The URL can be used to link to this page

050410 Planning1 0 Cr City of New Hope Meeting Date: May 4, 2010 Report Date: April 28, 2010 Planning Case: 10 -02 Petitioner: Robert Zeglin and Amy Obraske Address: 5801 Boone Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428 Project Name: NA Project Description: Privacy fence along Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue Planning Request: Variance I. Type of Planning Request Variance. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a six -foot privacy fence in the legal front yard along Bass Lake Road. The orientation of the home fronts Boone Avenue, which is the legal side yard. The applicant desires to utilize the yard on the south side of the house, and due to the busy intersection, would like to fence this area to make it a more useable space for a family. A variance is requested to allow a fence in the legal front yard six feet in height. The code permits a 42 inch fence beyond the front yard setback, therefore a variance is requested to allow an additional 30 inches in fence height in the front yard beyond the setback. A variance is a way that a city may allow an exception to part of a zoning ordinance. It is a permitted departure from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a particular piece of property. A variance is generally for a dimensional standard (such as setbacks or height limits). A variance allows the landowner to break a dimensional zoning rule that would otherwise apply. A city exercises so- called "quasi- judicial" authority when considering a variance application. This means that the city's role is limited to applying the legal standard of undue hardship to the facts presented by the application. The city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the legal standard. If the applicant meets the standard, then the variance should be granted. 11. Zoning Code References Section(s) 4- 3(d)(3) Fencing & Screening 4- 5(f)(4) Setbacks 4 -36 Administration - Variances 111. Property Specifications Zoning: R -1, Single Family Residential Location: Northwest corner of intersection of Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue Planning Case Report 10 -02 Page 1 5/4/10 Adjacent Land Uses: Low density residential to the north, east and west. High density senior housing to the southeast. Industrial to the south and southwest. Site Area: 10,611 square feet or .24 acres Building Area: NA Lot Area Ratios: Building area: NA Paved area: NA Green area: NA Planning District: District 1. Complies with neighborhood goal of maintaining and upgrading single family housing stock. IV. Background The applicant recently purchased and moved into the property at 5801 Boone Avenue. To better utilize the property the applicant has requested a variance for a six foot fence along the south property line (legal front yard). The previous home owner was an elderly woman who minimally used the outdoor space. The new homeowners are a young couple that would like to be able to use the available space in relative peace and quiet and eventually provide a safe place for a family to enjoy. Due to the shape and configuration of the property, the location of the home on the north end of the lot, and the property's location on a corner, the only useable and potentially private space is that in the legal front yard (side yard orientation) to the south of the home along Bass Lake Road. V. Petitioner's Comments "We are seeking a variance that will allow us reasonable use of our outdoor space by permitting us to install a fence similar in orientation to the property of our neighbors' across the street on the east side of Boone Avenue N. The fence would be 6 feet in height and would conform to sight triangle rules. The current city ordinance states that no fence on the front of the lot shall be higher than 42 inches and setback requirements would not allow a fence to be placed further east than the front of the house. We would like to build this fence with the Council's approval along the red line illustrated on exhibit 2. "On April 15, we had a Design and Review meeting with various New Hope city officials. The suggestion is to move the proposed fence north of the sidewalk on Bass Lake Rd. 5 feet. A 5 foot setback would allow space for snow to accumulate without worrying about damage to the fence. The increased setback would also allow better sight path for the driveway of the property to the west. We would still comply with the 20 foot sight triangle rules as prescribed by the city fence guidelines, with the added setback, there will be plenty of visibility to exit the driveway of 8710 Bass Lake Rd. "If granted the variance, we would be happy to comply with the 5 foot setback along Bass Lake Rd. I have spoken with all of my neighbors and explained what we would like to do. Attached is a list of signatures showing the neighbors' support." VII. Zoning Analysis A. Plan Description 1. Setbacks Planning Case Report 10 -02 Page 2 5/4/10 Due to the property's location on a corner and configuration of the building on the lot, the setbacks and legal yard descriptions are atypical. Although the front of the house is oriented towards Boone Avenue, the legal front yard is the south end that faces Bass Lake Road. This is because the south property line is the shortest yard facing a street. The following setbacks apply to the property: Front (south): 30 feet along Community Collector Street Side (east): 20 feet on corner Side (west): 10 feet Rear (north): 25 feet As defined by 4- 3(d)(3)a.5 of the City Code, corner lots with the building front oriented to the side yard abutting a street, fences over 42 inches may not encroach into either the required front yard setback or the required side yard setback abutting a street. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a six foot fence in the legal front yard beyond the setback of 30 feet. As proposed, the fence meets all sight triangle setback regulations. 2. Circulation Access Traffic and Emergency Vehicle Access Due to some concerns about sight lines near the intersection and the property to the west, some changes have been made to the original proposal. First, the fence along the legal side yard (that abutting Boone Avenue) will be reduced to 42 inches beginning at the corner of Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue. This should allow some additional views for users of the intersection. Second, the fence will be placed five feet behind the south property line along Bass Lake Road to provide additional sight lines and snow storage area. 3. Landscaping and Screening Some trees will be removed as part of a separate landscaping plan while others will be trimmed up to allow more useable space on the property and to provide a cleaner look. The applicant has stated the desire to keep the large pine trees near the south property line. If the five foot setback is too close to the trees, the trees may need to be removed to allow the fence's construction. 4. Neighborhood Character The placement of the fence, while not allowed per code, is not entirely out of character with the neighborhood. As the applicant states, the property owner to the east (who is also located on the busy intersection) has a privacy fence along Bass Lake Road. Although fences beyond the front of the house are not common in the city, they are allowed beyond the setbacks per code if 42 inches or below. The fence along Boone Avenue will be reduced to 42 inches and while not the legal front yard, the yard along Boone Avenue serves as the useable front yard of the home. This should not interfere with the character of homes along Boone Avenue. B. Zoning Code Criteria 1. Variance: 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 noneconomic hardship in Planning Case Report 10 -02 Page 3 5/4/10 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. An application for a variance requires a public hearing. Hardship. 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 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. Findings: Staff believes the applicant has adequately and reasonably met all of the criteria for approval of a variance for the following reasons: a. Due to the lot's location and configuration, the useable outdoor space is limited to the legal front yard. The north and west yard are relatively small due to the placement of the home in the northwest corner of the lot. The front of the house, which faces the legal side yard, is not a private space due to it fronting Boone Avenue. This leaves the legal front yard as the only potentially private space large enough to fully utilize. b. The lot is located at the intersection of two major streets in New Hope — Boone Avenue and Bass Lake Road. These roads maintain high levels of traffic which result in noise, exhaust, traffic stacking and a lack of privacy. This reduces the potential enjoyment of the property. The home has been placed in the northwest corner of the lot to provide an adequate setback from the busy intersection which has in effect reduced the useable space to that of the front yard fronting Bass Lake Road. c. The property slopes upwards from Bass Lake Road towards the north end of the property. Because of the slope, a 42 inch fence as permitted by code would not be adequate to provide privacy to the owners. A six foot fence is required to block the views from Bass Lake Road. d. The lot's location within the block is unique in that lots to the west are oriented to Bass Lake Road while the lots to the north are oriented to Boone Avenue. In this respect, the home is consistent with the development patterns along Boone Avenue. (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. Findings: Because this property is a corner lot with the front of the home facing the legal side yard it faces unique limitations not faced by other properties in the zoning district. This situation is truly unique to only a handful of properties in the city, some of which have been permitted variances to allow privacy fencing. Additionally, other corner lots in the city facing similar privacy concerns do not face the hardship of close proximity to two busy roads. Planning Case Report 10 -02 Page 4 5/4/10 (3) The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner or any previous owner. Findings: It could be argued that the house location is a hardship created by the previous owner. However, the proximity to the Boone Avenue/Bass Lake Road intersection warrants the house location for site access and setback away from the high traffic volumes along Bass Lake Road. (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. Findin &s: Staff believes the applicant has adequately and reasonably met all of the additional criteria for approval of a variance for the following reasons: a. While the introduction of a six foot fence along