The URL can be used to link to this page

090605 Planning /1 {/(Lf PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North W'OOt=l~y, September 6, 2005 'lues, 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT BUSINESS 4. PUBLIC HEARING . 4.1 Case 05-12 Request variance to the 20-foot comer lot side yard setback requirement to allow an addition on the rear of the house, 2924 Sumter Avenue North,1vlichael Berg, Petitioners . 4.2 Case 05-11 Request for rezoning from R-4 high density residential to R-l single family residential, preliminary plat approval for property to be known as Mona Addition, and variances to the lot area, front and rear yard setback requirements, 2701 Xylon A venue North, AMC Properties - Aaron and Mona Crahn, Petitioners 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Report of Design and Review Committee - next meeting September 15, 7:30 a.m. 5.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee - next meeting September 21, 7 a.m. 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 1vliscellaneous Issues . PC05-G3 4717 Independence A venue, Bruemmer, revised plans approved . peGS-IO, 4308 Flag, Utter, approved 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of August 3, 2005 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT . Petitioners are required to be in attendance Planning Commission Gui"delines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Planning Commission will recommend Cormell approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission vvill utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff vvill outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forvvard and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the chair. The chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second preserltation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will ,discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. A. 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 next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: September 6, 2005 Report Date: September 1, 2005 Planning Case: 05-12 Petitioner: Berg, 1vlichael Address: 2924 Sumter Avenue North Request: Variance to the 20 foot comer lot side yard setback requirement to allow an addition on the rear of the house. I. Request The petitioner is requesting a four foot variance to the 20-foot comer lot side yard setback requirement to allow an addition on the rear of the house, pursuant to Sections 4-3(b)( 6)c, 4-5(f)( 4) and 4-36 of fue New Hope Code of Ordinances. II. Zoning Code References Section 4-5(f) ( 4) R-1 Si11gle Family Residential, Lot Requirements, Setbacks Section 4-3(b) ( 6)c Permitted side yard setback reduction Section 4-36 AdnUnistration - Variances III. Property Specifications Zoning: R-l Single Family Residential Location: On the southeast comer of Sumter Avenue Nort11 and Viewcrest Lane. Adjacent Land Uses: Single family residential properties on all sides. Site Area: 10,695 square feet- .25 acres Lot Dimensions: 60 (rear) x 85 (front) x 141 (interior side) x 130 (corner side) feet Building Area: 1,806 gross sq. ft. existing, 1,011 sq. ft. addition (514 s.f. upper/497 s.f. lovver) Lot Area Ratios: Existing hard cover by house, driveway, patio, and deck totals approximately 2,800 s.f. (26%). The addition '\vould add building and deck surfacing for a new total of approximately 3,300 s.f. (31 %) impervious surfaces. Planning District: No. 18; The low density residelltial neighborhoods are generally in good condition, however, some select sites display declining building and site conditions Housing mailltenance and scattered site renovation and redevelopment will be pursued. Planning Case Report Page 1 09/01/2005 Specific Information: The buildillg addition will be placed behind the existing house, adjacent to Viewcrest Lane. The back yard is generally flat, with slopes to the street in front of the house and along Viewcrest. The existing house is a four level split entry home. The addition extend rearward from dining rOOID, on the main entrance level of the home. An existing one car garage on site will remain, as well as a parking space in the driveway south of the garage. The lot shape is common for developments with curvilinear streets. The house is located on a comer lot, and faces west and slightly south. The proposed building addition maintains the direction of the north edge of the house, which places the northeast comer of the proposed addition within the required 20-foot setback for comer lot side yards. The site drains to the north, and a drainage swale will accommodate drainage around the proposed addition. Future retaining walls will accent the addition and home, and provide stability to the sloped yard. IV. Background The neighborhood was constructed in the late 19508, built with curvilinear streets. Many of the homes are split level houses on lots averaging one quarter acre in size. The lot is typical for the neighborhood, but is one of only a few comer lots. Other additions are present in the neighborhood, similar in footprint to the requested variance. The petitioner supplied many photos of comparably sized and situated additions. The lot has a chain link fence on the side lot, approximating t11e proposed building line of the new addition. The house and addition are above the grade of the street, atop a small hill that slopes toward the street on the north side. Mature fir trees provide further separation of the house from the street. V. Petitioner's Comments In revised application materials dated August 25, 2005, the petitioner describes the evolution of the proposed addition. After purc11asing the home in 2001, the home adequately met the needs of the family. The family has grovvn in size and l1umber, creating a need for more space. After exploring the possibility of moving to a larger home in other communities, the family decided it would prefer to stay in their existing home ill New Hope. The addition will allow the family to fill its space needs for the long term. The petitioner says tl1e project will say that "we truly enjoy our neighborhood in New Hope and plan to stay here for the long term" . The petitioner stated the request should be granted because: · Irregularity of the existing site. The property line on the north side of the house is not parallel to the north wall of the existing structure. A seemingly arbitrarty decision in the siting of the original house in 1956 placed the south wall of the house parallel to the south property line, leaving the northeast comer of the house right on and at an angle to today's building setback line, making expansion extremely difficult under current ordinance. · Typical methods of addition to the four level split. I l1ave attached several photographs of "four level split" homes in my neighborhood showing typical methods of expansion. Weare locaing our proposed addition TIl the most common location: toward the rear yard off the di11ing room on the Planning Case Report Page 2 09/01/2005 main entry level. Because of the irregularly shaped lot, none of the other similarly placed additions shown on houses in the niehgborhood would meet the setback requirement on this lot. · Reasonable use of property. Simply sliding the addition over or rotating the plan are not acceptable alternatives, as they both begin to limit how the rear yard is used by our family on a daily basis. An existing window from the kitchen is the only visual connection between the existing house and the backyard. The addition has been designed to allow views from this window to the most heavily used areas of the yard, which is an important considerations with young children in the house. · Increase in property value. This plan for expansion will significantly increase the property value of the house, and therefore the desirability of the neighborhood. Additional living space, bedroo~ and storage space make a well-constructed house from the 1950' s even more desirable. · Intent of the ordinance. The intent of any building setback ordinance as I understand it is to prevent buildings from encroaching on the public way in a manner which might endanger either people or property, either by impeding traffic flow, visibility at intersections etc. or through spread of fire to adjacent structures. Access to public utilities/easements are also a critical factor. In addition, setbacks in neighborhoods are designed to provide continuity of side use in terms of edges, use of open space, etc on adjacent and nearby properties. The proposed addition does not violate any of these principles. . Perception from the street. While the proposed building project does encroach on the setback line, it does so gradually, following the existing chain link fence line, which is an existing implied edge to the yard. I have had more than one neighbor express surprise when I told them that the fence isn't already parallel to the street. Two large pine trees also reinforce this edge, making expansion of the house in this direction a logical choice. · Neighbors' support. Please see the attached neighborhood petition with 15 signatures supporting this variance, as well as a letter of support from our neighbor across Viewcrest Lane, Danny and Robin Rudick (the north elevation faces their house). Additional letters of support have been offered by other neighbors and could be produced if necessary. · Personal reasons. I live at this residence with my wife and three children, ages 8, 6, and 20 months. When we originally purchased the house in August 2001, it met the needs of our household. As our children have continueq to grow in both size and number, we have become cramped for space. We made a decision that we would either need to add on to the house or move. A quick examination of the housing stock in the school district showed us that homes that would provide us with tile were out of our price range. An addition allows us to craft the space exactly as we need, and a great deal of labor on my part :in the design and construction would add value to the property without adding greatly to its cost. With this project, we are saying that '\^le truly enjoy our neighborl1ood in New Hope and plan to stay here for the long term. e Budget. The scope of this project is limited by a tight budget. I intend to do most of the work myself and discretionary items such as finishing the basement and built-in casework will probably be put on hold for completion at a later date. Therefore, design solutions proposed durmg the Design & Review meeting such as redesigning the kitchen or expanding windows outside the current scope of work would be prohibitive to the project moving ahead. Planning Case Report Page 3 09/01/2005 · Design Statement. Unlike some of the additions to similar houses in our neighborhood, this project has been designed not to match exactly the existing building for and finishes, bet to contrast and compliment it. While we do not plan to use exterior materials to match the existing, we are using high grade finishes suCh as cement-fiber siding (Le. James Hardie siding products) and cedar siding. These are commercial grade products with much better longevity and durability than the vinyl siding on the existing house. Also a masonry retaining wall is planned on fue street elevation to tie the color an texture of the brick chimney into the new addition. The colors we use on all materials will be compatible with the existing finishes on the building exterior, including tan masonry, white vinyl or clad wood windows and beige/gray cement board siding. · Additional site plans and floor plans have been attached to this packet, including the following: 1. Site plans showing site safety issues as well as constructability issues with moving the building design within the prescribed 20' setback. 2. Prior to the original variance application, I did study other options for the layout of this addition. These drawings are the original site and floor plans showing a considerably larger footprint and encroachment on the building setback. The necessary variance was reduced from 6'11/1 to 5'1.5" for the original appp.cation. 3. At the request of the Design & Review Committee, I have modified the design of the addition again. The plan is reduced in size and pulled as far south as possible without compromising the project. The setb~ck variance request has been reduced to 4'0". Site and roof drainage have also been added to the site plan for review. VI. Notification Property ovvners witl1.in 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments. A neighbor across the street from the proposed addition submitted a letter in support of the project. The petitioner also contacted many neighborhood residents, and submitted the attached petition in support of the proposed addition. A map showing property owners in support of the addition VII. Development Analysis A. Zoning Code Criteria Variance The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of tl1e terms of the Zoning Code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property rmder consideration and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Code. An application for variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the variance will result in rmdue hardship on the applicant, and, as may be applicable, the following criteria have been met: Planning Case Report Page 4 09/01/2005 1. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property and results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of this Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic or similar conditions unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardship also includes inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code. 2. The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district. 3. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner or any previous owner. 4. Additional Criteria. The application for variance shall also meet the following criteria: a. It will not alter the essential character of the locality. b. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. c. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. d. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district. B. Development Review Team The development review team met on August 17 to discuss the project. The team made the following comments: · The lot is currently conforming; tl1e proposed addition would make the lot non-c,onforming · Only one plan is shoV\rn- no alternatives are provided in plans submitted. o Architectural style does not match the existing home, but building materials V\rill be of high quality compared with existing home and surroundi1lg lleighborlloods. · The applicant will be required to provide a certified survey of the property.. C. Design and Review Committee The Design and Review Committee met on August 18 to discuss the project. The Committee agreed that the proposal would be an excellent addition to the existing house, and would likely serve the young, growing family's needs. The Committee asked for clarification of why the addition required a setback variance. Commissioners also expressed concern over the design of the addition. Still, the Commissioners left the design to tlle discretion of the petitioner, provided some compatibility is achieved through material choices, design elements (such as windows) and chosen colors. The commissioners encouraged the petitioner to address these issues in revised plans. D. Plan Description The petitioner requests a four foot variance to the 20 foot comer-lot side yard building setback requirement. The variance would allow for tile construction of a two-level, 952 square foot addition to the single-family home at 2924 Sumter Avenue North. The addition would be added to the rear Planning Case Report Page 5 09/01/2005 of the house, accessed via the dining room, and would consist of a 484 square foot family room 011 the main level and a 468 square foot lower level addition split between bedroom and storage space. 