLAN
Z
2ND FLOOR.
t%L2A .2A ~ 2B
__L ELIMINATE PARKING STALL
[ ] ' [ [ ~=~ [ ] I I I [
' I I i I ' I'"' I-'1 I i. I i .
BASEMENT' x. F SH
~,~ ....... LOCATION 0 TRA
EQUIPMENT
EAST ELEVATION,
NORTH ELEVATION -- SOUTH ELEVATION
'
WEST ELEVATION
ZC, O
.--JO
I.-.-. r"', ~.-~
'-"" I'--
U
%SEED AREA NORTH OF
~REA BETWEEN
~/EST' WALL OF
BUILDING AND
WEST PROPERTY
IJNE SHALL BE
SODDED.
PROPOSED
5- LP
EXISTING
TO'M THUMB
STORE
EXIST. SHED TO -- )ROPOSED B612 CONC.
BE CURB 8, Gu"rrER
· PROPOSI
AT LOW
PROPOSED
40-El
;,'EXIST. .'4" .COt{C: SIDEWALK'
· JCE AS
~ERS
FIONS
EXIST 5.5' HIGH
WOOD SCREEN
FENCE RELC
AROUND TIMBER
BARRIER AS
REQUIRED
,. -~ ,'. ;--'', .--. ,,,
EXIST. CONC. APRON / ' '
TO BE REMOVED
,,,;' ,.' ~.. EXIST.". 5' 'CONC i SIDEWALK :':., "j' '" * :
oEXmT. PP.
~ EXIST. POWER 9, TELE. LINES
EXIST. CONC. CURB ~
EXIST.
TO BE
36 th AVENUE NORTH
DATE:
CASE:
PETITIONER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
November 5, 1985
85-26
John Parker and A1 Tedesco
CUP to Construct a Utility Structure in a B-1 Zone
and Construction Approval
7980 36th Avenue North and City Owned Flood Plain
R-1 and B-1
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
1. This case was tabled from the October Planning Commission
meeting. Since that time the city planner has reviewed the case and
you will find his report in the packet.
2. There are some staff problems and legal problems with this case
that will be before you on Tuesday night. This is no longer a
simple planning case. There are now four conditional use permits
needed, and a variance. The advertisement for the public hearing
only listed one of those conditional use permits and construction
approval. I consulted with the City Attorney and he advises us that
we must re-advertise and hold another public hearing for the other
three conditional uses and the one variance. He further advises
that this ca~e warrents a strict adherence to existing zoning
ordinance and flood plain ordinance.
3. I advise you to re-read the minutes from the last meeting as you
had many questions concerning this proposal. They are now making,
or proposing to make many of the changes that you had brought up.
They are planning substantial improvements to the Tom Thumb site
which includes closing off one of the driveways and putting in quite
a bit of landscaping. I also understand that they have done some
work on undergrounding part of the cable.
4. We are going to have to work something out on another meeting.
I am not sure what the petitioner's construction schedule is, and if
he can wait until the December meeting.
northwest
associated
consultants, inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
New Hope Planning Commission
New Hope Mayor and City Council
Jay Baago
8 October 1985
P~rker Communications, Inc. CUP's/Variance/Flood Plain
Use Permit
131.01 - 85.26
BACKGROUND
Parker Communications, Inc. is proposing to construct an addition to the Tom
Thumb Store located at 7980 36th Avenue North (see attached Exhibit A). The
store in its present location is non-conforming in that the west side yard
setback has been encroached. The addition would have an AM and FM transmitter.
The parcel is zoned B-l, Limited Neighborhood Business. Such uses are implied
as acceptable in this district by conditional use.
The applicant is also proposing to reconstruct the signal tower closest to
Winnetka Avenue or alter it if it has been determined that the existing tower
does not meet the structural characteristics required to expand the AM and FM
antennas. In either case, a conditional use permit is required under the R-1
District regulations in which it is located. A CUP Flood Plain Use Permit is
required as it also falls within this district.
In sum, the following applications are necessary:
/
- Conditional use permit to construct a "utility" structure in the
B-1 District.
- Variance for expansion of a non-conforming structure.
~ - Conditional use permit to expand or reconstruct a radio tower in
the R-1 District.
- CUP Flood Plain Use Permit to expand or reconstruct in the Flood
Plain District.
4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, mn, ste. 200 55416 (612) 925-9420
New Hope Planning Commission
New Hope Mayor and City Council
8 October 1985
Page Three
CUP to Reconstruct Tower in R-1 District. The conditional use criteria for this
proposal again encompasses compatibility, setbacks and enclosure of equipment.