Bass Lake Road will minimally alter the character of the neighborhood and the intersection, it should be noted that the property to the east has been allowed to erect a similar size fence. The applicant has surveyed adjoining property owners and renters and received support for the variance. b. The creation of the privacy fence will not impair the supply of light or air to the adjacent properties nor increase the congestion of public streets, increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. c. A six foot fence is required to adequately screen the property due to the slope of the yard. This is the minimal action required to eliminate the hardship. d. Tall fences are an allowed use within the R -1 single family residential zoning district however, due to the parcel's orientation, the useable side yard is considered the legal front yard. C. Design and Review Committee The Design and Review Committee met on April 15 to discuss the application. The committee was generally supportive of the project but had the following comments: - Concern with visibility at the corner of Boone Avenue and Bass Lake Road and the driveway at 8710 Bass Lake Road. Committee requested the fence be placed back five feet to the north than proposed. - In addition to providing better sight lines, the committee felt placing the fence further to the north would reduce the risk of damage to the fence as a result of snow plowing. D. Approval 1. Variance - quasi - judicial 2. Timeline Planning Case Report 10 -02 Page 5 5/4/10 a. Date Application Deemed Complete: April 9, 2010 b. End of 60 -Day Decision Period: June 8, 2010 c. End of 120 -Day Decision Period: August 7, 2010 VI. Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments. The applicant has submitted a signed petition in support of the variance from eight adjacent property owners and renters. VIII. Summary The applicants, Robert Zeglin and Amy Obraske, are requesting a variance to allow a six foot fence beyond the setback in the legal front yard of their home at 5801 Boone Avenue North. The couple has made the request as they seek to construct a fence to allow them privacy in the only useable space on their lot. Due to the constraints of the lot, the only useable space is that in the legal front yard along the south property lot line. The orientation of the house is to the east, facing Boone Avenue which is the legal side yard. The applicants are proposing a six foot fence five feet from the south property line. The code allows for a 42 inch fence outside of the property setback. The variance would allow the couple to construct a fence taller than 42 inches outside the setback. The adjoining neighbors have stated their support for the project by a petition distributed by the applicant. IX. Recommendation Staff believes the proposal is a reasonable improvement to the property to ensure privacy and full use of the outdoor space. The hardship tests for the proposal have been met and well documented. Staff recommends approval with the following requirements of approval: 1. The fence must be set back five feet from the south lot line. 2. The fence shall maintain traffic visibility setbacks at both Bass Lake Road/Boone Avenue intersection and along the west lot line, protecting the driveway on the lot abutting said lot on the west. 3. The fence shall be tapered down from six feet to 42 inches beginning at the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue. The fence along Boone Avenue shall not exceed 42 inches. 4. All posts or similar supporting instruments used in the construction of fences shall be faced inward toward the property being fenced, unless symmetrical. 5. The fence shall be at least five percent open for passage of air and light. Attachments: • Application • Narrative • Plans /Photographs • Location maps • Revision to application • Neighborhood support petition • Planning consultant memorandum (April 27, 2010) • Application log Planning Case Report 10 -02 Page 6 5/4/10 Applicant acknowledges that before this request can be considered and /or approved, all fees, including the basic zoning fee and any zoning deposits (as outlined in the attached application materials) must be paid to the city and that, if additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by the city, the city manager has the right to require additional payment. The city hereby notifies the applicant that state law requires that the development review be completed within 60 days from the city's acceptance of this application. If the development review cannot be completed within 60 days, regardless of the reason, the city shall extend the review completion deadline an additional 60 days as also permitted by state law. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant in writing. The Community Development Department will notify you of all meetings. Signed: 06 1 ��, 0 q1 4 11 0 Fee Owner (print or type name) ?