1. Building Design & Construction Materials According to the applicant, the project vvill. be designed not to match the exact building form and finishes of the existing structure. The ~ddition will include cement fiber siding. The proposed building addition is a flat roofed structure with clad windows and beige/gray cement fiber and wood siding. The design is contemporary, and includes an egress window and small rear cantilever. At first glance, the addition appears incompatible in design with the traditional pitched roof and pale yellow siding. While many design elements such as roof design and window arrangement are not identical to the original building, according to the homeovvner there are several features which tie the existing structure with the addition. A planned retaining wall will unite the new and old buildings, with a tan masonry similar to the chimney brick. Windows will be white clad windows, similar to the existing house's windows. Finally, the homeovvner plans to replace the existing home's siding at a future time with the higher quality materials used on the addition's exterior. 2. Street Perception The proposed addition does not impose a uniform four foot setback encroachment. Instead, the proposed addition gradually enters the required setback, peaking at four feet on the re~ comer of the addition. The majority of the proposal is between 1.5 and three feet inside tl1e required setback. The site further differentiates the property from the street. Topography and vegetation separate the site from the property. Due to the sloped hill and mature trees on site, the property is barely visible from the east on Viewcrest (see attachments, photo 4) The petitioner stated that many of his neighbors were surprised to learn that the fence on the property (which approximates the building addition setback) does not run parallel to the property line. 3. Irregular site The lot at 2924 Sumter is not a rectangular lot, which is common in housing developments with curvilinear streets. The house was placed parallel to the south property line, but close to the northern required front yard setback. Combined with the practical limitations of adding on to split- level homes, the only reasonable expansion of living space on the property is along this setback. 4. Landscaping A masonry retaining wall will be built at a future date, uniting the existing building and proposed addition. The wall stretches from near the existing chirru1ey to the egress window on the east end of the addition. Plantings in the retaining wall will bring the building and addition together as well. 5. Permitted side yard encroachments City Code allows for a three foot reduction in side yard setback requirements for accessory buildings and garages, by administrative permit. In other words, the applicant would need no variance to build an attached or detached garage just one foot further back from the curb. Staff feels the building addition is much more compatible than these permitted accessory uses, relative to the intent of the variance ordinance. Planning Case Report Page 6 09/01/2005 6. Comprehensive plan direction New Hope's comprehensive plan establishes a goal to "Maintain and enhance the strong character of New Hope's single family residential neighborhoods". The Berg request promotes private reinvestment in the housing stock 'Within New Hope. The project is located in an area of the city which the comprehensive plan identifies as in need of reinvestment in some properties. 'While the house is in good condition, this reinvestment may help to encourage further private investment in the neighborhood. The comprehensive plan also directs the city to grant single family homeowners II greater flexibility in the use and development of their properties". Building setbacks are specifically mentioned among items to consider for this flexibility in the application of the zoning code. E. Planning Considerations Arguments that favor the variance: · The property line on the north side of the house is not parallel to the north wall of the existing structure. Expansion to the north is difficult due to the setback line. · It is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan to maintain and enhance the strong character of New Hope's single family residential neighborhoods. · According to the Comprehensive Plan, the examination and modification of the City's development regulations pertaining to low density single family areas are intended to provide local property owners greater flexibility in the use and development of their properties. These efforts are intended to allow property owners the opportunity to expand, alter or modernize their homes in a manner that keeps the housing stock contemporary and sellable. · The addition will not impede access to public utilities nor vvill it endanger adjoining properties either by impecling traffic flow, intersection visibility or through spread or fire to adjacent structures. Arguments against the variance: · The applicant currently has reasonable use of the property. Denial of the request will not prohibit the applicant from utilizing the property in its intended use. · The property was built in 1956. For the past 49 years the property 11as been in compliance 'With the standards set forth under the Ordinance. In review of the request there are other opportunity areas for expansion 'Within the site 'Without a variance or 'With a reduced variance. · The lot is a conforming lot 'Within the R-l District. The lot configuration is not unique to this parcel and the variance would grant privileges that are not offered to other similar properties. · The variance request is driven by the applicant's design not an undue hardship unique to the property. As such a modified plan could be designed to allow for an addition 'With the same square footage with a lesser variance F. Building Considerations The building official's comments are incorporated into this report. If tl1e variance is approved, the plans will be subject to the approval of the building official. Planning Case Report Page 7 09/01/2005 G. Legal Considerations Staff received no comments from the city attorney's office with respect to this variance request. H. Engineering Considerations The city engineer's comments are incorporated into this report. See also attached memo, dated August 18r 2005. I. Police Considerations Due to the nature of this requestr the police depart;rnent did not submit comments to staff. J. Fire Considerations Due to the nature of this request, West Metro Fire did not submit commen~s to staff. VIII. Summary The petitioner at 2924 Sumter A venue is requesting a four foot variance- from the 20 foot side .yard building setback requirements on the north side of the single family property. The setback variance would allow the construction of a 952 square foot addition to be used for a family room, bedroom, and storage space. The requested variance has been 'reduced from the original request, and staff believes this revised request is more appropriate for the site. Topography and vegetation create a separation from the street, and staff believes the setback variance imposes n~ heC:llth or safety risk to the neighborhood. The proposed project will bolster the solid neighborhood and provide the family with a contemporary space to grow into in the future. The city has similar, codified flexibility in side yard setback flexibility. The- city's comprehensive plan dir~cts further flexibility. to encourage private reinvestment in New Hope housing stock. IX. Recommendation Based on the small variance request, high quality materials, family~orientation of the addition, and comprehensive plan direction, staff recommends approval of the four foot variance request to the comer lot side yard building setback requirement. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Review and approval of plans by the Building Official 2. Review and approval of plans by West Metro Fire. 3. Existing deck on property repaired and improved to meet applicable building codes. 4. Construction of screening for non-screened side yard air conditioner 5. Additional comments from the Planning Commission and City Council. Attachments: Address/Zoning/Topo/Aerial Maps Photographs 1. Front of existing house 2. View from northwest 3. North elevation with concept sketch 4. View from Northeast- shows existing vegetation screen 5. View from east 6. View from back yard- string shows approximate building setback Planning Case Report Page 8 09/01/2005 Elevation drawings showing new addition, landscaping, and existing house Concept Plans 1. Proposed addition- site plan 2. Proposed addition- site plan with drainage notations 3. Design sketch- conforming, unfeasible /I angled" site plan 4. Initial proposal- site plan 5. Initial proposal- first floor plan 6. Proposed addition- first floor plan Petition of neighborhood residents, submitted by petitioner Map of petitioned neighbors Letter from neighbor across street from proposed addition in support of project Map of neighborhood properties supporting petition City Engineer's memo re: drainage, dated August 18, 2005 Application Log Planning Case Report Page 9 09/01/2005 ~ ~.. .- - .. . .-. ij . . -- iI - 3216 .- -. .- ~ -. - ~ -- .. . -. ~ . I' m' . , m2~~ I : I rm I' I ~ AVE ~!~ ..l:l . .11 ':It \ z . 31ST AVE N w z ~ w ~ ::c ~ ~ <( => v ~ z WISCONSIN z ~ ~ z ! C3 a::: I- s: I 30TH AVE N AVE N ! I ~ii~~l,: ~ 2940 I 2932 Z O';l (; r--. en 0 L") l'- en (; to r--. 0') 0 to '" 0) 0 ~ 10 0 l!') r--. O'J 0 2926 W 0 :;: 0 N ;:; 0 N N 0 N 0 -- 0 N a; 0 In l...., ~ ~ t") ,..., r') N N t-..J ~ ~ C; C; o 0 0 0') O'J 0') ~, to to (::) t::l t::l I:'J lD c:o eo 1:0 to to c:;j OJ co c:J i"- f'. ,.... '" co to: 0 N t:::l to 0 ~ C) to 0 'I:t- co co 0 o I Q 0 ~ to CO 0 () 0 0 0 ;;; 0 0 t".I 0 0 C'l 0 l~ ..- 0 0 N 0; 0 0 10 "'I::'" ~ r<') t"') t<') N N N N a; o 0 0 en en O'l W c:l to to 1:0 c:::l CO CJ CO CO- to CO to to aJ C) to J". l'- '" '" CD W :J Z 0 W 2740 2741 ~ 2755 2749 2732 27.33 2748 274-1 Z 2740 '2724- 2725 2732 27.3.3 W ~ 2.732 2.724- 2725 . 2703-2767 2716 Z 2724 2717 0 , PL N -l 8100 >- 2716 2717 co 0> X m I ~ 0 0 ~ o _ \"'0.. <<0::' l.."1 r--. N OJ 2701 2708 2709 Z c:> N 8400 (5 ill] 84-16 84-08 N 'r- 2701 0::: 8016 n l..I") 2700 :;: ::0 c:J ~!!! ei i j; m: i: ~ I! i m i Ii ~:: i ~ i I im j! i ~ Hi m; !:~:!: ~!!! ~ i 1: fB!i! ~ II! Ea II! ... (MEDICINE LAKE RD) I t \ l ( I r I ----;;:~~,~~::;;;,,;;---- --------- - --0__. - i I ' I ! :. . oom~ ()r-o i ~~Z ! DmZ ! ; o:zm ~ r~m 1 1 I j };>-< P ! 1 ~Z h ii;!l!l n11r-\ i I i J! : I--. aCCN; ,WE N rr I;; J I j j IiI I 0- ~~rj---l I I I i I. I G) ~ ; ! - 1 ~ ~ J :-1 I ~~\~:~ 1 P': !; :; j o ! I , ; i HJJ H .,-, v--\ ..~F~~k I I 'i I r : . , ' 'h i I; '.-.(../\---::(~l---r EEf: '~""'A,VEN' '.-- o j ~ ; ~o i.~VEV' ; ~ U "\ I j j nT I;~: I ,'1 '~L,~\; \t ~~ m ; j : Z' ] M '- /1--..-1 \---~ .~'~;. 'o'" I Z · i of-t ~ < \.i>-<r~-:\ \:\);\~'/)~ ~ i:--I ~-i6~\'}.r\....\--\ _\'1'\//\ />-..'<\,>.'......./__1 ,! :r> : i~' -~., \ \ \~~~ ~;., \~....~\ / '" '...../.. ! i l-- ;~i. \ \ \/-\ 'r:/~-\ \--~\/~~?';::: rr ~ II J I \--1~~-\ \.--;-~I ...!""r! ! i i !""""""""'j j LJ Z j I ~ ! 1 \. :, ,,-;-1.. : m j L......-..J ! _f j ! I \ ~ ! !~ r--': i ! I ! xYLa~ ~VE: N I ii'-:~J.-~~ -< ,I ;! I!! 1 ! ~ I I 1 ; ! I ~ I ! /:--;- III I ! I . , \ - W1NNE'iKA AVEN " ! ....."'" ..........~ ......,"""- ............. "", , , ... "'- ; Ii. " ,," ,I" .~,1'~ , "~""'I""lj' , TI.~-~-- m I f I I j I , ' . : + < l j 1 ~ , . j j i !i } j L____---L..-J L_ I ! iI, I ! !. i ~ L._J__l~l! ~ ----.-~-1 ; , ; I' 'j 10' ~I= '-' ~ : LlL-!---/ ~r+-l--~ S t=.j 'MARYLAND ;'VE.}~B~ f--j i F t-llflll-L\ : ~~ I I '-T1 I--~"l'-'-''''''; I_L.Q I n 11 j ~"_L_J___l.._ "LJ_J I_LWz, i j ~.. LOUiSiAn^ A v;;: r.: i;l ! \ ! :~--~T111 I! j i.~'=-j._mi_.cJJ:L.CJu.l=~_J.. ;,=_:T~ . ~;:; - ~~ (" ..... j / / I r ,./ .: ! I I n : 1 1 1 . -, ~, ~ ',I '\ L.~,-~;,. i \ I \ L- t ____---- U:\house\ACAD\Xa-elev.dwg. 8/12/2005 3: 18: 16 AM z m ~ CD ; >- (j) m <0 S -;: ~ OJ -; nl___ !illlllllllllllllllll 14--- I , I, I I Ii! I I. f II! ! 11/ Cf.lCD I'i () m I II F:e5 I Ii fl:1 ;0 I I i :::3i , Ii ~o I Ii ~ ~ I Ii 6 () I II :1m , Ij z , 'j o I Ii ~ Iii ::J: I Ij lJJ I II m , Ij ~ J II ::1 I II ~ ",., ,d I II I I' I I! LR::= Id I 'I I 'i o~ cn(')~() s: ffi II") ~o6m-r- m ..::= It zo-s=Z:l> ...; '< , Ii i mo ZmOO )> (") ''il ::o~ ~~~~ ~ ~ , 'I j g -<CJcn8 s;: (/) 1'1: ZO~ 0 en ~ Ilil Ci">:E;o ~ c Iii) ~ffio ~ ~ lljj ;0 0 I "I Z m x en j ~ I ! ~ en I m ! I II ! ! I : 11\\\ I I I! I !! I :~:, ! II I ' ! I Ii" I I. I j ! }~\ i ! I I II I Iii ~ I ! ! \ '." h ~ i ! L- i ! ". L~~~__J.: I i,l J! Il,t r com ~x ~cn -: :-i . - - "--- -co G; ~ m r s: r m z -l U:\house\ACAD\Xa~elev.dwg. 8/ I 212005 3: 18:48 AM m x en :-i OJ ~ en co m -II. s:: ,- m :; ~ s: :t:- Z m -II. r- X om en q < -l · m Z ~ r G> ! J: 0 i ' c en ! I' I m z ~ ~ () m s: ~ ~ g 2m m (') I I 0 il 0 I II g o Ci) ~ (') r- Z ~ ~z~~ 11 (f) IL CJ -l OQ O-lzo r- ::u I I! Om l> I 'I ~ ~ ~~ ~~g~ (J) c :z: (") ffiOJ ~~~g Z -i I I j m CD 5 II. :::0-< ;0-< ::0 OUl 0 (j) Z , ,I cnttl I I! nm ~)J ni------- f;j~ IH------- .-.m I ,. -en II! CD - :10 I II II m I I' ~z ~~ I " I " en I II 0 I d c -l I II :I: I II m r- ,d :: m I II < ~ I " 0 I II z: I I' I ,I I II I I! I " I I' I ,I I I! I II I II I I! I I! I II I rl----- Lr----- z m ~ s: CD :t> :t> en Z m ..... r <D s:: a m -" m q < .~ Z · m ~ -{ q r U :\house\ACAD\site layouldwg, 8/25/2005 8: 10:29 PM -" ",-- .--.--------..,-.......... '. ~ ' SUMTER AV~ . __. eN ~-~ /./.-./~ '; ,/ f\ l \ i \ !, I I \) 1\ / '\, /~ // . ,/ "'" ~" ,/ / ~ ~. 1/' V o :::t:m ox ~ ~~ 10'..0" m ~ I I en OJ ! () m : ):>;:0 /! r(j) '\:1 I f1:1 ;0 '" , ------~ ~m en II 0 Nm C2z 1(') gm I CIJ =i m 1J r )> Z o i j- ~ . 9"04"56 PM 8" 5/100) " " CAD\Xa-site.dwg. _ U :'house\A . --------~---.....,- ~-. SUMTER AVE N /' ~ 1 I \ , '. i". \ [ I ~5~ 0 \) ;ti~~~ mffi~ l... mr-nc mZ;:r::;;c f$m 1-., S m 0 n ~" e: Cf.I -I .! ~~o me: :tI m "T'l ;ti \1;0 ;om OE "'00 mm ~3 ;:: =:~ ~~ m;l] ClJt:C < ()m :>::0 iii r-G') ~ f1:1::o -Jr.m ::u =(JJ m II 0 CiJ I\Jm -i Oz r- I .. (') .P 9m Z . m l l 0- 1J:t 0 '-1- ij~ * " ~Q a -0::::1 ~Bl;i~tJ fl ::om . o~ l~~~ ; "00 mm ~3 <~ 1 cj:t~~~ C1 ).c. S -i ~~ W\ U:\house\ACAD\site layoutdwg. 8125120059:03: 12 PM --.-----.-'" , - - "',,- ~ "'~-----.........._, ~ ,~~ I I 0 ( --- I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :em I 0>< I I fE~ I I mz: I t 0'..0" I Cd I I en CD I () m '11 )> ;0 r- G) \ l+.. _____1 ____ f1! :::0 ~ m C/J II CJ ;n m I\J m ~ l>o q Z Z I C1 Z ~ G') m ~ . r- en ~ m -0 r- )> ~ Z ;0 - ~.~. z Z Gl ~ 0 F I . I " t:o 0 ...;"'OW !:o~ cn<..... ~ge;~~ffi o:n . z< ~~:i, ~~~ mmo m?O-lr-Gl m:JJQ ()tIJm zQ~~o~ :!:z mh;o Oro-l mil ~;;6 g~~~~~ ~ ~~~ >r- 00 N:;om o~~ ~ "'0-1 :;oC/) m~~ oC/l ~tti;f C/l ~~ :>z 0 rt;:(f)A gj~ RO on 0 U:\house\ACAD\Xa-site.dwg. 8/2512005 9: 19:36 PM ...-----------.... .~. ',~ ~ //""------- - /' -l=: ~~ ~~O ~m me om ~ ~~ ~ ~3 ~ F: r- t ------------ - II ! g~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ,/~ tt/..(f I (j) / ! / (fJOJ I ! () m,.-h :t> ::u t" ! 1 r G') 1\ :; IT' :::0 I ", +- --------, ~ rn i I II CJ ':m f\J m I 5 ' q Z I Z I () I ~ ~m ~ o i I~ I ~ I 1 / G') , Z 1r!; "=8 I / l> li I r " n, / ~c I; , I:: C CIJ ~11i / I ~~ =i ! I, I / 0 5: - t4' :! I ~ -< ~ m Ii:; "~:;~ -a " -. " ~ m r I' I > )> 0 Z ~ .!\ Cl;S: cro~~ " ~fg I ::0 m m ---, ----"' -0 ;:0 o B ~ U:\house\ACAD\Xa~plan..{) I.dwg, 8/2512005 9:12:58 PM . .-+- - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - -- -. . - - - - - ........ -- - - - - - ~ ~ -.... - ---. ~ i ) O)~ CtJ ~~ m I 0 ;0-1 ::0 i om 0 0;0 0 ~ ~ , ! I I I""" <: I z I G'J I I I I I I I I --------- I --------- I J I Q m I 0 A 0 I ~ ~ z 0 :z: Z I B: m G) I z I I I I I ! I I t.... - - - -- -- ." - .- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -------- "0:::0 C') -... ~i!! ~ q ag c: I 0::> ~ q 0.... Om ;00 0 Z .lN3riNIV 1M 3.lN 3 (J)OJ om )>::0 c..,..r hiGJ N... t .. :;c 0 ~m :: .........cn co - i .0 =0 Q D II m ~ r= " ~ ~z -< c ~ ::0 rrl .- (') 0 :;0 I Cfm 0 en 0 i: -I : I ~ ::0 5 :z m -l :5 0 -< en (J) .-1 0 m ::a 0 ::> G1 m ::!J ~ m :::0 ~ en -of -n r 0 ~ 0 I :::0 q -c r :t> z 8'-2)1 ~ 17' _8" . . August 21, 2005 Neighborhood Petition Regarding an application for Variance: Building Setback Property: Michael and Jennifer Berg Residence 2924 Sumter'Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 We, the undersigned, have seen the proposed design for a family room addition in the rear yard of the Berg residence. The addition generally follows the existing fence line and the north wall of the existing house. We understand that the addition encroaches as much as 5' into the 20' north side yard building setback from the property line along Vi ewe rest Lane. We are in full support of the city ranting a building set back varia.p~e for this proposed project. 