These terms have been met mostly due to the fact that this use already exists in
its present location. The City has, however, placed emphasis on other criteria,
particularly security provisions for both the tower and cable to be strung from
the transmitter to the tower. The City recently has had problems with kids climb-
ing the tower and cable. Thus, security fencing should be provided around the base
of the tower. The applicant is aware of this problem and stated that such provisions
will be part of a new or reconstructed tower.
The cable, which also establishes an aesthetic issue (or visual pollution) as well
as security problems, should, if at all possible, be located underground. The
applicant stated this would result in maintenance problems. When weighed with
security concerns, however, we feel the maintenance aspect is negligible.
Additionally, with the apartments to the west in full view of the proposed cable
and towers, extension of this cable 320 feet across the marshland would damage
the aesthetic openness of the area which is enjoyed by the apartment dwellers.
As such, we are proposing the cable be located underground and proper signage be
installed to show its location. It is also requested that an access route be
designated between the tower and the transmitter facility.
CUP Flood Plain Use Permit. Radio transmitter towers and appurtenant cables are
allowed in the Flood Plain District by conditional use.
"All conditional use applications shall be accompanied by a flood impact
statement drafted by a registered engineer. The City Engineer shall be
responsible for a review and recommendation on the application and shall
be responsible for submitting the proposal and application to the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and any other governmental unit having flood
control jurisdiction over the area for review and written comment. In
determining the acceptability of a proposed conditional use, the City
Engineer and the City Council shall consider all relevant factors specified
in other sections of this appendix and this Code, and:
(i)
Danger of Increased Height or Velocity. The danger to life and
property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by
encroachments.
(ii)
(iii)
Danger of Swept Away Materials. The danger that materials may
be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others.
Water Supp1S and Sanitation. The proposed water supply and
the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination
and unsanitary conditions.
(iv)
Flood Damage SuscePtibility. The susceptibility of the proposed
facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such
damage on the individual owner.
New Hope Planning Commission
New HopeMayor and City Council
8 October 1985
Page Two
ANALYSIS
For the purposes of this report, each application will be discussed separately.
CUP for "Utility" Structure in B-1 DiStrict. The proposed expansion is for a
14' by 16' by lO'"''structure to the rear o~ the Tom Thumb. The facility would be
attached to the structure; however, no access to it will be made (Exhibit B). The
expansion will not increase the non-conformity of the existing building as it
meets or exceeds setback requirements. Additionally, from a use perspective,
government and utility structures are allowed as a conditional use provided the
structure is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, setbacks are met, and
equipment is completely enclosed. The structure will be cOmpatible with adjacent
uses in that it will be constructed of the same material as Tom Thumb, and also
in that it will be visible only from directly adjacent development - apartments to the
west and service station to the east. The visibility factor from the apartments will
result in the applicant upgrading landscaping on that property line.
One aspect in enhancing the City's position when granting CUP's is that the City
can place any conditions upon which they deem necessary for any given application.
Pursuant to this, we have inspected and addressed sight deficiencies relative to
the Tom Thumb building and would like to see these deficiencies corrected as part
of any recommendation for approval. They are as follows:
Parking - The site currently is seven (7) parking stalls short of City
requirements. Thus, the facility should be required to have 18 parking
spaces plus an additional two (2) for the proposed expansion.
e
Access - City regulations allow for one (1) access per 125 feet of street
frontage. The lot has exactly that amount of frontage, but has two access
points. As such, one should be eliminated and perhaps this space coul~d be
used to free up additional parking. -
e
Landscaping/Screening - The City has in the past made clear their displeasure
regarding the lack of site amenities for this structure. It is recommended,
then, that additional landscaping be provided along the west property line as
well as fence maintenance. There currently are holes in the fence and the
landscaping is not up to City standards (Section 4.033, Subd. 3 and 4). It
is also important to note that thewaste receptable on the east side of the
building should be screened from view.
Variance for Expansion of Non-conforming Structure. As mentioned above, the proposed
expansion will not increase the non-conformity of the structure. That can be viewed
in a positive manner. However, under City ordinance provisions, physical hardship
must be evident as a basis for granting variance approval. Under the strict terms
of the Ordinance we find no physical hardship evident and thus find this particular
request questionable.
New Hope Planning Commission
New Hope Mayor and City Council
8 October I985
Page Four
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
Importance of Service. The importance of the services provided by the
faci 1 i ty to the community.
Waterfront Requirements. The requirements of the facility for a
waterfront location.