_o6,-r4- �9 1%, q,--y L 06r—" Pc_ Applicant Other than Owner (print or type) FOR CITY USE ONLY Evidence of Ownership Submitted: Yes No Required Certified Lot Survey: Yes No Required Legal Description Adequate: Yes No Required Legal Ad Required: Yes No Required Date of Design & Review Meeting: Date of Planning Commission Meeting: Approved: Denied: By Planning Commission on: Approved: Denied: By City Council on: Subject to the following conditions: Addendum to Application: Please Outline Description of Request: We are seeking a variance that will allow us reasonable use of our outdoor space by permitting us to install a fence similar in orientation to the property of our neighbors across the street on the East side of Boone Ave N. (See exhibit 1) The fence would be 6ft in height and would conform to sight triangle rules. The current city ordinance states that no fence on the front of the lot shall be higher than 42 inches and setback requirements would not allow a fence to be placed further East than the front of the house. We would like to build this fence with the council's approval along the red line illustrated on exhibit 2. Why Should Request be Granted? Amy and I purchased the property at 5801 Boone Ave N. on January 21 We purchased the home with the intention of adding a privacy fence to create a usable outdoor space on the south end of the property. It is our intent to have children in the next few years. The current state of the South side of our property has no reasonable use and would not be suitable for a new family. Given the location on Bass Lake Road and Boone Ave, there are always high volumes of traffic passing by or waiting in turn lanes at the intersection. The rear of the house is about 15 feet from house to lot line which adjoins the western properties driveway. Given the complete lack of privacy, the outdoor space is unusable at its current state. I began looking into obtaining the necessary permits to be able to start our fencing project this summer. I quickly realized we have an issue with the City of New Hope zoning code which defines the front of a lot as, "that boundary abutting a public right -of -way having the least width." This causes a hardship based on the following 1.) The unusual orientation of the house - the front of the house faces the side of the lot. The front of the lot (south end of property) faces Industrial property. 2.) The slope of the lot — a 42 inch fence would not provide privacy since the yard slopes upward toward the house. When looking at the yard from Bass Lake Road you would easily see over the fence. Even the 6 foot fence we are requesting will not completely provide adequate screening but will make the space usable. 3.) The unusual shape of the lot — The majority of the property's outdoor space is located on the side of the property 4.) The amount of traffic that passes the property at any given time —The property is next to a busy intersection. The feeling of privacy cannot be obtained with direct view of the busy roads. 5.) Noise —The outdoor space cannot be reasonably enjoyed without obstructing the traffic noise from Bass Lake road and Boone Ave. Sound waves travel in a straight line and reflect off hard surfaces. If you can still see the source of noise, sound is not muffled. A 1 Thic rarneact is hacnrl nn rancnnnhla itca of tha nrnnarhi and is not intandod fnr arnnnmir vain 7.) We will not be placing the fence in a manner that would unsafely obstruct traffic or pedestrians view of the intersection by using appropriate setbacks and 20 ft sight triangles. The sight triangles will be oriented 20 ft from the sidewalk to ensure no unsafe obstructions are created for pedestrians. 8.) The variance would be needed to allow the preservation of the two evergreen trees on the south of the property — were the variance not granted, we will have to build the fence further into the property to remain compliant with city ordinance. This would force us to have to remove these trees. Details of proposed plan (Exhibit 1) Neighbor's fence aerial, my property is on left side of picture Neighbor fence setback on corner (Exhibit 2) Neighbors fence on Bass Lake looking east from Boone intersection Proposed fence line Current view from rear of house facing south towards Bass Lake Road Current view from south side of property looking towards Boone Current view from Bass Lake Road looking north ho rear mf house and neighbors driveway ^- \ - View from 3VV corner oflot looking East down Bass Lake towards Boone Proposed fence from front door looking south Fence in Backyard The fencing material we have selected is pressure treated 1x6 planks with dog eared tapers at the top. We would stain the material with a brown stain to create an aesthetically pleasing look and ensure the fence is well maintained. All fence posts will be on the inside of the property, Example of materials wewould use, color will vary based onstain o a gull 6010 `° 00 63 07 quiz - in ;U ww ouzo 6025 (., r 6O1 6000 g $ N o g 6011 6024 6008 6017 L ` 6001 1 6009 60771 AVE N 6016 601 9015 5965 5964 5965 5964 $965 5956 5957 5944 RON 5957 5956 5957 5956 $9 59 LIBERTY 3957 5948 5949 �`Y 5949 5948 5949 5940 5941 PARK 5941 5940 5941 5940 5933 5932 5933 5932 59331 5932 5933 5935 5924 5925 "' " ' �, 5900 5925 z 5914 5925 z 5924 5815 5912 5917 5916 5917 Q 5916 5917 5916 5917 5908 5909 0� X 5908 1" ,' ��t" �� Y l "t 4 5924 5909 5908 5909 5908 SgOg d 5908 5909 5904 5905 59 5904 ' ' 51 4 5E 58 5906 24 820 5901 z 5900 5901 - W 5900 5901 5900 5901 5900 5901 z 5900 5900 � 5916 5828 v �'' 5848 5849 5848 5857 v 5856 5857 5828 5828 5901 �t�� 5908 5 849 5831 5837 5840 ` b 5840 5841 5840 5848 5900 $832 5816 5841 5848 5849 5824 5827 6836 $a 5832 5833 5832 5841 5820 a 5820 5832'' �{ 5833 5840 5841 5823 w ww �A 5836 4 58 5829 a 5812 5825 5825 5824 5$33 5832 5833 5816 5819 cc G o- a 5817 5816 5817 $815 5812 5808 16 5824 5825 O� rtt0 9� 5809 5808 5808 5817 $809 5816 5817 Q8 8517 y p` z 5801 5800 5801 5809 5808 5804 5788 578 � `840X'_1 5800 A 5809 $ 5174 576 ° �`�' 841 840 840 5801 5802 5700 p� 516 5156 � 840 g � 3 570 5793 z 841 N ae� 5716 5800 8616 5732 5740 748 5789 4 P 8401 5701 .8901 8801 8711 86 8520 8512 5785 C 8411 5741 qSS 8506 Y 8421 Rp 8502 5781 5700 5777 8420 8400 � l c 813 8511 5650 8431 4 4` 5625 8333 5649 r�� 5645 z 5650 5627 8317 _ x 5835 a x r x 5632 5621 z 5629 VICTORY t a ��`e '�� Z ThN 5625 5615 - a 5600 8510 5624 .K 5621 8500 5609 z 5619 P 'K 5603 ° 5600 N 8748 5601 5600 5615 z 8420 N 8700 56TH AVE N 5605 5556 CENTER E AST 0 4rja G Q•� 8801 5555 NORTH 5530 HOSrERMAN _ RIDGE 5555 JR HIGH SCHOOI 5501 APART. 