7 . : Address -- A:S { SD tl1,,1~ ~ P (. J-Cf /~ s;,--te/ A~~, N. ) 7/1 l//eLt./C/'P/SY- ) rJ 9;! S-S/#\-k- A ~ A/. . ~.,J 2/13~ 5' v~<-tV4U/lJ 2fZ/ ..fc/mfv-",fI-v,e_ AI J-96V 5 uAtfe'n ~ ~9~'9 S ~ /:17 Tz/< A"J -2 q tl ~M}A7t~ ~ rJ. J.qo 8 S'u Ii'. T <=fL A vtr f.JJ 77~ V ( eL-t CI!!.L=CS'" )""-TlNE ~ ;J..tOJ Me rLA n. - ..- 7700 tJ~ed (pU 7bj.a-VJd.u~ ~ [7b~b V~9J!ML/)/~ - 1 ".. '.....~ . I , . ---- ---- , I 30TH AVE N i I '1~'1 d I . 1 co 0 0 0 I co (Q ,...... ....... 2932 Z Ol ,.- 10 I"- 0'> ,... 2926 (n o w 0 0 N ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0') en m C') to Ie ~. co co l"- f'.. r-..... '" ,....... 2916 co 0 ~ to co 0 () 0 0 C\I .,... 0 0 0 0 0') en 0> ~ W co co f' ,....... ,..... f'. 2900 CD W J I I I :=> en m ,... 2840 0 tr.> 'f""" 0 0 0 Ch 0) 0> 0 f' t"- ,..... 2832 ro 1 TERRA LiNDA DR ml OJ en 2738 ~ 't'- o co co W I"- f'. f.... - . 2703-2767 2730 2701 2720 2730 2648 2633 .( ) 7850 2740 0 to N 7900 0 ,- ,.." to to to ~ N N ffil!i~~ iii~~i! : i : ~ : i ! ~ : · ! ~ i i i ~ : j ; !m : t : ~ J . ; :~imil~~~i!!i1~j!~i I :. I I 1'.1 4~' ... · I i 1 ( I r M,DWEST LENDING CORP. YOUR MINNESOTA MORTGAGE SPECIALISTS From the Office of Danny Rudick 08/11/2005 To the City of New Hope Planning Dept RE: Mike & Jennifer Berg ( 2924 Sumter ave No) Mike showed us the plans for the addition to his house and he needs a variance of 5- 7ft. My wife Robin & I support the enhancement. Danny & Robin Rudick 7716 Viewer est Ln New Hope, 55427 ~..L- 4 - 55 West Financial Center + 10405 6th Avenue North, Suite 120 + Plymouth, MN 55441 Phone: 763-201-0018 + Fax: 763-201-0026 + Toll Free: 1-888-333-8075 www.midwestlendingcorp. com f1~ ~~~e~~roo f i 2335 West Highway 36 a st. PaulJ MN 55113 l\J1 Anderlik & Office: 651-636-4600 II Fax: 651-636-1311 Associates \NWW.bonestroo.com Engineers & Architects TO: Shawn Siders FROM: Vince Vander Top DATE: August 18, 2005 SUBJECT: Berg Variance - 2924 Sumter Ave. Our File No. 34-Gen SW20.05.02 We have received the plans for the proposed resident addition and variance. Please consider the following comments: 1. The backyard area and adjacent lot to the south appear to be flat. City topa maps do not clearly reflect the drainage routes from these areas. The applicant should submit a grading plan indicating: a. The drainage patterns from the backyard and adjacent properties b. The elevation of the basement window as it relates to the street curb. c. The elevation of the retaining wall. 2. Provide a lot survey to verify the position of the addition in relation to the lot line. Also show existing easements. 3. It was noted that the parking stall beside the garage does not meet setback requirements from the adjacent property. End of Comments If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at 651-604-4790. - a 81. Paul, 81. Cloud, RochesterJ WillmarJ MN · Milwaukee, WI · Chicago, IL Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned ~ <.9 ~ ..... x ~ s... 0 Q) <1> ~ m ..c C/) ;:: e ...... c C CO .- c Om Q) co ~c..u . U) ......... U -, ~ U) :.= a ~ co ~ o~c.. ~ ~ "0 c.. Q) +ot 0... co. Q) A" ~e<C u ~Q).c ~ (1j Q) :.:: fJ) . ~ J- Q) oU)~ c.. ~- ~ ~ g- .5 ~ 0 ;; s.... (/) Q) C Q) oQ)e g ~c ~ ~ . ~ -0 ..c 0 '(3 .Q ro co ......... ~Q)""""'; W QC U 0 -.O>"'CctS c.. ~O ~ e OJ e .S2 g U) C en c.. 0 ......... 0.. e c.. CO .- (]) co J!2 COc..Q)Q, ~ ~c co Oro~ro 0 ~~ ~ ......... Q) ==ro...... .5 10 0(1) 0 .. "'C (j) "C ......... ~ ~ es.... Q) Oc ID ~E e .Q Q) ..c "0 CD - I' :.= I ==..a (/'J . =:: +ot......... ::J 0.. Q) "C 0 - e: Q; e co 1:J (j) 0'" c.. x E ro D .Q "0 Q.) $ C::J CD CO 0 0_ ~oucxs.... co Em "0 ~......... o ~ co ::J Q) 0 5R :t:: .g oQ ai ~ i::: CJ) s.... - ....... ::J oS - Q) ..0 c: a3 "0 o~ 10 = ~ :.c .........~ C Q) 0"0 co ~~ C .- 0 t) s.... > a. ::> fl"\ co 15 .- e e 0 0 a. ;> '-' (,) e we c.. ...c: u s....c.. co c 0)= um ~o <.9 ....... c.. en CD W :J s.... c.. . - 0_ coc..ro~x ~ U)"O co ~U o O~~oQ) ~ we: ~ oeo --I t) Q.) co co .. f/) Z Q) >s.... "0 ~Q) o ..c 'OJ Q) a s.... .;::s::: - I ......... ..c N Oeo J- om I.() e: cE ~ w~ <3 u.. ~ ,I; ~ ~ ~ <3 2 ro ~ C - Q) ......... ......... .: ~ "'C Q) ::> ......... X 0 --I ...... ~.- a.. -... c.c ;> ~ 0 ......... a.. COcoEx C\J <1>.........<1> :;:; 0 WCL 0"0= CIJ ~ c.. ~ C co c: a... <( Q) CO'co c ~ o CI) "0 ci c E 00; ~ Iw ......... cO .........t) :J .- .- >. co Q) S ct: I cD LC') 0 ~ 16 ..c -c ..c: W ::::> W g E U) Q -0.- .S:2 CD (1) ...... z@ ~ ~ ~ ~ Eo.. E :5~ $ ~ ~ '5.:!:: t;:: en a. :;:; <V en u..t) ro co Ex 0 Q) ro ro "0 t- Q) o 0 Cl "0 :.= Q) ~ s.... S Q) c: J2 ..c r~ co ..c 0 Q) f- a.. en 5 ...... u ..c . ~ - 1:: ~ ;~ ~ <V== () (9 ro"C C> 0 ro '(jj E . ~ C) IDee ..c Een co 0......... Z :.:: s.... 0 0 - s.... So- co ......... (.j c O ,c.. "E '5 ~ ~ Q.) S.. ffi ......... co Cl <co. Q) c- co .- ..c c: Q.) U C/) .~ N cnQ) OJ E E <5 .- 0S:2 = :J c.. --I Q) ut-So- -0......... c.. Eo.. ~ .........(IJ;.........ocn (J) Q)O c.. <C - C'O co 0 ~ c: co ..c .!::: c <C - () Cl 3!: c: ..... .- 3!: :: 5- ro . en C1l ~ ~ ~ Q) Q) ..c Cf) >'..c: CO ......... L..L.. ..c '-t)~CO...... 0 CI) c: Q3 ......... =' co "'C ~ .~ ....- o ..c cowut-; IDC ;:i~ U") $::5 >'ro~ 0 .~ 0 () co <JJ ~ 0 . Q) ..c U c c:.-. Ci5 co ; C,.) > ~ -... ..-.. . u = c: Q) - 0 > "'C (.) tl) :.= 'as U N ~ CD C 0- "'C Q) - =s u... -- CJ) co ......., c.. (.j T- -I c: 0 .......0 (1.) _ co:> co C'O 0.. (]) ~ -- 0 0 :;:; 1:: co C,.) -0 ~ ..c: ~ Cl ro s.... ..c co """"" ...c co c: co C) = ~ S,t:,.- ....... 0.. (.) ....- ....., co · - ...., - ~ ..Q2 :.=Cw= Owo.o := "'0 c.. co Q.) co Q) C Q.) Q) \f- C 0.. U .'- CD "'C Q) f.J) c: CD co co = - -0 ::J ..c CD .Q :.= .5:2 ..c s...: t.n Q) ~.!:!2 .2 13 ........ x ~ "'C 15 CJ) ..eel) f.J) ..c ~ ~ (.) C C ~ Q) 5R c: ~ Q.) ....... ........ (.) e · - 0 L..U ......... ...., ...... co E '- "0 Cl> ..Q - -.. :t=" · en c: x "'C c Z 3: ::J ~ Q) ..c u ~ E c.- Q) CD Q) - c....... > ....... - Q) Q) ~..c en ......., Q) co co .-...... Q) E = ...... ......... C ......... ~ c: -c co .. Q) C E := ~ x co co (l) ...... co -I ~ 0- c: Q) U Q) ._ ~ co Q.) "'C t- .- u ~~ N $ oE~f.J)"""ro"'CC,)Q)ID~U CO li > ~ :c $ g u.. ~ co ~ ~ ~ "'C 0 :;::; ..c "'C Q) Q) cr.i c.. <( U? 0 I W ~ .s ~ .- ....... 0 N co ...... c: .c = ~ <( C) s.... L.() ~ 0 C'f) := ...... () () ~ c.o ~ E ~ ::J 1:5 ....... 025- s....$ O~ ~ "'C o..c(J)Q} Q)Q)~OIDrorox ~E~~~ N ffi ~~==d==~m~~=C1l (J) - :J 0 co 0) I t) ,- == Q.) CD >< Q) Q) ..c "'C ::J Q) ~ (J) ", Q) (fJ I ~ F"-o co I 13 c........ ....... 0 ...... ...... Q) Q) co E ......(0 E Q) Q) ...., co ID ('t) T- <:( 0.. co co co co .c E Q) 0_ E-c 6 15~ 3:~N ~ (.f) m<C"'C"'COJss......... o"'O.c"'Ca; CO"'C..c ~mQ)co~ 0 CD cQ)Q)Q)c~~2uQ.).u-Q.)E z <!: a.. .:::: C'\.I Z f'-. co N X O).c :S :S .- co co .0........ :S :5 ._ coo . (j) ::: ......... ......... ~ () C,) U'J ~ ......., Q) ...... :: W(fJU'J(f)flPlfoOQ)--Cf)..c(/)\.I"I <C::J::i::Ji5~l-oE:Jl-::J:5 l- 0) <( ...!.. 5 ...0 N 0..:;:: E ~ ~ro~ ~ I 0 ~oc 0 II ~moo w~0 I~~ PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: September 6, 2005 Report Date: September 2, 2005 Planning Case: 05-11 Petitioner: AMC Properties -Aaron and Mona Crohn Address: 2701 Xylon Avenue North Request: Request for rezoning from R-4 high density residential to R-l single family residential, preliminary plat approval for property to be known as Mona Addition, and variances to the lot area, front and rear yard setback requirements I. Request The petitioner is requesting rezoning the parcel from R-4 high density residential to R-1 single family residential, preliminary plat approval for property to be knovvn as Mona Addition, and variances to the lot area, front and rear yard setback requirements, pursuant to Sections 4-5, 4-5(f)(1)a, 4-5(f)4), 4-36 and Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. II. Zoning Code References Section 4-5 R-l, Single Family Residential Section 4-5(f)(1)a R-l, Lot requirements, lot area Section 4-5(f)4) R-l, Lot requirements, setbacks Section 4-36 Variances Chapter 13 Subdivision and platting III. Property Specifications Zoning: R-4, High Density Residential Location: On the side of 27th Place at Yukon A venue Adjacent Land Uses: R-4 high density residential to the east, R~l single family residential to the north, south, and west Site Area: Total area: 79,343.6 square feet (1.821 acres) Proposed Lot No. 1-7,220 square feet (0.166 acres) 120.34' wide x 60' deep Proposed Lot No.2 -72,123.6 square feet (1.656 acres) Building Area: 11,601 square feet - 32 apartment units Lot Area Ratios: Green area: 39,640.9 square feet Garage area: 7,802 square feet Planning Case Report. Page 1 9/6/05 Paved area: 20,300 square feet Building area: 11,600.7 square feet Planning District: No. 18: The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address this property Specific Information: Aaron and Mona Crohn purchased the Sunset Apartments in January 2005. After the sale, the Crohn's initiated discussions with city staff to possibly subdivide the excess land on the northvvestem portion of the property that formerly housed the aparbnent complex swimming pool and pool house. IV. Background The property owners of the Sunset Apartments have petitioned the city to subdivide, rezone from R-4 to R-l and grant the necessary variances to facilitate the development of a 7,200 square foot parcel on the northwestern portion of the property located at 2701 Xylon A venue North into a single family residential unit. The proceeds from the sale will assist the property ovvners make additional improvements to the Sunset Apartments. The Sunset Apartments contain thirty two (32) one and hvo bedroom apartments. The current lot is 79,343.6 square feet. In 1999, the city amend~d its zoning code to decrease the square footage requirements per multiple family housing units in the R-4 zoning district. As a result, the land "being considered for subdivision is in excess of the city's zoning requirements and a possible candidate as an infill development opportunity. If this subdivision is approved, the property will comply vlith the R-4 high density residential zoning regulations. V. Petitioner's Comments The petitioner submitted correspondence on August 10 that states in part that they purcha~ed this property in January 2005. They are seeking preliminary plat approval and variances to accommodate the development of the property for a single family home. They are also requesting rezoning from the current R-4 high density residential to R-l single family. They are requesting that the Planning Commission 'Vvaive review of the final plat. The portion of the property to be subdivided previously housed the swimming pool for the complex. The petitioners stated developing this property would improve the value of the other homes on the block and improve the appearance of the block. The Crohns indicated they have completed major improvements to the apartment complex since last January. VI. Notification Property ovmers vvithin 350 feet of the property were notified, inclucling the city of Golden Valley, and staff has received no comments. The petitioner submitted a neighborhood petition in support of the proposed subdivision and variance requests. A copy of the petition and map highlighting the property ovvners that submitted the petition is attached to this report. Planning Case Report Page 2 9/6/05 VII. Development Analysis A. Zoning Code Criteria Rezoning The property located at 2701 Xylon A venue North is zoned R-4 High Density Residential. To facilitate the de\Telopment of the excess land on the northwestern section of the property into a single family residential unit, the petitioner has requested that the property be subdivided and rezoned to R-1. Section 4-32(c) of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance outlines the criteria for evaluating zoning changes: 1. The zoning amendment is necessary to correct a past zoning mistake. In evaluating this criterion, it can be argued that the current parcel containing the Sunset Apartments is all one contiguous property and that the portion that al?uts 27th place, which ~nce contained the pool house and svvimming pool were properly zoned to accommodate the use and intent of the property. However, in reviewing the unique configuration of the Sunset Apartments property, the portion of the property abuts 27th Place extends R-4 zoning into a developed single family neighborhood. The future use of this property certainly should not be high density residential. 2. The character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of an amendment. The city has gone through several steps to increase density vvithin the R-4 zoning district making it unnecessary to keep this excess land as part of the Sunset Apartment complex. Additionally, this excess land might be more appropriately developed into a single family housing unit rather than additional multiple family housing units or an ancillary use to the apartment complex. 3. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions and has been found to be consistent vvith the official city Comprehensive Plan. Goal No.4 of the city-vvide general land use goals state "a cohesive land use pattern which ensures compatible and strong functional relationships among activity is to be implemented." Supporting this statement, the comprehensive plan offers the follovving policies: a. Maintain and strengthen the character of individual neighborhoods; b. Prevent over-intensification of land use development, that is development vvhich is not accompanied by sufficient level of support services and facilities; c. Investigate remedies to correct or eliminate existing land use compatibility problems; d. Examine requested land use changes in relationship to adjoining land uses, site accessibility, utility availability, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and policies; e. Accomplish transitions between distinctly different types of land uses in an orderly fashion that does not create negative (economic, social or physical) impact on adjoining neighborhoods; Planning Case Report Page 3 9/6/05 f. Infill development of compatible land uses shall be strongly encouraged; 0- Where practical conflicting or non-complimentary uses shall be eliminated through b. removal or relocation. Each of these policies suggest that the excess land that is part of fue Sunset Apartments would be better suited as a single family lot rather than the continued use in an R-4 fashion. The introduction of another single family residential lot would complete the neighborhood and would not result in issues related to traffic or other high density concerns. Justification for the rezoning can be made, however, the city must recognize that the excess land is not of sufficient size to meet the R-l standards. The Comprehensive Plan encourages private reinvestment throughout the community to enhance the city's housing stock and maintain property values. The redevelopment of this site was not considered during the comprehensive planning process; however, by granting this rezoning request, the commission can ensure that the excess land at the Sunset Apartments is not used in a manner that is inconsistent vvith the surrounding single family residential neighborhood. If approved, the development of the excess land might serve as a buffer between the high density Sunset Apartments and the single family residential neighborhood that surrounds the apartment complex. Variance The purpose of a \rariance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under consideration and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping vvith the spirit and intent of this Code. An application for variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the variance will result in undue hardship on the applicant, and, as may be applicable, the following criteria have been met: 1. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property and results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of this Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrovvness, shallovvness, slope, or topographic or similar conditions unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardship also includes inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code. 2. The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not generally applicable to other properties vvithin the same zoning district. 3. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landovvner or any previous ovvner. 4. Additional Criteria. The application for variance shall also meet the following criteria: Planning Case Report Page 4 9/6/05 a. It will not alter the essential character of the locality. b. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fuel or endanger the public safety. c. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. d. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district. Section 4-36 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the procedures and criteria for evaluating a variance. In this application, the variances being requested are unique because they apply to a new single family residential lot. In evaluating any variance, the Planning Commission and City Council must make a determination that a physical hardship that is unique to the property results in exceptional difficulties in the use of the property. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallovvness, slope, topographic or similar conditions .unique to the parceL In considering the property lot, the city must first make a determination as to whether they wish to introduce a single family lot into this neighborhood. If this policy decision is affirmed, then it could be argued that the unique shallowness of this property warrants consideration of a variance, however, if the variance on the lot area and setbacks are being proposed, the following elements should be considered: The front yard setback should be 20 feet for the house and 22 feet for the garage. The basis for this recommendation is tvvo-fold. The front yard setback should not vary dramatically from any lots in the surrounding neighborhood to maintain a uniform streetscape. Also, the 22 foot setback from the face of the garage to the right-of-vvay line is necessary to ensure adequate off-street parking outside of the boulevard area. If the city approves the rezoning, plat and variances, the streetscape perspective of this property should conform to the general character of the surrounding single family residential neighborh.ood. Because of the front yard setbacks that are being recommended ensure the streetscape is maintained, the rear yard setback will be approximately 16 feet In order to minimize the impact of the reduced rear yard, staff recommends that fencing and landscaping be provided between the proposed lot and the property to the south as a means to mitigate the building location. If the variances are approved, the follo\'Ving findings may be made that favor this request: 1. The proposed change in zoning from R-4 to R-l is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy for compatible land use relationships and infill redevelopment. 2. The current physical size and configuration of the Sunset Apartment site is unique in that the remnant extends into an R-1 neighborhood, creating potential for conflicting land use relationships. This makes the site unique in the context of the overall Cit:y. 3. The physical size and configuration of the lot remnant (proposed Lot 2, Block I, Mona Addition) presents a physical hardship that prevents compliance with the City's R-llot area and setback standards. 4. No property is available to expand the site. Planning Case Report Page 5 9/6/05 Subdivision & Platting ~ Per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to city department heads, city attorney, city engineer, planning consultant, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment. Comments received include the follovving: Utility Companies - no response. City Engineer - see attached correspondence and comments dated August I8? 2005. Hennepin County - no response City Attorney - see attached correspondence and comments dated August 31, 2005. The City Code states that copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation, unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Commission during its review of the preliminary plat. The petitioner has submitted correspondence requesting a waiver of the review of the fui.al plat by the Planning Commtssion. The Planning Commissio~ vvill need to make a determination as to whether it wants to review the final plat or not. Due to the simple nature of the plat, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission waive the review of this final plat. B. De"velopment Review Team Staff and consultant met to review the plat and request and V\Tere somewhat apprehensive due to the 6,919 square foot lot size and small rear yard. Additional comments included shifting house back to maintain a 25-foot front yard setback, shift house to the east five feet to provide a larger side yard on the west, moving property line to the east another five feet to comply vvith 75% district standards for non-conforming lot area, maintain a five-foot drainage and utility easement on side/rear yards and 10-foot easement in front yard, park dedication fee, and storm water ponding fee. C. Design and Review Committee The Design and Review Committee met "vith the petitioner on August 18 discussed the same issues as the development review team. The committee expressed some reservations regarding the request; however, this rezoning might provide a more natural land use transition from the high density apartment complex to the single family residential neighborhood that surrounds the apartment complex. D. Plan Description Aaron and Mona Crahn have filed the following applications to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council: . A Rezoning from R-4 High Density Residential to R-l Single Family Residential . A preliminary and final plat to create a l1e\.J\T lot for single family development . Variances - lot size, front and rear yard setbacks Planning Case Report Page 6 9/6/05 The Crohn's propose the following lot dimensions and setbacks for the proposed single family residential lot: Required Proposed Lot area 9,500 sq. ft. 7,220 sq. ft. - variance needed Lot \vidth 75 feet 115 feet - conforming Front yard setback 25 feet 20 feet (house)/22 feet (garage) - variance needed Side yard setback 10/5 feet 33.4/5 feet - conforming Rear yard setback 25 feet 16 feet - variance needed Site/Building Plan Review T)rp ic ally, \Iv-hen considering a subdivision, if individual lots cannot meet the required base minimum for lot area and width, the City would not approved them. How~~er, this situation is unique in that it is a lot remnant vvithin a developed portion of the community. The applicant has explored the possibility of expanding the property through land acquisition ,vith the property to the south, however, the adjoining landovvner is not interested in selling any of their land. Section 4-3.A.l1, Non-Conforming Lots, provides the standard for comparison on these variances. Within this section of the New Hope Ordinance, the City allows existing lots of record to be utilized for single family detached dwellings provided the lot measurements for area and vvidth are within 75 percent of the zoning district standards and provided all building setbacks can be maintained. In this specific case, the lot area of 7,200 square feet is 75.7 percent of the requirement for the R-l. The lot vvidth is compliant, however, the depth of the property does not allow for compliance with the front and rear setback. As such, 'variances will be required and evaluated on their merit. If these approvals are granted, a builder could construct a 1,200 square foot house footprint "With an attached 720 square foot garage. It is anticipated that a builder would consider constructing at least tvvo levels of living space providing approximately 2,400-3,600 square feet of finished living space. This size of home would be consistent 'vvith the existing houses in the surrounding "residential neighborhood. At the request of the Design and Review Committee, the applicant shifted the front yard setback to the south to ensure that the new housing unit would blend in on the street front vvith the existing homes. Because of that action, the proposed rear yard is only 16 feet deep and it is likely a new property o"Yvner would utilize the western side yard as their primary open space on the property. Access to the property vvill be provided at the intersection vvith 27th Place and, Yukon A venue. Because neither street has a large volume of vehicular traffic, the applicant proposed this as the ingress and egress point to maximize the amount of green space on the western edge of the property . If this subdi~lision and rezoning are permitted, the Sunset Apartments will comply with all provisions of the R-4lligh Density residential zoning district. Planning Case Report Page 7 9/6/05 Water and Sewer Service Water and se,ver service are available in 27th Place. The applicant proposes a direct connection to the existing water and sanitary sewer services. Stormwater Management and Park Dedication Due to the size of the proposed lot, it is not feasible to construct an on-site stormwater management pond. In accordance with the city code, it will be necessary for the applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of providing on-site ponding. The city engineer determined that the fee will be $1,522. That fee will be required if the project is approved prior to submitting the mylars for signatures. The city engineer has requested a five foot drainage and utility easement around the perimeter of the property. Those have been provided on the prelirrrinary plat submitted by the applicant. If approved, the applicant will be required to pay the city's park dedication fee in the amount of . $1,500 for the creation of a single family residential lot. E. Planning Considerations Excerpts from the planning consultant's comments have been incorporated. F. Building Considerations Excerpts from the building official's comments have been incorporated. G. Legal Considerations We have reviewed the proposed Mona Addition preliminaI}T plat (the UPlat") for compliance with the New Hope City Code (the "Code"), specifically Section 13-4(a) and following. Our comments appear below. Compliance concerns and items that may merit additional review appear in bold. 1. Subsection (c): Names, addresses. Required for the owner, developer & surveyor. Status: Non-compliance. Developer data is missing. City staff may want to confirm if they have not already that the owners are acting as developer. 2. Subsection (b): Zoning classification.8. To include existing data for abutting areas and the subdivision. Status: Non-compliance. Note 4 of the Plat's "General Notes" section does not clarify whether the R-4 classification shown applies to the area to be subdivided, the abutting areas, or both. 3. Subsection ( c): Acreage and dinlensions. General statement, with approximate total and lot acreage. Status: Compliance. However, City staff may want to obtain additional details, if they have not already been supplied by the owner or surveyor, regarding the notation in the "Proposed Area" section of the Plat indicating that a size variance is in progress for Lot 2. 4. Subsection (d): Previously platted details. To 350 feet beyond the tract, including all right-af-way areas (existing or previously platted) \t\rith types, names, widths and conditions. Also to include Planning Case Report Page 8 9/6/05 railroad and utility areas, parks, open spaces, permanent structures, easements and section and corporate lines. Status: Non-compliance. Widths for right-af-way areas are either missing or not clearly marked. Conditions for right-of-ways are marked in some instances but are either missing or not clearly marked in other instances. The surrounding area is not depicted to 350 feet, but see" Additional Comments" below. 5. Subsection (e): Sewer, water main a11d other details. To include culverts or similar underground facilities (within the subdivision and to 350 feet beyond), v'lith data on location, size, grade, in'vert elevation. Catch basins, manholes and hydrants are to be included. Status: Non-compliance. Size information appears to be missing, though it may have been given to City staff separately. The surrounding area is not depicted to 350 fe~t, but see "Additional Comments" below. 6. Subsection (f): Adjoining land. To'be shoV\7J1 within 350 feet of subdivision, with area name and ovvnership. Status: Non-compliance. The surrounding area is not depicted to 350 feet, but see " Additional Comments" below. 7. .Subsection (g): Topography. To include water drain/courses, marshes, V\Toods, rock outcrops, power transmission poles/lines, and other significant features (to 350 feet and consistent with City's topographic map). Status: Unknown. Our office defers to the review of City staff and/or other City consultants on this matter. The surrounding area is not depicted to 350 feet, but see II Additional Comments" below. 8. Subsection (b): Proposed Alleys, pedestrian ways,_ ease1nents. Widths to be shovvn; alleys to be included. Status: Non-compliance. Width markings around the perimeter appear to suggest drainage and utility easements but are not clearly marked as such. It is our understanding that other easements are not proposed as part of the Plat, nor are sidewalks or alleys. 9. Supplementary information required of applicant. Code Section 13-4(a)(4) allows the City Manager to require applicants to supply additional data on use, soil surveys, potential adjacent subdivisions, potential re-subdivision, or similar matters. At this time our office is not aware of any such requests from the City Manager. 10. Re-zoning. Note 4 of the Plat's "General Notes" section states that a re-zoning request is or has been submitted for one of the hvo lots to be created within the Plat. We ask that the owner (and the developer, if any) bear in mind that Code S,ection 13-4(a)(4)(c) provides that any re-zoning data in City-approved preliminary plat records appears for informational purposes only, and the owner and developer are on notice that such data does not provide a basis for claiming vested rights. Planning Case Report Page 9 9/6/05 11. Scope of area drawn. A number of Code sections require details of the area surrounding the Plat to be shown to a nUnimum of 350 feet. The Plat shows the surrormding area to less than 90 feet. It is the opinion of our office, however, that the Planning Commission and the City Council can waive this requirement if other documents on file with the City show data sufficient to assist with planning. 12. Site plan. One lot of the Plat borders Medicine Lake Road (a County Road), which normally requires submission of a preliminary site plan under Code Section 13-4(a)(5). However, because the lot boarding Medicine Lake Road is already full)T developed, it is the opinion of the Office of the City Attorney that the City vvould, absent any objection from the County, have the discretion to waive such requirement. 13. Dedication. No dedication language appears on the Plat. While the Code does not specifically require dedication language at the preliminary plat ~tage, we ask ~at proposed language be submitted to us for review in advance .of .the final plat.. . 14. Evidence of ownership. As a matter of City policy, plat applicants are required to submit a title insurance commitment or other appropriate title history evidence so that the City can verify that the proper individuals have been identified -with respect to signing the Plat. Such information has not yet been supplied to our office by the applicant and should be sent directly to us as soon as reasonably possible. Early submission appears particularly advisable in this situation, as a note on the Plat indicates that current title work was not supplied to the surveyor. 