Compatibility with Other Developments. The compatibility of the
proposed use with existing development and development anticipated
in the foreseeable future.
Relation to Comprehensive Plan. The relationship of'the proposed
use to the comprehensive plan and flood plain management program
for the area.
Vehicle Access Safety. The safety of access to the property in
times.of flood for ordinary emergency vehicles.
Expected Flood Waters. The expected heights, velocity, duration,
rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected
at the site.
Other Factors. Such other factors which are relevant to the
purposes of this Code.'"
Again, as this site is currently accommodating the same proposed use, flooding
potential would be limited by such a development. However, as note~i above, the
City Engineer should review the proposal for any potential flooding or other
problems. The DNR has reviewed it and found acceptable.
RECOMMENDAT ION
While it is recognized that the variance request for expansion of a non-conforming
structure appears questionable due to lack of physical hardship, the proposed
development in one instance offers the City the chance to clean up a site which
is substandard in many ways (Tom Thumb) and in another instance allows for continued
and expanded use of one of its commercial facilities (radio tower). To be sure,
the City's benefit on the latter case may be marginal. However, with exception
to the security and aesthetic provisions relative to the proposed cable and tower
which should be made conditions of approval, we find no problem with the proposed
expanded or reconstructed tower.
To summarize the proposed transmitter facility location, from a use perspective
it is conditionally acceptable. The conditions upon which approval are based
from this report as follows:
Increase number of parking stalls from 11 to 20.
Eliminate one of the access points from 36th Avenue.
New Hope Planning Commission
New HopeMayor and City Council
8 October 1985
Page Five
e
Submission and implementation of landscaping and screening plans in accord
with City standards. Of particular importance is complete screening of
the west property line. Additional landscaping should be viewed as a
positive factor. The waste receptacle on the east side of the structure
should also be fully screened.
CC:
Dan Donahue
Doug Sandstad
Bonestroo, Rosene & Associates, Inc.
new hope, minn.
EXHIBIT A
~T~ P~e~ ComPlaN/es
~c~o~c~ a. /'.l,~oso,v,. I, vc.
. ~INNETO~I~
~O~TH
I
o
~W
DATE:
CASE:
PETITIONER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
November 5, 1985
85-28
Jerome Unger
Variance for Air Conditioner in Sideyard
3018 Independence Circle
R-1
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
1. The petitioner is seeking to locate his air conditioner in
the sideyard. There is no demonstrated non economic hardship
that applies in this case. However, the residence immediately
adjacent to his home has the backyard facing the sideyard of
the petitioner.
2. The rationale for locating the air conditioner in the
sideyard is so that it won't interfere with the use of the
rearyard use of the deck. We have approved several cases in
the past similar to this one in the past. There needs to be
comments from the neighbors on the issue.
3. The placement of the air conditioner will be somewhat
screened but i6 will be visible from the neighbor's rearyard.
4. Staff is a little uneasy about recommending approval as
there is really no basis in the ordinance for approving this
request.
DATE:
CASE:
PETITIONER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
November 5, 1985
85-29
Denise Bohnert and Steve Mueller
CUP for Home Occupation/Beauty Shop
4701 Gettysburg Avenue North
R-1
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS"
1. The petitioner is seeking to set up a beauty shop operating out
of her home. The petitioner wishes to operate the business
approximately three days out of the week with no exterior changes
to the residence.
2. We have had other requests such as this is the past. We have
required conditional use permits and the petitioner must meet the
following criteria:
a. No adverse effect on neighborhood may occur.
b. Any exterior changes must be screened or properly
designed.
c. Any i~terior changes must comply with all applicable
codes.
d. Any traffic generated may not be a nuisance or hazard.
The commission would need to determine that the petitioners would
not violate any of these four conditions.
3. I ha~e not had enough time to research previous cases but will
do this prior to the meeting on Tuesday.
4. Staff would recommend approval if the traffic generation is
comparable to other beauty shops in the home and is reasonable for
the neighborhood. The only thing we are not certain of at this
time is if there will be exterior signs and how the advertisement
for the business will be handled. '-
Low£R LEVEL
~F. DP,.O0 ~
BF_DP~ooM
HALU
L,,'/~x b~
~qALL
FLW, A/A CE
LAUNDRY R. OOFI FULLA)2,EA 15
~EAUI-Y
~LON
_)
;FAint L',/ ROOM
L~PPEP..