5500 PUBLIC WQRKS MENTS GARAGE 5500 9101 5445 I 55TH AVE N 5436 5437 5436 5437 . .. .. .. . s. About the application - - - - --r --- - - I 1 H IN] Hennepin County Property Locator Zoom In Zoom Out ® Pan / Move Fol Identify P1 Clear Map El Parcel City County ED Print Overview 10 Legend �a About the application 1 Parcels updated on: 3/3/2010 Welcome to Hennepin County's Property Locator. To begin using the application either search by (PID, Address, A or Twp -Rng -Sec) using the "Quick Search" commands or simply navigate to the desired location using the "Map T For more detailed information click on the Help Button! Although extensive effort has been made to produce error free and complete data, all geographic information has limitations due to the scale, resolution, date and interpretation of the original source materials. You should consul) available data documentation (metadata) for these particular data to determine their limitations and the precision which they depict distance, direction, location or other geographic characteristics. These data may be subject to oeriodic chance without orior notification. Copyright © 2010 Hennepin County Minnesota l www.Hennepin.us cessibility Policyl Contact Henn pin_Cnuintyl Sracurity /Privacy Statement http: / /gis.co. hennepin. mn .us /HCPropertyMap/Locator.aspx 03/30/2010 Revision to Application: On April 15 h we had a design and review meeting with various New Hope city officials. The city officials had two concerns about the fence. The first is the possible obstruction to visibility for the driveway of the property to the west. The second concern Is the snow pile from Bass Lake rd. The city officials offered a solution to remedy both concerns while allowing us to still install an adequate privacy fence. The suggestion is to move the proposed fence north of the sidewalk on Bass Lake rd 5 ft. A 5 ft setback would allow space for snow to accumulate without worrying about damage to the fence. The increased setback would also allow a better sight path for the driveway of the property to the west. We would still comply with the 20ft sight triangle rules as prescribed by the city fence guidelines, with the added setback, there will be plenty of visibility to exit the driveway of 8710 Bass Lake Rd. If granted the variance, we would be happy to comply with the 5 foot setback along Bass Lake Rd. I have spoken with all of my neighbors and explained what we would like to do. I explained the current rule restricting the height along Bass Lake Rd to 3.5 ft and explained that we were applying for a variance to build 6ft tall along Bass Lake Rd to Boone. All of the neighbors were supportive including the renters and owner of the property at 8710 Bass lake Rd. Attached is a list of signatures showing the neighbors support. Thank you for your consideration, z ouullalAl �- Robert Zeglin and Amy Obraske 4/22/2010 Signed Dal ♦ owner/ renter of property at T\J give my approva� to proceed with a 6 foot tall fence along Bass Lake Rd as proposed in Signed ,;J7 Date Signed Date --�, : A e- 4- owner/ renter • property at '5a()L e Ave NJ_, giverriyapprovC. to proceed with a 6 foot tall fence along Bass Lake Rd as proposed in 1 1 Signed S Al T Signed -* 1) Date Date Signed Date I owner/ renter of property at ,� I�op- 43 ao A/ r "P , / X1 . givernyapproval to proceed with a • foot tall fence along Bass Lake Rd as proposed in to proceed with a 6 foot tall fence along Bass Lake Rd as pr posed irk. , Robert and Amy's application. /11V41- 'A�U-Iae� Signed uz Date �' Signed Date owner/ renter of property at � _ ge,.ss ... L&,ye- I?IAI give my approval I,C &CI owner/ ro of property at S'7(o V-� aA give my afp�roval to proceed with a 6 foot tall fence along Bass Lake Rd as proposed in Date Y. -- I'D NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners @nacplanning.com TO: Curtis Jacobsen FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: April 27, 2010 RE: New Hope — Zeglin/Obraske Fence Variance: 5801 Boone Avenue FILE NO: 131.01 — 10.02 Robert Zeglin and Amy Lyn Obraske have filed an application for variance to allow a six foot fence within the front yard of the home at 5801 Boone Avenue in New Hope. Section 4- 3(d)(3)b states: 3. Tall fences. Fences up to eight feet in height may be located within the required side and rear yard setbacks of a lot which is behind the required front yard building setback as defined within the applicable zoning district. The applicants' lot is a corner lot at the northwest corner of Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue. Their home is facing Boone Avenue, however the narrowest dimension of the lot is along Bass Lake Road. By zoning definition, the south property line is the front of the lot. The home