15. Title insurance. If applicable, due to any dedicated easement or right-af-way, we recommend that the ovvner (and the de"veloper, if any) be reminded that the City customarily require~ a title insurance policy in connection ,vith any easement or right-af-way areas to be dedicated on a plat. H. Engineer:ing Considerations Excerpts from the city engineer's comments ha\Te been incorporated. I. Police Considerations Que to the minor nature of this request, the New Hope Police Department did not offer any comments. J. Fire Considerations Due to the minor nature of this request, the West Metro Fire Department did not offer any comments. VIII. Summary The ovvners of the Sunset Apartments are seeking rezoning, preliminary plat and variance approvals to accommodate the subdivision of excess land on the northwestern edge of the property to develop the site into a single family housing unit. The proposed lot is 7,200 square feet al1d is large enough to accommodate a 1,200 square foot single family home footpriIlt with an attached garage. Because the lot is undersized, the petitioner has requested variance approvals for the lot Planning Case Report Page 10 9/6/05 area, front yard setbacks and rear yard setbacks. The property owners have indicated that the proceeds from the sale of the lot will be utilized to further enhance the Sunset Apartments. IX. Recommendation Any zoning change is a policy decision determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. The creation of a single family lot for this vacant parcel associated v\lith the Sunset Apartments is a new venture for the city. It must be recognized that the parcel is below the R-l standards with regards to lot area and setbacks and in making this accommodation, the city must be aware of the impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and on the site itself. Ho\.vever, the city must also consider the impacts that additional multiple family housing units may have on the surrounding neighborhood and make a determination as to the most appropriate land use for the excess land at the Sunset Apartments. The planning consultant has prepared options for approval and denial of this request Staff recommends approval of the request If this application is approved, the follovving conditions should be considered with the approval: 1. The rezoning will occur with the recording of the final plat at Hennepin County. 2. The plat shall provide all drainage and utility easements necessary to comply with city code. 3. The applicant will be responsible for any costs associated with improvements vvithin 27th Place that are necessary to provide utilities, drainage or access to the site. 4. As a condition of variance approval, the front yard setback for the house is a minimum of 20 feet and the minimum setback for the garage face to the right-of-way line is 22 feet. 5. To mitigate the issue of the reduced rear yard setback, the applicant must provide fencing or screening to minimize the impact on the property to the south. 6. A fence should be placed along the east property line of the newly created lot toprev.ent any traffic movement from 27th Place directly into the Sunset Apartments parking lot. 7. Pay the required park dedication fees. 8. Pay $1,522 in-lieu of providing on site ponding. 9. Comply with all city engineer comments dated August 18, 2005. 10. Comply with all city attorney comments dated August 31, 2005. 11. Comply with all planning consultant comments dated August 30, 2005. 12. Pay all applicable building permit fees including but not limited to SAC fees prior to building permit issuance. In accordance with the planning consultant's report, if the City Council and Planning Commission determine the size of the lot and the reduced setbacks are found to be out of character with the adjoining neighborhood, the city may deny the required variances with the following findings, making the rezoning and preliminary plat inappropriate: 1. The property OVV11er has reasonable use of the property. 2. The nevv subdivision should not result in a non-conforming lot dimension. 3. The requested setback variances are out of character with the surroundmg properties. Planning. Case Report Page 11 9/6/05 Attachments: Address/Zoningrropo/ Aerial Maps 8/10/05 Petitioner Correspondence 8/23/05 Petitioner Correspondence Neighborhood PetitionMap of Supporting Neighbors Preliminary Plat City Engineer Comments - August 18, 2005 Planning Consultant Comments -August 30, 2005 City Attorney Comments - August 31, 2005 Planning Case Report Page 12 9/6/05 I ---------. 2133 2124 2125 :2132 ~~14fg 1 ~ 21:3~ w ~ :21:24 2132 2133 ~ 2125 8416 :2 2125 S40a ;9400 - . ~ '0 ~ :5 :2724 ~ :2116 2125 21t7 x :21THP1L ~~ ~ F 1- 0:: ! / I / / / NawHope ~ 2116 2711 ~ 2117 ~ 27[18 8409 ~. '" :- W ~ ~ ~ 0 2101 21~Da :21fD9 z ~ 8:- .[tJD '. ' ....J 851 [I ;;r 8416 8408 ~ .~ 21'0(' 27'0 1 "';r~tEOI.Clf;ltE~r ':~I~:jE'3;R8' ~ - ~ w ::-; ;B505 G€1~ ~ n \fa n:f8~' '0 r:t 846;5 ~B445 ~, .01 . ,~, . ":.1 ... _I. <!":' U~:l z ;B239 25~95 15 ;B22~t -I 2545 ~ 254'0 ~252~D~ ::< Proposed parcel to be subdivided H . - n II i ---..- I I 1 I I t I r I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I i i I ; ; I ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I 1 J ~ i i .. ' 'i : ; I j i-. - -1----1 j i 1 I ~ , .. ---.....;: , I . ....~ t , . . l t ; i t.___~ . ' . . . . : ~ i --L--1--_ ~J >- W --I ...J ~ 2: w 0 --I 0 CJ I . , ' " '-~ -" _::-~. ---- - - - - --~ --~ --==-=-:.---::..... ----= .=.-=-<~ ',;"- - -~ -- " -. -.. -.-- :-.--, ..-.........., \ " J Ui \ j :' ,....--_---..: :=J D' ~~~ Q ~ .. n ""!"" _0') ~ ~~~-- )\ >< W ("'J "'T- 0-, Q : I I (.1 (""l V! v ~~::(1 n ~-~J ONVIV~Z / ~~-; I I ~\ I \\ { -.....\ : '\1 II q ( l I ~F" / !l!!~ -'Tr'vf () I.U I 1/ '> ! b', ~ x~. j 1 ~~ ! dftB I r-, ~ 3_~ _ CL~, I ---L v .. .x--- "I ~' ~~ I r---" : :.G:l \ II / . '~-'---':~, Proposed parcel to be subdivided From 2701 Xylon Avenue property t VVednesdaYl August 10, 2005 Kirk McDonald AMC Properties City of New Hope 10205 27th Avenue North 4401 Xylon Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55441 New Hope, MN 55428 763-545-0700 Dear Kirk: In January my wife and I purchased Sunset Apartments at 2701 Xylon Ave North. We do own other rental property in Plymouth, and we used to live at 3256 Hillsboro Ave North in New Hope. We are seeking preliminary plat approval and the necessary variances to accommodate the development of the property to a single family home. We are also requesting rezoning approval from the current R-4 zoning classification to the R-1 single family classification. Additionally, we would respectfully request that the Planning Commission waive its review of the final plat. When we purchased the property we were told that a piece of land is facing 27th Place which used to be a swimming pool. We would like to subdivide the lot to make it available to sell to a builder to make it into a nice single family home. This would improve the value of the other homes on the block, and definitely improve the appearance of the block. It is a nice street with nice homes on the street already. The appearance of a nice new home on the property will be a major improvement for the neighbor hood. Who knows maybe $ome of the neighbors may now feel the need to improve their homes. We would like to subdivide the lot so the neighborhood can be improved. A nice family can move into a nice home, and we can use any left over revenue to continue to improve the Sunset Apartments. We have already done major improvements to Sunset Apartments. The monies we get after selling the property would go to paying off existing expenses that Mona and I felt were needed immediately to attract a better resident. Since our renovation we have rented to a postal employee, a Wells Fargo executive secretary, an attorney, and a youth director for a Church in New Hope. There is no way we would have attracted that high quality of a tenant had we not immediately began renovation of the property. We have also cleaned house on undesirable tenantsl and we know they have left New Hope. The money will be used to improve the property to attract better tenants 1 (which is already occurring). We also expect our property taxes to drop since the city will get more revenue from a single family home instead of the lot. By approving this plat of land and a variance for a single family home to be built is a win win for aiL Should you or any of the council members like to meet me at the apartment building and see the expense and improvements that have already been made I would be more than happy to show them. !JM~. Aaron & Mona Crohn cc: Shawn Siders c:;y1 . \,-,~l-):'Z--.'~..AJ~V ~~ HARRY S. JOH NSON '.---- LAND SURVEYORS ~ City of New Hope August 23, 2002 Community. Development Department 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Resubmital of preliminary plat, MONA ADDITION, New Hope, MN. To whom it may concern, We have addressed comments from the Design & Review Committee meeting, dated August 18, 2005. Including the following: . Shift house to maintain 20' front yard set back for house and step back attached garage 2' (as discussed in meeting) to keep cars in driveway out of City Boulevard. 0 Shift house to east setback line . Shift east lot line 5' to increase new lot square footage and still maintain correct setbacks . Shovv required drainage & utility easements as proposed on preliminary plat e Note stating future sewer/water connections to new lot The new drawings should reflect all above comments. We look forward to the September 6, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting. Thank You, /& t: d Thomas E. Hodorff, L Cc: Aaron Crohn Harry S. Johnson Co. I Inc. 9063 Lyndale Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55420 tele (952)884-5341 fax (952)884-5344 e-mail: tom@hsjsuNeyors.com I AM'~IN FAVOR OF A NICE HOME TO'BE BUILT ON THE CORNER OF 27TH PLACE & YUKON - . . NAME ADDRESS PHONE # ~<<.J J1.J ~{/dd/JI@(0rd.,~le (Zd 7tJ '-.5 ,yS ~J/~ Up ,~~rv r~OO , 2 ? &/-/I-:LC e. IVa, 7~?-7Yjr-lJIG ~. "'"::> '; ~ \ -., '1 c.foo- J ~ l [ , .. "--f:E-- ~~" W ) u. ~. pI A;v 7t-375131G .,.,\A~2~,I...=j'-'~) qC/cJ?~?ctPL /V' 7C:J~C(k?~ ~/.I;y&i ,.,~~C// fff/6 ;:?7-:zt;i' JV - . 7/3'..~4"'-.PP~d2 fI l"fR I ,\ ~'~ - ~ '6 0, \) ~ ~ 1 r L. 'rJ <0 J.. _. . .,.J:: _..(.___'. _.~ ~""_ " '" '_'/~.\""-J '__ ' ..' " , _...,. , , ,~ifkv:.J./~~ " i; u_~ /~. fH.-- ~ . ~ b ) ~ ~ 1./ s- ~ ~ 1 .4?ilirla..u y.-: )'7~ .;tjYdY Z~! dt'-iL b" ?/3-5~:7--f3Y2-. I ~ tit!' . , .' : 1!" .-, L "/ .. . . ,'_L~_.. f f\ . ." , C2 7J::::,Z.~-AMD /1ve /l'V 7&g - 59b -975"7 "~v /11' 5 ' . d, I , . , ' \ ,..-.. 'ti: ; iwb.tJQe~. )7:13 ?cJ/J {Lv-R jv~ 74!:> ~_),/;r -f/: J " ! / }. ~ · ,~ d a ' - I ,;,' ,t, , . ' ,. " -- ,~/ ',- _ ...~.":./1/;.~ ~",' .- A//'"" 1 ..h ,:;?'" /J_ ~ ' ) . ..., "_.- Li <'?;l ~, ,,~/z..v.1...,..kVd/br?V . 5l'l3.:J /~c.et Zt<-e/ /L ; "lt3 j ,S- Z?:SO / ,,"../ F ~ z;..- = r, c) . &" ,-' '// '- " . -, .. . ~'I..--." ---:" -'7 - ... .~~7U:___ {/Hfj_y; d " G---l 7.:---7 'I .j. vt.;t-?;'Wtf' L.tt-Lt /v /'t::7'd{ IC,).-:'/.:.-~.. 'i~a4J!d'Y/H~ J7~-j ~ {lJH ~ 7(,~'- :;I;--l 3T ;~~.f;{./!4k'L-. ~ 7 l. '1 l ~ I ~~ /i~II-(l/ '7 {;; 1- 2~'- - V~~ 7 C~l~~t~~')l. ;J-7:?~ !1~kr:.I:t#_/// ~63~~/-/iC/, . I ~/; /j Y ~ 7::Z c..-- ~ ' - "7 --:7,,--- ~ .. ,I '(--, '<6#//&;'" ,...~/~tV~ ~J!" JJ ",~ e/2z:.::-;;~6!...(/~ /03'-~3-Y$,("'~2:i7,:C:7 ...~.,.. ~.v ',v {;. 7 " \.... . ,. "H'_,__ Hi f~K' . - 7( 3 r-i'-f-l(-s-<l-( ~. ~... .- ~ ff!! Ci5 .)> <:) r- Z ;;UO~-< fi1 ....- ^ r- z fK~ -- ~ .. -- -- ,..- mJ "'- - ,.. -- ~ ...-. -0 -- ..... CD m~ .-- =: - =: .. . 8540 lE~i 0 .-. 8530 8517 N ::J .-. ........... .. R$:J -f CIJ 8520 8509 ::c ....... ~ C1 c:: ... . ~ 0- -- 8510 2717 8501 8500 8501 0 ----- ii :s: ..., 3 rr1 ... .. -0 AVE N 8425 ::J ....-. 8424 0 .. .. OJ r- eo ;::+ 0 ;A ~ "" '" 8417 8416 8417 ..-+- Z Q) 'I ......., ..., CD ..- Vi ..t.. ........ N '0 a. rrl ... , CD S409 0 S 84Q8 8409 tfAf Z f".,;) -+l -- ~ -- ....... 84Q1 ,. f\.) ::J .- ~ 8400 8401 ^ --.. fT1 1&1 83.24- 8325 ~nt -.. :::T< ;0 -- 0 .... . 8316 8317 '-' WJ N -00 . - to ..., .... 8308 8309 :r! Q) ..- 0 CJ 8301 8300 8301 CD -n N 0) Q) N N ~ '" t:3 N "" 8217 8224- 8225 ::J ::J - -- """-J ~ .....l ~ 'f ~ ~ a. () [Yl 8 N c.,." i!O 8209 co OJ .po. ~ fTl 8216 8217 -< CD ....- f"T1 .. .- ....... f\.:), ~ f'...) ~ 8203 Z 8208 6209 Z C :::J <<; ......, ~ oo..J , 0 a ~ N ^ 0 ..- - to (,U . ..,..... 8119 8200 8201 0 3 '" VIRGINIA AVE 6117 :J lJ Ii 8124 8125 CD . . ..., .., .. )> . ... 8111 8116 8117 .-t- 0 am < 0 .-0 . -. 8108 8109 CD ...- co 0- Ct> ..- r:; 8101 ::J ~ ~ 0 CD 8100 8101 c: ..-. '< -- OJ CD 0- .. '.. 0 009 8016 8017 mI en C .- -- .... 8008 8009 ;:::;: .-. 005 BODO 8001 0 '" 7919 :J ......, 7924 7925 0 ,........ ~.a ,!, 7916 7917 :::J ....., 7909 CD m ...... 7908 7909 75)01 7900 7901 . ~.... : .-. 'ill] -I - s_ IT1 t-..." "') t ..,) t-.J> N ;0 ffi OJ tlJ. N .to. ........ '-I ......, :::0 N 0 0, vI -0 lr4 '''' c... . OJ )> 0 0 ..-.. C 7820 ....- 7829 ....., r ."J -. t...:> z: to (0 0 -'" -, ~ co .....J c...a 7810 0 7B19 ., , -- ........ ----I i ..............................~ .,_.~,~ - i 1 I ! i i I 0 .. I 0 ,. '0. ! ..~ I I ~ i i i I I 0~ ' '-\:" '....., \ I, \..... i 1 ,~c 1 ":~:>.....,:.,'") '1 I ! - \.... ' 'J,<"').. 1 'tI I . I~C I I .'....L.. I , ).. \....,- - 1 J] i , . ,>? 1 m '-, ,<.., 1 i" i "<.."),7 1 ! ;; ! ~ ~ ~ : ------ 1 ~ -Z 'I ,_ ~ : Ie;, ; ~ i 1 i)' " J] j :;IJ 1 ~ -< i ~~ 1 g "'1"1 ! 1 \,II i J> ~I r I :::IJ ~ Jl> ! CJ ~I -I I '.., .. : 1.....- 0 i i " ? .. I ,~) ~ ' -, 5 , i ~ ! ~ I ~ ~ I I ~_ )> , - - "110.. : r- ~ ,(;) C I I ____ C I i ~ i ''''''^_ ! ..,.. " ". , L ,I, 'i..U'" 0 j I V 'I 11 'I I / I · I ~I." Z I I I E, l !l I 'K en -I "m ..' I, I' Cl " ~ ~::g ~ cEo . 2:; , -. .. , ". - ... .... , .. · .. ~ cn \ CII ~~&o="1.~~COQ5"'~l I.:..::. ;;;:: ~i';; i2~ ~p i"" : ~!: ~H!: ;.. ~k' ~~~"9!JJ : : ~ Q c ~ -m tD ~:::! I' , , , ," Q. . . ,,' .. _'!. "co 0 ~ .' u". .. Z o c:; ; i' r- ! t' I;' ~ I" ~ l . f H, .:~. i ! IY o'i i ~ ! Z Z 0 ; <: i!. "0 ~ Cl I · : '. :., J., 0 h " ..... l ! I I ~ ~ - II ~ illl" Pi I! : ; : j i I /l.U.-,....,. 111 () _, :!!. j_ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ -< i - ~~=~~~: ~ ~ '"'0 o :=:l. .. - III ll'r lit/') o I: ::=1 .... .g ;; .g .". I ;;: i! n ~ = f3 ~\ I[:!.~i ~ ~ I n!I"ij\.'lfl -; s;:~ :r: 'tl I!;! t'\..' Vl;:~,,:< --. I t !'f1 A · "r ~ ! : g Z~ m % 0 ~ > s: ~ .~: '" ~~g~ . ~ ' ~ f .....0:;. OCft Z 1"'" :oe '_' 0 r- J:!"';c.!. o:>~;;~ 1:;:::: ~ ".." - ~ ~ '" - - .- - o~. _0' ..,~, I ~g<; en1; z = ~ '" 5 :;; ~ P' '~I" .";':1 ! ~ C) <<" ~~ - ~g ciE m ~g ;: CIl Z 'II ~OZ 18 ";'1 l,1.~: i <; ::t o~ ~'H;g1j ~ ~ ~ ~::j Q ~ 0." ~ 1- ~>'It~ ng=~~ a. ~ ~} ~ c; ~I. , .= > m" 'Z ~ '" III ~.. Q -< 1 ~ 1 0 , .. 0 , '" V .... 0 ~ w . "':'l :: ~ -< n I (') % C ;!.. 0..., 1 0 _ 0 , !! U1 ~ m :z ~ 09 0 i1 ~ n; - 5 ~ ~ ',;~ I !' ;i; I ~ c.o ~::~~ ::0':;;1 . c g Q :oe z z p ~~ ;r,,~'g. ! Ij I!!I lk11 t":'i o C'l 8 g en 1> :5 > S <;l ! ..., ~\. ",_: ' i! , I, I l!! , 'i _ ! I'" "r1!iF1;! -<" I ""',, I I: I , """'\n iJt i I : 1 il tIr...... u I ;:: \ : i> ::,~t:i~ . /'.,"'~'I:.~,; ,~.} I :J~.t:~: ; , -.-.. -'7~~ r4~")~'~~ '/ \.,H" . f',J.."i I,. t.)}.J I- I I 1 I 0."'" r{. -:; :~:~~6;~~1~~Q~j--\, / ~/ V ///1\ / - J1' "tcL )-\ ::: -; I OW~-JER: ,Jl;ivlES W, \ V ~~/f 1~C#ID I' \ ~ Ii .. \\ SToriM M.H. J ~ , ',,~, 9(1 W '\ 1;flM;9:.')7-:-3S-' ./ =-){' I' ~l:: \ .-( \ " Ii I If) ~ ' \ I \ /1 rl. I!".. I. \ '.1" \ - .--- --..- .~-- -- '\ - -- - - ----1<< , ~. ~- r-- \...'--' \ f(..;I" 1.9v- \ .AI -1-) --t.-l 1-- '"-- \ ";'- :,..). \ r · 0 / J. \ :f,--"""'''' 0 --) '"'-- . __" .__.... __ __ \ ~.-;,;-;.F"' J" \. I" f "0.' L -- r L ) 'k>(:;'fi:=----O.=-=-\~--=""=--===~J1F--- 0<:, ~" f~; U1,'t-) I '~^;tO!" --- / \ / - 1\ .i ~t)~;~~'CI='\~,~f~'Trl ~^;~~ ~'\~J~~t ~\,\;~~~'-- -9Ja,9;~~.~~ik".. \~ ~..> :', t9~ 947.37' 1 ~'\ I . ~~~,. ~~'" j ~4''':'' ~ ,,( , ," .. ~., 131.91.'-,\ · ..... ".:- ", .....,. :...... .. ...,.,:;<;.::~.= 'z.: _ ...;;.,__~ _' ...___. _ '-c\;. . \..>. ~ -' T"' . \ ~ '" - \ " ~, ~.' -'~""r-o. ....,,~~~-r.~. '.~.. -~..--C::. ~";;:",...-..-.;;':;':~ . ~~ LO. '. .." \ ..' O)~ - . Q)) .' '.: x.... ,~)."" ' , '. I\...'" \ .' ~ S I AL(S " '. . '. " " _ ,V,9 _ ' '.' " ~ \ 0 ' .... - ~ " ~ ' '.':" ': '. ,',' " '~I ; f'",,-, . ~ 'f J \, ' . "':i'O' - ", . · .. '('t'. "~Ji;.;, - -, " '. ' ,~- '''" \ ., · "- - _, "~ l~ '. ,-' N,'8953~n/ ,W- , ..1 13 ,.t;(.,., F' - 36, .',,', ..', ,~~ /~' " [~. ,"'~~;{~",;~:12'~~-1! ,-1, ~ ~'~.- :'\' ~~~:':-_.-1;i~ ~T~S~S~~~~t~~ AN. C .' I :). ,~JQ " - I / "-. . ..O~ ' . - . 'St\j .. " ~ ' ,~J' -.., -;<. ,5 E (.,..-: t(~!, ..' ,:." "~' '. ~ I. ~ 9~5' '" 11.51 '> , ' ,'-- _ _,~,l Q _ - ,~... - ~ . ~____ _' I " . - - - ('/ ,,?IO )(l~OO ~/,_~~t.~(b" ~t 3!:34 ~.' ~ - "', 1.1 : ,\"'< '".~7n' "," '936'-- ~ , ~ \ t-, :1' ' ........ " N ... m- ~ ~ '").. "~ " .""r -. v '. , ' . '. . { "...__~.' .~_~~ t' r. - - --X" :\..' ", - - . ',-,. \)0. '_' . '\ - , , Q-:ss.; " -' _' l' ' , ,- -:9<10_ -, _ -'- ' '<.