LEVEL LANDIN 6
P--USTOMEP-.,S WILL ENTiZP.., THR.OUGH
THE ~AP-.AF.6E AN D m~ W~ 'THE 5TAI F,S TO
THE ~£AUTY ,.SALON
'Ti-I E ~UALIFIF.:ATI~N FOP-. ABE-AUF¥ SA/.-ON
I $ i'ZO SI~,~NAP-E FL--gT
5'FAI KWA Y
qxb
D'P-.tVEW^y
IL~xqG
DATE:
CASE:
PETITIONER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
November 5, 1985
85-31
Northwestern Bell/Northland Properties and Joan
Shapiro
Construction Approval for Utility Building
5040 Winnetka North
I-2
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
1. Northwestern Bell has entered into an agreement with
Northland Properties to construct a small 22 x 23 foot utility
building. It will be located on the extreme southeast corner of
the Northland property. This type of building is a permitted use
in the I-2 zone.
2. Setbacks from property line are consistent- with the
requirements in 4.032(3) for accessory buildings.
3. The request here is from Northwestern Bell to construct a
building. However, there are some problems with the overall site
which have nqthing to do with NW Bell's request. Available
parking on the site appears to be somewhat shy of the ordinance
required 45 spaces. Staff would recommend extending the asphalt
to expand available parking by about 11 spaces and to complete
the driveway and circulation system both to the parking in the
rear of the building and the new Northwestern Bell building. At
the same time, curbing should be added on this driveway and
parking area because it does not presently exist and should be
five feat from the property line. This is a required item by
code. Subsequent to the asphalt work and curbing work, striping
of the lot in white must be done and is important. Again, this
is not NW Bell's problem but its an overall problem with the
site.
4. I have not received much information about the design off, he
building and what it will look like. We have never gotten into
the design aspect of small utility buildings. It would be nice
if they could present some information on design.
SURVEY {~ SITE PLAN FOR:
NORTHWESTERN BELL
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
518.02
f
//!
'1
/ \
\
/ / /
[~amde Land Onrveylml Inc.
DATE: November 5, 1985
CASE: 85-32
PETITIONER: Clarence Brandell
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: 9200 49th Avenue North
ZONING: I-1
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
1. Mr. Brandell wishes to replat his property which is
immediately east of the office building at 49th and County Road
#18. It is the intention of Mr. Brandell to sell Lot 1, or the
northern edge of the new property plat to the Wayzata Bay Center
which is the adjacent property to the west of lot one. The
Wayzata Bay Center has a need to expand their parking in order
to bring it into conformance with code and provide the required
35% green area.
2. You might recall that Mr. Brandell did receive permission to
construct a mini-house on the property now being platted. There
should be questions directed as to his intentions of this future
development. I don't believe it is now possible given the
replatting and the selling of Lot 1.
3. Staff highly recommends the approval of this preliminary
plat and only cautions that the concerns expressed by the city
engineer for the easement on the south property line be met. I
have enclosed a copy of the letter from the engineer on this
matter.
LOT SURVEYS CCIMEM~Y,;, INC..
~ ~ ~.,~ O~ S~I~OF~MIN NI~OT~
~1- ~rd A~ ~ ~
Lot~l, BIoc~I;.BEANI~I: ~R~
,I
--I
49T H ~..,""AV 'i~j-E'
NORTH ......
Nm~e~:o£:Lots_2~ ·
Total_~'ea~== 152;12g:Sq;_PL-..
Lot-1 =:2g,Slg Sq;.Ft:
LottZ_=~Z2,610Sq..Ft;_,
October 16, 1985
Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E.
Robert W. Rosene, P.E.
Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E.
Bradford A. Lemberg, P.E.
Richard E. Turner, P.E.
James C. Olson. P.E.
Glenn R. Cookl P.E.
Keith A. Gordon, P.E.
Thomas E. Noyes, P.E.
Richard W. Foster, P.E.
Robert G. Schunicht, P.E.
~farvin L. Sorvala, P.E.
Donald C. Burgordt, P.E.
Jerry/1. Bourdon, P.E.
Mark A. Hanson, P,E.
Ted K. Field, P.E.
Michael 7~ Rautmann. P.E.
Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E.
David O. Loskota, P.E.
Charles A. Erickson
Leo M. Pawelsky
Harlan M. Ol~on
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue No.