is built on the northern portion of the lot, with both the house front and garage access facing Boone Avenue. The house location and orientation was likely sensitive to the lot's proximity to two major City streets — Bass Lake Road (minor 2 arterial at 22,500 ADT in 2005) and Boone Avenue (collector street at 6,900 ADT in 2005). The location of the home results in the largest usable yard being south of the home. The previous owner was an older empty nester that had little need for usable outdoor yard space. The applicants are a young couple who purchased the property with ambitions of raising a family at this location. The proposed fence is intended to shield the yard from traffic noise and commotion from the Bass Lake Road /Boone Avenue intersection, providing a safe and enjoyable location for the residents and their children. ISSUES ANALYSIS Variance. Section 4 -36 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance outlines the procedures and criteria for granting a variance as follows: (c) Hardship. 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 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 is reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code. Comment. Hardship is the unique physical condition of the property that prevents reasonable use of the property without variance. In examining this request, the applicants and staff identify the following hardships that influence the design and use of the lots: a. The lot is located at the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue — two high volume streets. Traffic volume, traffic speeds, and traffic stacking at the intersection present real issues for the private enjoyment of the available yard space such as traffic safety, noise and exhaust. b. The proximity to Bass Lake Road has influenced the design for this lot and lots to the west. Each lot has provided an increased setback to move these homes away from Bass Lake Road. House placement influenced the location and size of available yard space. c. The slope of the yard upward from Bass Lake Road prevents the use of a shorter 42 inch fence to provide privacy to the south yard and home. The applicants argue that a six foot fence is the minimum height needed to achieve some screening of the south yard and home. d. The lot's location within the block is also unique in that lots to the west are oriented to Bass Lake Road. The existing homes and lots to the north are oriented to Boone Avenue. In this respect, the home is consistent with the development patterns along Boone Avenue. The aforementioned physical characteristics are unique to the property and have influenced site design and use. The fence location will serve to screen and secure the property from nuisance and safety related to traffic on Bass Lake Road. 2 (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. Comment. In examining the site conditions, the accumulative hardships make the site unique. Examination of the New Hope zoning map reveals some lots of similar design or building orientation, however the adjoining streets are not of the functional classification of Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue, which have influenced the site design of this property. (3) The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner or any previous owner. Comment. It could be argued that the house location is a hardship created by the previous owner. However, the proximity to the Boone Avenue /Bass Lake Road intersection warrants the house location for site access and setback away from the high traffic volumes on Bass Lake Road. (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. Comment. The introduction of a six foot fence will visually alter the character of the area by screening the south yard of this lot. However, it should be noted that a single family lot immediately east of this lot has erected a similar fence. In this regard, the Planning Commission must determine if the fence is detrimental to this area of the City. The applicants have solicited their neighbors who have offered written support of this variance. The proposed six foot fence is proposed to screen the existing home and south yard from traffic on Bass Lake Road. The fence will not impact light and air to adjoining properties. Staff does not have concerns for the fence placement related to proximity to the right -of -way of Bass Lake Road. If approved, staff recommends that the fence maintain a five foot setback from the south lot line to protect traffic sight lines along Bass Lake Road and provide snow storage area for the Bass Lake Road sidewalk. 3 The Design and Review Committee also recommended that the fence be tapered down beginning at the Bass Lake Road /Boone Avenue intersection and only a 42 inch fence be extended along Boone Avenue. • • This application was presented to the Development Review Committee on April 14, 2010 and Design and Review Committee on April 15, 2010. The following recommendations reflect those meetings. In review of the proposed fence variance, staff finds that the request height and location are appropriate to overcome the physical hardships of the property and put the property to reasonable use. We recommend approval of the requested variance finding that the following hardships exist: • The site location at the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue expose the home and yards to high traffic volumes, traffic