>-,". ," '.,- .' '~'" ' -:'5:>' ... t'\\: I,J !\I.'h;'r. ' \. , I' '/to ~ PROPOSED H~..J, .. ;- . ,\ S~148 2& E ' , ,A; , l \ 'I,L .1., ,. \.""'4: \ . . . . ~ , f - . . 'X 60'" A' .: ^ ~ 01 n p. J '~ \.. ' . ~ . :: Ul''':;..r,'',}oO...... W I uWl ~ . . \ i. '., . 0 . 82. 0 . . . 0'>' t":) > ' '. ." v '-'. fl"j , . -C:.t....... ~ ' '. 1 ~ ........ . ' , '\ - ,~,....", - - ~ -:-'!-" , . Y' "-;',.' ", !\ :' '\' . "5~' e}\~ -; .' , . - QREEN . g.n-- ' -.+ 0 ~. f:~"."~~ "':'" : ", .'.. .'" '. '.. ", .' \ ' " · It \-x;j ~ \ AREA, . . ,,', " ,...-.... " .. , ' _ _.!" lc """', _ S> ' 0 .. (" ....5"-, ," - I ", $I \ \.' '. u':'-~j', ,~~~~ ..~.t-120 3',A,- ~ ..'t"""" l,." ~, ~ .J'. ". '" '... J ,"\ . - · . -, . - . --_ _ _ " :;-, .' 't' .. - ,', <() /0. '."" . 6 -to \ ~tf :~~",~~ 15~6'" '89~~:('30--Jli E ....40'0. .~.. .' -, . .,' ~ ~~ Q) I" > ,_' ...; v I . \ /! ' i! ' D ^ N '" {! . ~ .,', . l' I \ ......l> './'" Q,- 9 "'l. _' ,"\ l: \-\t:. .... PROPOSED DRAJN..A:-GE'AND _J'/ (, J / ...-':s;I ry - ~ 1 MITCHELL -', UnuTY EASEMENT J ~i!/: " ' 1 . 19.6t;;;." i "" '. ...~ \. --~--:""_____,___"",____,_,_,~, 'f.>:lS11N.G;f "t'5 ~ I /' " . t"--..... _ , . ..' PRiVAC Y ,'j ,,~ ~ J " ...:; /----,..) i~ ' FENCE ' j ~:' "(3" ~ I I , f \'/ J. j OVi/NER: ~ENNETH I. --DAHL (01 ::;" ','- 19'>. ,---... I ' I : CO",,',' I -.)4-,6 7 I (.. I . <', ", ~', '1 .' .~ ~' "" ' .~ ..... ~" ' ;,\X (. ~. '. o~ . ". I ...A , ,\. ,', -010, ^~ _ _~ _ '.... I . '. -.:t.:L('),. . . ~- -----j '. u..~_""'" wi'- I I __..9d "C)\~j''', ~.'-- . 81 lNOU:J~. I I -- ,.,~J, - "-,:. l.D ' , f', '. .-, ,;:. V') > ". : . UJ (' ~. ~..' ,.. GAR ,.!\.GE ..,zB' ", "" .9<1'.,. U'\.. . I ~ .' "" ' . - u: u:s.'~ u. , ..9 .:. /."~. ' ~, " ", ....;. ':Q --- c..?:c.,'. . ''-J' :, '- . X ' v . .,', . 2,0- ' " ' ,,~ \. "" /- " 29,2 j<. , ~. ,,>< ' ~,/ ~ " 1--------- or-' '1'"'\3....., - :'"J':> I /...1 " ' L, V _ '. , .9J: r . ~ <' ,lLj (,l ' ',,9' S- ' \ . ....... . \ UJ" "'~<--' f /- 0 ~,L-" "'k' 'v~.L Q35 9 ~ "- i ~.,'" ',\ \, \ ~;]:-~~ ,.;'~ j, - ~: ""' l : CO I \ · . a:,. \ r~ ., ',' N', ...., ~ ,j ~ :t. . \ CA"'3., \ ~, '.~...r .,.'or .....:-:, \ ( \ \ r . 0 . . X'" \ to " ~ /' .J ( ~) ~, j 'tR~N" ". .-tr . ." ' . lv- ____ ) ! .r. · - ,C}l; · '6 i" _/ I' (/) RE~ \~rp \ ',,' .:" " I " !. 9J"'j.", , I ' I X ~ .., \' - ~ 011 .,' 1 . . rrSJ . \ \ , . . ~- . en'l '1' , '. . '( N t ,- ,c i.: \ ", ~~~ '." , \ ) I LL~~2_'=_,j'-,?.1~_~--i12,6~ Bonestroo ~] ~ Rosene 2335 'liVest Highway 36 b St Paul~ i\~N 55113 lJ1 Ande~lik & Office: 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311 . M AssocIates www.bonestroo.com Engineers & Architects TO: Shawn Siders FROM: Vince Vander Top DATE: August 18, 2005 SUBJECT: Mona Addition comments Our File No. 34-Gen SE19.05.02 We have received the Preliminary plat for Mona Addition and offer the following comments; 1. Provide drainage and utility easements along all lot lines per City ordinances. 2. Provide storm water quality fee for new/redevelopment. Fee should be in the amount of $O.22/SF. This fee is 50% of the rate for the recent commercial development at 42nd A venue and Quebec A venue. The rate of runoff from this property should be approximately 50% of the commercial; therefore, justifying the stated rate. The fee for the. property should then equal $O.22/SF x 6,919 SF = $1,522 3. Sanitary sewer and water service can be provided via utilities in 27th Place North. Existing services stubbed to the property will need to be inspected prior to utilization for this development It is likely that new services will be required to the mains in the street The applicant would be responsible for this cost as well restoration of the street. 4. It does not appear that drainage issues will be created with this development. Verify that drainage from and to adjacent properties will not be impacted. End of Comments If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at 651-604-4790. a St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, Willmar, MN II Milwaukee, WI D Chicago, IL Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned I\tORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTAI\lTS, iN C. 4800 Olson Mernorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Vall ey, MN 55422 Telephone: 763~231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231,,2561 planners@nacplanning..com MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Alan Brixius DA TE: August 30, 2005 RE: New Hope - Mona Addition FILE NO: 131.01 - 05.16 BACKGROUND Aaron and Mona Crohn are requesting the following applications to subdivide a portion of property from the lot at 2701 Xylon Avenue North. Specifically, they wish to- subdivide a piece of land that abuts 27th Place and create a single family lot. To accomplish this, they need the following applications: . A rezoning from R-4,High Density Residential to R-1, Single Family Residential. e A preliminary and final plat to create a new lot for single family development. ED Variances - lot size, front and rear setbacks. In review of this application, we offer the following comments: REZONING Section 4.32.C outlines the criteria that the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider when evaluating a rezoning request. The first criteria is: 1 . The zoning amendment is necessary to correct a past zoning mistake. In evaluating this criteria, it can be argued that the current parcel containing Sunset Apartments is all one contiguous property and that that portion that abuts 27th Place, which once contained their pool house and swimming pool, were properly' zoned to accommodate the use and intent of the property. However, in reviewing the unique configuration of the Sunset Apartments property, the portion of property that is up against 27th Place extends R-4 zoning into a developed single family neighborhood. The future use of this property certainly should not be high density residential. 2. The character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of the amendment. We find that the City has gone through several steps to increase density within the R-4 District making it unnecessary to have this remnant piece as part of Sunset Apartments to qualify their existing densities. Additionally, it would appear that if this remnant were to be developed, it would be more appropriate to develop it as a single family lot than as an additional multiple family property. 3. The proposed action is considered in relationship to the specific policies and provisions that have been found to be consistent with the official Comprehensive Plan. While the City's future land use plan recognizes the existing zoning on the property which includes high density residential along a portion of 27th Place in conjunction with the Sunset Apartments, the following policies would support the change in land use and zoning: Page 11 of the Comprehensive Plan outlines Goal #4 of the City-wide general land use goals. Goal 4 reads: "A cohesive land use pattern which ensures compatible and strong functional relationships among activity is to be implemented." Supporting this are the following policies: A. Maintain and strengthen the character of individual neighborhoods. B. Prevent over-intensification of land use development, that is development which is not accompanied by sufficient level of support services and facilities (Le., utilities, parking and access). C. Investigate remedies to correct or eliminate existing land use compatibility problems. D. Examine requested land use changes in relationship to adjoining land uses, site accessibility, utility availability, consistency with the Compreh-ensive Plan, and policies. E. Accomplish transitions between distinctly different types of land uses in an orderly fashion that does not create negative (economic, social or physical) impact on adjoining neighborhoods. F. Infill development of compatible land uses shall be strongly encouraged. G. Where practical conflicting or non-complementary uses. shall be eliminated through removal or relocation. Each of these policies would suggest that the vacant land remnant that is a part of the Sunset Apartments would .be better suited as a single family lot, rather than continued use in an R-4 fashion. 2 The surrounding properties are all single family in character. The introduction of another single family lot would complete the neighborhood and would not result in issues related to traffic or other high density concerns. While an argument can be made for a change in zoning from R-4 to R-1, it will have to recognize that the lot remnant is not of sufficient size to meet the R-1 standards. PLAT In review of the proposed plat, we offer the following analysis: Required Proposed Lot Area 9,500 square feet 7,200 square feet - variance needed Lot Width 75 feet 115 feet - conforming Front Yard Setback 25 feet 20 feet - variance needed Side Yard Setback 1 0/5 feet I 5/33 feet - conforming Rear Yard Setback 25 feet 16 feet - variance needed Typically, when considering a subdivision, if individual lots cannot meet the required base minimum for lot area and width, the City would not approved them. However, this situation is unique in that it is a lot remnant within a developed portion of the community. The applicant has explored the possibility of expanding the property through land acquisition with the property to the south, however, the adjoining landowner is not interested in selling any of their land. Section 4-3.A.11, Non-Conforming Lots, provides the standard for comparison on these variances. Within this section of the New Hope Ordinance, the City allows existing Jots of record to be utilized for single family detached dwellings provided the lot measurements for area and width are within 75 percent of the zoning district standards and provided all building setbacks can be maintained. In this specific case, the lot area of 7,200 square feet is 75.7 percent of the requirement for the R-1. The lot width is compliant, however, the depth of the property does not allow for compliance with the front and rear setback. As such, variances will be required and evaluated on their merit. VARIANCES The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under consideration, and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Code. Section 4-36 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance outlines the procedure and criteria for evaluating a variance. In this situation, the application for variance is unique in that it is being applied to a newly created lot. In evaluating any variance, the City must make a determination. The following criteria are met to warrant the variance. ,.., .J (1 ) A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property that results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of this Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic or similar conditions unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardship also includes inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall not .constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code. (2) The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district. (3) The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner or any previous owner. (4) Additional criteria. The application for variance shall also meet the following criteria: a. It will not alter the essential character of the locality. b. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. c. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. d. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district. It can be argued that a lot within a new subdivision should not result in a non- conforming lot or need for variance. However, in looking at the proposed property, the City must first make a determination as to whether the introduction of a single family lot to this area is the best use of the land in this area of the City. If the City determines that the land use change to single family is more appropriate than the current R-4 zoning, the project becomes a redevelopment infill project that is limited by the physical size and configuration of the lot remnant. In this respect, the following findings may be made in favor of the variance consideration: 1. The proposed change in zoning from R-4 to R-1 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy for compatible land use relationships and infill redevelopment. 2. The current physical size and configuration of the Sunset Apartment site is unique in that the remnant extends into an R-1 neighborhood, creating potential for conflicting land use relationships. This makes the site unique in the context of the overall City. 3. The physical size and configuration of the lot remnant (proposed Lot 2, Block 1, Mona Addition) presents a physical hardship that prevents compliance with the City's R-1 lot area and setback standards. 4. No property is available to expand the site. 4 If the City agrees that the aforementioned findings support the requested variance, staff recommends that the house location should be blended with the surrounding neighborhood. In this respect, front yard house setbacks should be a minimum of 20 feet and the front of the garage should maintain a minimum setback of 22 feet or more. The basis for this recommendation is two-fold. First, the front yard setback should not vary dramatically from any lots in the surrounding neighborhood so to maintain a uniform streetscape. Secondly, we believe that the 22 foot setback from the face of the garage to the right-of-way line is necessary to insure adequate off-street parking outside of the street boulevard area. If the City approves the rezoningl the plat and the variances, we believe that from the streetscape perspective, this home should fit into the general character of the surrounding properties and, not be unique in its setbacks from the street. The end result is that this property will only have a 16 foot rear yard setback. To minimize the impact of the reduced rear yard setback, staff recommends that fencing and landscaping be provided petween the proposed lot and the property to the south as a means of mitigating the building location. CONCLUSION Any zoning change is a policy decision determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. The creation of a single family lot for this vacant piece 'of property associated with the Sunset Apartments is a new venture for the City. It must be recognized that the parcel falls below R-1 standards with regard to lot area and setbacks and in making this accommodation, the City must be aware of the impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and on the site itself. Based on staff review, we offer the Planning Commission two options for consideration. Approval If the Planning Commission and Council find the land use change to be appropriate for the site. The City may approve the rezoning; variances from R-1 lot area, front yard and rear yard setbacks; and the preliminary and final plat with the following conditions: 1 . The rezoning will occur with the recording of the final plat at Hennepin County. 2. The plat shall provide all drainage and utility easements necessary to meet City Code. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for any costs associated with improvements within 27th Place that are necessary to provide utilities, drainage or access to the site. 4. As a condition of the variance approvall we would recommend that the front yard setback for the house be a minimum of 20 feet and the minimum setback for the garage face to right-af-way line be 22 feet. .. 5 5. To mitigate the issue of the building reduced rear yard setback, we would recommend the provision of a fence or screening to minimize the impact on the property to the south. 6. Payment of a park dedication fee of $1 ,500.00 for the new lot. 7. Payment of stormwater fees (amount to be determined by the City Engineer). Denial If the size of the lot and the reduced setbacks are found to be out of character with the adjoining neighborhood, the City may deny the required variances with the following findings, making the rezoning and preliminary plat inappropriate. 1. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. 2. The new subdivision should not result in a non-conforming lot dimension. 3. The requested setback variances are out of character with the surrounding properties. 