New Hope, MN 55428
Attn: Mr. Dan Donahue
Re: Brandell Industrial Park 2nd Addition
Our File No. 34 General
Dear Dan,
In reference to the above plat, the sanitary sewer location serving England
Graphics should be verified. I believe the easement along the south line at
49th Avenue should be increased from 5' to 15' or even 20' dependent upon the
sewer location. The distance from the sewer line to the north easement line
should be a minimum of 10'. I also feel the easement along the west line
should be 10' instead of 5'.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Yours very truly,
BONES~RO~K & ASSOCIATES,
MaWr ~A. Han~on ~
MAH: li
INC.
cc: Harris Smith, City of New Hope
1449d
DATE:
CASE:
PETITIONER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
November 5, 1985
85-33
Vernon Stuhr
Construction Approval for 7 Unit
Apartment Building
8201 Bass Lake Road
R-4
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
1. The petitioner is seeking to construct a 7 unit apartment
building on his vacant lot located at the corner of Bass Lake
Road and Wisconsin Avenue North. The project meets code, at
least as presented, and there are no issues concerning
Conditional Uses or variances.
2. This site has long been vacant and they have had several
requests and problems keeping the property free of debris and
outdoor storage. There haVe been such things' aSparking of
vehicles, sale of vehicles,~'nd firewood storage On 'the~ Site~. ·
3. Traffic circulation and parking layout of this plan should be
questioned. I do not believe that a traffic engineer has
reviewed the plans. The design is for a one way flow of traffic
circulating counter clock-wise through the site. Staff is a bit
uneasy as to the width of the driving aisles and if they will
actually be what the petitioner is proposing. We do not have a
current land survey nor have the architectural drawings been
certified. We have little detail and lack good construction
plans.
4. The above ground drainage to the north, °~n t'o Bass Lake Road
may 'be a problem because of the volume of water. ~A~ catch basin
or drainage structure may be necessary at the north driveway tto
intercept. - ~. ~' . - - ~ ' -~ ~ .
5. Planning Commission should require that the petitioner ~give a
good presentation on the structure itself and what it is going to
look like.
DATE:
CASE:
PETITIONER:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
November 5, 1985
85-35
Howard Beal and Jim Lange
Concept Stage of PUD, Rezoning from B-3 and R-1
to R-5, and Preliminary Plat Approval
6100 West Broadway
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
1. The petitioners are seeking to construct a 72 unit senior
apartment complex on the property now occupied by Beal Cabinets
and the two delapitated houses just south of Beal Cabinets, all
located at 61st and West Broadway. Staff has been pushing for
the redevelopment of this property for some time. The owners of
Broadway Village apparently liked the idea and those owners are
now petitioning for this development.
2. Construction is not planned until April of next year.
However, they are requesting the city to participate through a
tax increment district and housing bonds. If this is to be done,
then the bonds must be sold before the end of the year. For a
bond sale, there needs to be concept approval for the PUD, there
needs to be permission to rezone the properties to R-5 and there
needs to be a replatting. If this is all cleared, by both the
Planning Commission and City Council,then on November 12, in
front of the City Council there will be three public hearings
concerning the bond sales. If these requests are not approved
or are tabled, then there will be no project. Of critical
importance is the approval of the concept plan and the rezoning
at this time.
3. The merits to rezoning these sites to add high density use
are consistent with our comprehensive land use plan, our housing
policy and will benefit the community by the elimination of
blighted properties. Facts can be developed to support the
notion that the zoning of at least two of the three is no longer
appropriate and that a substantial change has already occurred on
at least one adjacent property which would support or enhance the
argument that this site should have high density residential.
4. The concept approval of the PUD is not construction approval.
On Tuesday night the concept with the site plans will be
presented. Staff has tried to work with the developer to the
point where you should be presented with all of the information
to make a proper decision on this concept approval, j There will
be little in the way of details such as lighting, landscaping,
etc. This will be all presented at the development stage of the
PUD which would come before you probably in January or February.
5. Staff highly recommends the project and the rezoning. A
major question left is the adjacent R-1 district and whether that
is compatible with the R-5 project. We have four other
developments in the city where an identical situation does
exist. Staff believes that the uses are compatible.
.E.i e .r]y Apartment Homes
R4
r
SITE '_ DATA
· .xh~t~ Zoning~1 .& D3
Roqu~od ZornO R~
R1
99,300Lt,
26.~% of s~ts
Building HgL .--_ 3 ~to~ mt 9'~' 27' - O'
...... 1 ~. ~ 54 ·
- - . 2~ 16,
~o~ ~_~ ........ 72 _
.............. '~lco
To~l P~ 77 stills
~f P~ 36
R1
Proposed 72 Unit8
R4
R4
SITE PLAN
New Apazlmem B3d~
LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE
-----LM~DSC~
.~]C. QBE_AB~~ - FLO_OBS 2,3;&4
' '
.1
1-
,,,,-:,.-~-LOWER PARKING LEVEL ..... ..~