6 I JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Attol.11eys At Law 8525 EDlNBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOT~~ 55443-19 TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 $ TELEFAX (763) 493-5193 GORDON L. JENSE.~l e-mail Iaw@jensen-sondralI.com CLARISSA 1\1. KLUG Writer's Direct Dial No.: (763) 201-0222 A.\fi' E. P APENHAUSE..N e-mail cmk@jensen-sondrall.com GLE..~ A. NORTON August 31, 2005 STEVE..~ A.. SONDRUL ARIc T. STIE!'\~SSEN Shawn Siders VIA E-MAIL & US MAIL STACY A.. WOODS Community Development Specialist City of New Hope OF COUNSEL 4401 Xylon Avenue North LoRE.~S Q. BRTh'ESTAD New Hope, I\.1N 55428 Re: Preliminary Plat for Mona Addition (Our File No.: 99.15069) Dear Mr. Siders: We have reviewed the proposed Mona Addition preliminary plat (the "Plat") for compliance with the New Hope City Code (the "Code"), specifically Section 13-4(a) and following. Our comments appear below. Compliance concerns and items that may merit additional review appear in bold. A. GENERAL PROVISIONS - City Code Section 13-4(a)(1) 1. Subsection (a): Name. Not to duplicate/closely resemble existing County subdivisions. Status: Compliance. The Hennepin County database shows no troublingly similar names. 2. Subsection (b): Boundmy lines. In relation to section, quarter or quarter-quarter lines. Status: Compliance. The reference to Twin Terra Linda 3rd Addition data provides sufficient information. 3. Subsection ( c ): Nall1es, addresses. Required for the owner, developer & surveyor. Status: Non-compliance. Developer data is missing. City staff may ,vant to confirm if they have not already that the Ol\rners are acting as developer. 4. Subsection (d): Scale. To include a bar scale, not less than one inch to 100 feet. Status: Compliance. 5. Subsection ( e ): Date & northpoint. Date is to indicate the Plat preparation date. Status: Compliance. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS - City Code Section 13-4(a)(2) lReal Property Law 1. Subsection (a): Boundary lines. All to be clearly shown. Specialist Certified By The Minnesota State Bar Association Status: Compliance. /\.ugust 31:: 2005 Page 2 2. Subsection (b ): Zoning classifications. To include existing data for abutting areas1 and the subdivision2. - Status: Non-compliance. Note 4 of the Plat's "General Notes" section does not clarify ,vhether the R-4 classification shown applies to the area to be subdivided, the abutting areas, or both. 3. Subsection ( c ): Acreage and dill1ensions. General statement, with approximate total and lot acreage. Status: Compliance. However, City staff may want to obtain additional details, if they have not already been supplied by the owner or surveyor, regarding the notation in the "Proposed Area" section of the Plat indicating that a size variance is in progress for Lot 2. 4. Subsection Cd): Previously platted details. To 350 feet beyond the tract, including all right-of-way areas (existing or previously platted) with types, names, \vidths and conditions. Also to include railroad and utility areas, parks, open spaces, permanent structures, easements and section and corporate lines. Status: Non-compliance. Widths for right-of-way areas are either missing or not clearly marked. Conditions for right-of-ways are marked in some instances but ate either mis~ing or not clearly marked in other instances. The surrounding area is not depicted to 350 feet, but see "Additional Comments" belo"7. 5. Subsection ( e ): Sewer, l1later llzain and other details. To include culverts or similar underground facilities (within the subdivision and to 350 feet beyond), with data on location, size, grade, invert elevation. Catch basins, manholes and hydrants are to be included. Status: Non-compliance. Size information appears to be missing, though it may ha,re been given to City staff separately. The surrounding area is not depicted to 350 feet, but see "Additional Comments" below. 6. Subsection (t): Adjoining land. To be sho\VI1 within 350 feet of subdivision, with area name and ownership. Status: Non-compliance. The surrounding area is not depicted to 350 feet, but see "Additional Comments" below. 7. Subsection (g): Topography. To include water drain/courses, marshes, woods, rock outcrops, power transmission poles/lines, and other significant features (to 350 feet and consistent with Cit),'s topographic map). Status: Unknown. Our office defers to the review of City staff and/or other City consultants on this matter. The surrounding area is not depicted to 350 feet, but see "Additional Comments" belo\v. c. PROPOSED DESIGN FEATURES - Citv Code Section 13-4(a)(3) 1. Subsection (a ): Street design~ To show proposed street layout, \vith widths, centerline gradients, typical cross sections, and proposed names."' Status: Compliance. It is our understanding that the Plat includes no new dedicated streets. 1 The Code does not defme "abut," "adjoin," "adjacenf' or similar terms. It is our office's opinion that the meaning of such terms can vary depending on context but that they generally describe areas (i) that share a boundary line (including a right-af-way), (ii) that only touch the property in question, or (iii) that are near but slightly separated (such as by a street or alley). 2 A "subdivision" is either (i) land to be divided or that or has been divided (into two or more areas) for transfer of ownership or building development, or (ii) land divided in any way to create a new street. The term includes resubdivision and can also be used to describe the process of subdividing. See Section 13-2(b) of Code. 3 Any street name already used in the City or its environs can only be used if relating to a proposed logical extension of the already- named street, in which event the same street name must be used. /-\ugust 3 i, 2005 Page 3 2. Subsection (b ): Proposed Alleys, pedestrian ways, easenzents. Widths to be shown; alleys to be included. Status: Non-compliance. Width markings around the perimeter appear to suggest drainage and utilitY easements but are not clearly marked as such. It is our understanding that other easements are not proposed as part of the Plat, nor are sidewalks or alleys. 3. Subsection (c): Stormwater runoff. To include typical cross-sections of proposed improvements, with an indication of proposed stormwater runoff. Contributing drainage from other areas is also to be sho\vn. Status: Unknown. Our office defers to in-house City staff and/or other City consultants on this matter. 4. Subsection (d): Proposed street and alley centerline gradients. To include approximate center line gradients of proposed streets and alleys, and of adjoining streets (if any). Status: Compliance. It is our understanding that the Plat does not include any proposed streets or alleys. 5. Subsection ( e ):- Se}ver lines and water lnains. Locations and size of proposed sewer lines and water mains. Status: Unkno"rn. Our office defers to in-house City staff and/or other City consultants on this matter. 6. Subsection (f): Lots and blocks. To include numbers and preliminary dimensions of lots and blocks. Status: Compliance ~- 7. Subsection (2:): Building setback lines. Minimum front and side street building setback lines. Status: Compliance. This information appears in Note 5 of the Plat's "General Notes" section. City staff may want to obtain additional information regarding the setback variance cited in Note 4 of the "General Notes" section if sufficient details ha"~e not yet been provided by the surve)Tor or the owner. 8. Subsection (h): Setback on curved lot. To include width of the lot at the building setback line. Status: Not applicable 9. Subsection (i): Other dedicated areas. Areas, other than streets, alleys, pedestrian ways and utility easements, intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use, including the size of such area or areas in acres. Status: Compliance. It is the understanding of our office that the Plat does not include any dedicated areas that fall outside the scope of streets, alleys, pedestrian ways or utility easements. 10. Subsection (1): Water supply. V\Tater mains shall be provided to serve the subdivision by extension of an existing community system, with connections stubbed mto the property line when feasible. All necessary fITe hydrants shall also be provided. Any extensions of the public water supply system must be designed to provide public water in accordance with the standards of the City. Status: Unknown. Our office defers to in-house City staff and/or other City consultants on this matter. 11. Subsection (k): Sewage disposal. Mains and service connections to be installed for all lots, connected to the public system. Status: Unknown. Our office defers to in-house City staff and/or other City consultants on this matter. 12. Subsection (}): SUliace water. To include provisions for surface ,vater disposal, drainage, and flood controL i\UgUst 31, 2005 Page 4 Status: Unkno,vn. Our office defers to in-house City staff and/or other City consultants on this m~tter. JJ. ADDITIONAL COM1VIENTS 1. Supplementary information required of applicant. Code Section 13-4(a)(4) allows the City Manager to require applicants to supply additional data on use, soil surveys, potential adjacent subdivisions, potential re-subdivision, or similar matters. At this time our office is not aware of any such requests from the City Manager. 2. Re-zoning. Note 4 of the Plat's "General Notes" section states that a re-zoning request is or has been submitted for one of the wo lots to be created within the Plat. We ask that the o~Tner (and the developer, if any) bear in mind that Code Section 13-4(a)(4)(c) provides that any re-zoning data in City-approved preliminary plat records appears for informational purposes only, and the owner and developer are on notice that such data does not provide a basis for claiming vested rights. 3. Scope of area drawn. A number of Code sections require details of the area surrounding the Plat to be sho\VD. to a minimum of 350 feet. The Plat shows the surrounding area to less than 90 feet. It is the opinion of our office, however, that the Planning Commission and the City Council can waive this requirement if other documents on file with the City show data sufficient to assist with planning. 4. Site plan. One lot of the Plat borders Medicine Lake Road (a County Road), which normally requires submission of a preliminary site plan under Code Section 13-4(a)(5). HO"\Never, because the lot boarding Medicine Lake Road is already fully developed, it is the opinion of the Office of the City Attorney that the City would, absent any objection from the County, have the discretion to waive such requirement. 5. Dedication. No dedication language appears on the Plat. While the Code does not specifically require dedication language at the preliminary plat stage, we ask that proposed language be submitted to us for review in advance of the final plat. 6. Evidence of ownership. As a matter of City policy, plat applicants are required to submit a title insurance commitment or other appropriate title history evidence so that the City can verify that the proper individuals have been identified with respect to signing the Plat. Such information has not yet been supplied to our office by the applicant and should be sent directly to us as soon as reasonably possible. Early submission appears particularly advisable in this situation, as a note on the Plat indicates that current title work was not supplied to the surveyor. 7. Title insurance. If applicable, due to any dedicated easement or right-of-way, we recommend that the oV\'Iler (and the developer, if any) be reminded that the City customarily requires a title insurance policy in connection with any easement or right-of-way areas to be dedicated on a plat. We would be happy to address any questions you may have regarding our comments or to speak with a representative of the O\VI1er, surveyor or developer regarding potential revisions to the Plat. Sincerely, Clarissa M. Klug, Assistant City Attorney cc: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director Pam Sylvester, New Hope Administrative Support Specialist (via email to psylvester@ci.new-hope.mn.us) Vincent T. Vander Top, Ne\v Hope Engineer (via email to vvandertop@bonestroo.com) Alan Brixius, New Hope Planning Consultant (via email to planners@nacplanning.com) Steven A. Sondrall, Ne\v Hope City Attorney (via email to sas@jensen-sondrall.com) P:\Anomey\Cmk\Clients\CN1-I\99~15069\Mona Addition Preliminary Plat Review (full te>..1Ietter),doc .....~ Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Date: September 2, 2005 Subj ect: Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on Council/EDA/HRA actions on Community Development related issues or other city projects. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. s>:~;, 1. " August 8 Council/EDA Meeting - At the August 8 Council/EDA me"eting, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: . PC04-06, Resolution authorizing city staff to draw upon letter of credit securing the 5610- 5696 Winnetka Avenue Winnetka Townhomes Development: Approved, see attached Council request. This resolution was necessary in the event the developer did not renew their letter of credit before it expired. The letter of credit was renewed on time, so it was not necessary to draw on the letter of credit. . PC04-10, Resolution authorizing city staff to draw upon letter of credit securing the 7901 Bass Lake Road CVSPharmacy Development: Approved, see attached Council request. This resolution was necessary in the event the developer did not renew their letter of credit before it expired. The letter of credit was renewed on time, so it was not necessary to draw on the letter of credit. . peD5-03, Request for variances to the maximum curb cut width within the boulevard area and prohibition against installing a parking area within t~ee feet of a property line, 4717 Independence Avenue: Approved revised plans, removing some pavers and adding a parking stall on east side of garagef see attached Council request and plans. . Project #781, Resolution approving plans and specifications, and calling for bids for 2005 backyard drainage improvements: Approved, see attached Council request. . Project #787, Resolution approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for park improvements (2005 Lions, Little Acre, Meadow Lake Park trails improvements): Project limited to bidding for work at Lions and Little Acre parks only for 2005, Meadow Lake put off until 2006 to coordinate needed work with next year's street project. . Project #718, Discussion of City Center project notebooks and next steps: The City Council discussed the next steps at a work session; please refer to the attached minutes. Meetings with the three major property ovvners are being scheduled. 1vliscella.l1eous Issues Page 1 9/2/05 0 Discussion and direction regarding potential purchase of 7115 62nd Avenue: The Council tabled this matter until August 22 so that all council members could view the property. 2. August 22 CounciVEDA Meeting - At the August 22 CouncillEDA meeting, the Council[EDA discussed the following planning/development/housing items: . Wings Soccer Club presentation regarding future expansion project: Presentation to Council. They will be making a CUP application later this year. . Project #747, Resolution approving plans and specifications, calling for bids for a regional pond at the Victory Park wetland site: Approved, see attached Council request. . Project #733, Resolution accepting easement for drainage and utilities at Wincrest Apartments, 5700 Winnetka Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request . peGS-IO, Request for variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow an addition . on the fro~t of the garage, 4308 Flag A venue: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Discussiotl..arti~on regarding-pbtential purchase of 7115 62nd Avenue: The Council .~i' . r;j: declined to offer to purchase the property. . Project #750, Resolution approving quote from STS Consultants and authorizing staff to obtain soil borings at Bass Lake Road apartments: Approved, see attached Council request. . Resolution calling. for a public hearing with respect to a revenue bond financing for the YMCA of Metropolitan Minneapolis: Approved, see attached Council request. . Review of community-wide survey to be conducted by Decision Resources, Ltd. this fall: Consultant to make revisions on final draft and submit to Council for approval. . Resolution calling for a public hearing bv the EDA of the city of New Hope on behalf of Emergency Foodshelf Network: Approved, see attached EDA request. . Project #778, Resolution approving waiver of service availability charges (SAC) for 4301-17 Nevada Avenue twinhome redevelopment: Approved, see attached EDA request. 3. August 29 Council Work Session - At the August 29 Council work session, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: . City Center: Interview conducted with Robert Rappaport} owner of Winnetka Shopping Center, and Dave Kloeber, ovvner of the Unique Thrift Store. . Rental housing program: The Council provided further direction to staff on the ordinance. 4. Codes and Standards Committee . The committee will be meeting on September 21 to discuss a number of minor code amendments, including: 0 60-day rule 0 Swimming pool enclosures 0 Driveway/parking surface material 0 Driveway right-af-way setbacks Miscellaneous Issues Page 2 9/2/05 5. Design and Review Committee - The Design and Review Committee met on August 18 to review the plans for a residential variance and lot split at Sunset Apartments. The deadline for the October Planning Commission meeting is September 9. Staff is not yet aware if applications will be submitted for the October meeting. Staff will contact the committee regarding a meeting following the application deadline. 6. Future Applications - Future potential applications or businesses/developers that staff is currently working with} or has recently met with} include: 1. Alano - shared parking CUP 2. Wings Soccer Club (Hosterman soccer field complex) 3. Coffee shop - City Center 4. Aldi grocery store, 7180 42nd A venue 5. Holy Trinity Lutheran Church expansion, 4240 Gettysburg Avenue 6. Crystal Free Church CUP amendment for minor expansion 7. lntermet expansion, 5100 Boone Avenue 8. Waymouth Farins parking variance/CUP 9. . 4301 Quebec industrial condo conversion - 10. 7100 Medicine Lake Road (former Egan McKay property) potential redevelopment 11. St. Therese Nursing Home/duplex 7. Livable Communities - The Council reviewed the Request for Qualifications for the Bass Lake .-;;.:-..-:..",~.."" Road Apartments site and met with the developers at the July 18 work session. All four '" developers have been invited to submit a Request for Proposal by September 2. An open house to review developer proposals will be conducted on September 8 from 5 to 7 p.m. and commissioners are invited to attend. 8. City Center Task Force Update - The City Council discussed this issue at the August 8 work session and agreed to disband the existing City Center Task Force and accept applications for a new advisory group. Applications are enclosed if you are interested. 9. Project Bulletin - Enclosed is a project bulletin regarding Bass Lake Road Apartments redevelopment area. 10. Development Update - Enclosed is the August development update on current community development projects. 11. Comprehensive Plan Updates - Staff has discussed the proposed comprehensive plan updates with the city's planning consultant and he indicated that he is available to attend the October 4 Planning Commission meeting. City staff is recommending that this matter be scheduled for further discussion when the planning consultant is available to attend the commission meeting. City staff will place this item on the Planning Commission agenda for its meeting in October, if an October meeting is conducted. 12. Woodbridge - An invitation is enclosed for you to tour Woodbridge Senior Cooperative and stay for a pizza lunch between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Friday, September 9. 13 Miscellaneous Articles - Attached is the June issue of Zoning Practice. 14. Minutes - Enclosed are Planning Commission minutes for your review. 15. If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff. Miscellaneous Issues Page 3 9/2/05 Attachments: Winnetka Townhomes letter of credit CVS Pharmacy letter of credit 4717 Independence variance - / 2005 backyard drainage improvements plans and specs Approve plans and specs for park improvements 7115 62nd A venue City Center Project Wings Soccer Club Victory Park pond Wincrest Apartment easement 7115 62nd A venue Soil borings at Bass Lake Road Apartments Community-wide survey Emergency Foodshelf Network bonds .,::,; NCRC SAC charges" . ~~. Ci c,',;;:;::<- \ "':-\'.ii&:.c': ~ <:Rental housing program' Train whistle quiet zone City-owned property near 52nd and Pennsylvania avenues Project bulletin August development update Woodbridge invitation Zoning Practice Planning Commission 8/3/05 Minutes Miscellaneous Issu es Page 4 9/2/05 " ~ ERVIEW The city of New Hope has many development and redevelopment projects in progress. Commercial, residential, and industrial expansion and redevelopment is flourishing within the city. Notable items this month include the completion of construction on several projects and city approval for a new restaurant, and retail and office uses at 42nd Avenue North and Quebec A venue. For locations of all developments, see map on last page. PROJECT AREAS A. CVS Pharmacy - CVS Pharmacy is stocking the shelves of the nearly complete 15,000+ square foot drug store located on the southwest comer of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka A venue. Contractors are finishing site work, and CVS plans to have its grand opening this month. The new building will also contain a complementary retail use" still to be determined. B. 42nd and Quebec Avenue Office Condominium/Restaurant Proposal- Planning Constction This redevelopment project moved forward in July when the city's ~~~~~ I~ Planning Commission and City Council approved a preliminary plat I 'I . Concept Approval Comp etion and PUD/CUP applications. After a final plat is submitted and approved by the Council and the building plans are approved, construction can begin on the development, which will feature eight office condominiums, a full service Italian restaurant, Viva Italia, and accessory retail uses to be identified. 1 City staff l1as beel1 workiI1g Witl1 Frey Development al1d lvIcu11ey Land De\Telopn1ent to de\Telop the property, which has undergone extensive clean-up efforts. Final site plans will also be forwarded to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to ensure the development complies with state pollution control regulations. C. City Center - Plarming Cons~ction ~1r~~ I : I~ Concept Approval Completion On August 8, the City Council will discuss the next steps in the City Center redevelopment process. The Council is considering revising the goals and phasing for the redevelopment projectI which might focus on the Winnetka Center and Kmart properties. With a desire to improve commercial activity in the City Center area, the Council is also considering options for working with current business owners to enhance their properties along 42nd Avenue. In January 2005, the Council directed staff to meet with property and business owners in the City Center area to obtain their ideas for improving the City Center area. The city is also working with the major property oWners in the area to identify options for redevelopment and property improvements. D. Sinclair Development - Planning . The city is currently working with Sinclair, which has requested to I Consb;uction ~~~ : I ~ revise the approved plans for its property at Medicine Lake Road and Concept Approval Completion Highway 169. Construction will start after revised building plans are approved. Current plans call for the construction of new pump islands, canopy, convenience store and car wash. E. Paddock Laboratories - Paddock Laboratories has completed the exterior of its new addition on the existing building at 3940 Quebec Avenue North. The structure will add 10,018 square feet of warehouse space. Work continues inside the addition, which will allow expanded warehouse operations for the pharmaceutical business. The business now has over 153,000 square feet. This expansion is the third addition to the building, which was constructed with 80,300 square feet in 1994. The company recently approached the city with plans to expand office space 2 vvithin tl1e existing building, and is vvorking vvit11 Holy Nativity C11UTc11 on a joint-llse parking agreell1ent to ensure parking levels are adequate for the growing business. ~! ,Master Transfer (8401 54th Avenue North) - ; PI~g Cons ction ~;W~ii*,~~~~ ~ Concept Approval Completion Construction is undervvay on Master Transfer, with all walls complete and utility connections underway. The building iji made significant progress in the month of July. Master Transfer provides local cartage for the manufacturing sector and caters to the printing and recycling industries. Construction began in June, after revised plans were approved in March 2005. The site will feature a 5,048 square foot warehouse facility. G. Navarre Corporation- Pending final site approval, the public improvements bond secured for this site will be released this summer. Construction is complete on the new Concept Approval Completion 111,000 square foot office/warehouse building connected to the original building, and which has more than doubled the size of the complex. 'The expansion brings 180 additional jobs to New Hope. The city provided $450,000 in Tax Increment Financing to assist with sewer relocation and site improvement costs. H. ColliSys - consrtion I. A busy construction season has delayed the outdoor storage project at Collins Electrical Systems. The company had received approval to Completion amend its conditional use permit to expand the outdoor storage at its headquarters located at 4990 Highway 169 North. The company will construct a 27,000 square foot storage area on the east (rear) side of the property to store company ovvned vehicles and construction equipment. The storage area will be surrounded with a six-foot high chain link fence. The project should begin this fall. I. 5501 Boone Avenue North- linden Place and Linden Park - Planning I Cons~ction ~~~~~iii~:r~~ Concept Approval Completion Construction is progressing smoothly at Linden Place, a new 35- unit affordable housing project located at 5501 Boone A venue. Project for Pride in Living, Inc. (PPL) received approval for the 3 consh~llctioll of a 35-mut apartnlellt building culd a 41-Ullit O\Vller occupied C011dolniniwn buildulg (llalned Linden Park) in 2004. Linden Place apartments will be completed in August, with occupancy begirming in September. Linden Park condominium construction will begin in September 2005. The New Hope Economic Development Authority approved the use of Tax Increment Financing assistance for soil correction efforts; each, building is built on pilings due to poor soil. I _ J. Bass lake Road Apartments - ~~~anning I c01 cti on 1+ Four development teams are preparing project proposals for the, B~ss Concept Approval Completion Lake Road Apartments redevelopment area, a pnoTlty redevelopment area identified by the City Council in 2002. The developers are proposing high-end condominiums that take advantage of the excellent views of the New Hope Village Golf Course. The development teams will submit their proposals on September 2. All New Hope community members are invited to attend an open house at City Hall on Thursday, September 8, to view the project proposals and provide feedback. The Council plans to select a preferred developer at the end of September. K. Winnetka Green - Planning Cons~ction ~~~~~ Concept Approval I Completion The final building is under construction at Ryland Homes' Winnetka Green project, which is located on the southeast comer of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. Residents have moved into over 115 of the 175 condominiums and town homes that comprise the redevelopment project. Area improvements, such as storm water improvements, new playground equipment in Elm Grove Park and the installation of new sidewalks, are under construction and the project will be mostly complete by the end of 2005. L. Winnetka Townhomes - PI~g I Consquction ~~~~~~~ :~. Concept Approval CompletlOn Pinnacle HOllles continues conshuction on the townhouse buildings at 5610-5696 Winnetka Avenue. Siding and exterior finishing was recently completed on one of the buildings' exteriors. When complete, the project will include six buildings with a total of 44 owner-occupied townhome units. Occupancy of some units is expected this fall or winter. Overhead utilities will be buried this month and city will reconstruct the sidewalks along Winnetka Avenue. The city is also working with adjacent property owners to make storm water improvements in the area. M. Woodbridge Senior Cooperative - Construction is complete on Woodbridge, a four-story, 78-unit owner- occupied senior cooperative at 5650 Boone Avenue North. The structure contains one and two-bedroom units, patios and terraces, and undergrormd parking. Units are selling for $120,000 to $240,000. Occupancy of the building is currently taking place, with final completion of the project, including site work, in summer 2005. 4 i'~. Rosalyn Court Condominiums - Cons~ction I I I ~ Completion T - Tuly, the Planning Commission and City Louncil gave preliminary plat and CUP IPUD approval to Rosalyn Court LLC for a new condominium conversion project in the city. The five apartment buildings on Rosalyn Court, east of Winnetka Avenue on Medicine Lake Road, will be converted into condominiums. There will. be 60 total units, and prices will. range from $80,000 to over $100,000 for one and two-bedroom units. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT O. Hillside Terrace Development and Regional Storm Water Pond - Pl~ I c0I1ction Grading and utility installation is complete for this infill site, which ~~,y~~, Y-K- '~;?:P}%'~;f::'''''''/.:<;(~''''''''~~~'--- ;.:-',....~ ";\OJ ~,~' ~~.:::;.:::~/~ :./'< 41 cot;~~~l;,~~fK:~~~~ coml~tion will. feature seven single-family homes. A final course of street paving will. occur in August 2005. The New Hope City Council approved a final plat request by Alan Chazin Homes to subdivide a 2.4-acre parcel previously owned by the Parish Community of St. Joseph into seven single-family lots. The developer plans to construct seven custom homes on the site with a finished value of $600,000 to $800,000. Some lots will be sold to hornebuilders this year, with other lots sold next year. Construction on the homes is expected to start in fall 2005. The project also includes the construction of a regional storm water pond, which is a joint effort between the city of New Hope and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. P. 5207 Pennsylvania Avenue North - Formdation work is nearing completion, and framing will soon begin on the new house at 5207 Pennsylvania Avenue. Construction began on the new single family home during July 2005. The new home will be occupied by the end of the year. The New Hope EDA acquired the property in late 2004, then demolished the substandard house in April 2005 and sold the property to Avery Homes. The city closed its sale of the property in late June. Q. 4301 and 4317 Nevada Avenue North - Co~ction Final preparations are underway to demolish the existing substandard I ~ houses at 4301 and 4317 Nevada Avenue North. After demolition Completion occurs, the developer will build six twinhomes on the two lots. Construction of the new h9mes will begin late this summer. The New Hope City Council and Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation (NCRC) have parb1ered to develop six twinhome units on two substandard single family properties at 4301 and 4317 Nevada Avenue North. Requests for variances were approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. 5 ., Er:)~~L"~:, r~~r~lI'~ r. (r B C 0 r- F G u .. 4. + ... . . I Development Locations A. CVS Pharmacy B. 42nd & Quebec Retail/Office Condo c. City Center Redevelopment D. Sinclair Development E. Paddock Laboratories F. Master Transfer G. Navarre Corporation H. ColliSys I. Linen ParkILinden Place J. Bass Lake Road Apartments K. Winnetka Green L. Winnetka Townhomes M. Woodbridge Senior Cooperative N. Rosalyn Court Condominiums O. Hillside Terrace Developments P. 5207 Pennsylvania Avenue North Q. 4301/4317 Nevada Avenue North 6