speeds, noise and exhaust. The use of a fence is seen as reasonable to screen the property and allow reasonable use of the south yard. • The site design of the lot with the house located near the north lot line is reflective of efforts to mitigate traffic safety and nuisance issues related to the lot's proximity to Bass Lake Road. * The site topography warrants a taller fence to screen Bass Lake Road. Approval of the variance is given with the following conditions: 1. The fence must be set back five feet from the south lot line. 2. The fence shall maintain traffic visibility setbacks at both the Bass Lake Road/ Boone Avenue intersection and along the west lot line, protecting the driveway on the lot abutting said lot on the west. 3. The fence shall be tapered down from six feet to 42 inches beginning at the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue. The fence along Boone Avenue shall not exceed 42 inches. 4. All posts or similar supporting instruments used in the construction of fences shall be faced inward toward the property being fenced, unless symmetrical. 5. The fence shall be at least five percent open for passage of air and light. c: Eric Weiss Jason Quisberg Roger Axel Pam Sylvester 2 CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG A B C D E F G H I J Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 60- Date Deadline Date city Date city cation application was sent day time day Applicant for city approved or sent response number Name received notice limit extension was notified action denied the to Applicant Address by city that required expires expires of under application Phone information extension extension was missing or waiver 10 -02 Robert Zeglin and 4/9/10 Amy Obraske 6/8/10 8/7110 5801 Boone Avenue N New Hope 55428 952 - 738 - 1893 -h 763 - 255 - 7505 -w 06- 118 -21 -31 -0009 Boxes A -C and E -F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the city's procedures and the date of a specific application. A. Assign each application a number. B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). C. List the date the city received the application. D. List the date the city sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the city gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60 -day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 60 -day extension, begin counting from the day following the first 60 -day limit, include all calendar days. G. The city will notify the Applicant by mail that a 60 -day extension period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver. I. The city must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) J. List the date that the city sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the city not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: May 4, 2010 Report Date: April 28, 2010 Planning Case: 10 -01 Petitioner: Independent School District 281 Address: 8525 62nd Avenue North Project Name: Meadow Lake Elementary School parking lot Project Description: New parking lot and bioretention pond, improvements to existing parking lots Planning Request: Conditional Use Permit amendment and Site Plan Review 1. Type of Planning Request Conditional Use Permit (CUP) amendment. A conditional use is a land use designated in a zoning ordinance that is specifically allowed in a zoning district so long as certain standards are met. The zoning ordinance details both general standards that apply to all conditional uses, as well as specific standards that apply to a particular conditional use in a given zoning district. A conditional use permit is a document a city issues to grant a conditional use when the general and specific ordinance standards have been met by the applicant. The use is allowed by permit only if the special concerns are addressed as set forth in the zoning ordinance. A city exercises so- called "quasi- judicial" authority when considering a CUP application. This means that the city's role is limited to applying the standards in the ordinance to the facts presented by the application. The city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the standards. If the applicant meets the standards, then the CUP should be granted. A CUP amendment is a change to the original CUP to allow for a significant change in size, circumstances, or scope of operations allowed by the original CUP. Site Plan Review. To insure that the purposes of the City Code are followed, a comprehensive review of site, building and development plans shall be made by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council prior to, the issuance of any building permits by the building official. A site plan is the development plan for one or more lots which shows the existing and proposed conditions of the lot, including; topography, vegetation, drainage, floodplains, waterways, open spaces, walkways, means of ingress and egress, utility services, landscaping, structures and signs, lighting, screening devices, and other information that reasonably may be required in order that an informed decision can be made by the city. Site plan review shall be required for development activities including new construction, moving of buildings, major modifications /expansion projects, grading /soil changes, major fagade improvements and variations from the Design Guidelines. Planning Case Report 10 -01 Page 1 5/4/10 11. Zoning Code References Section(s) 4- 5(e)(1) Conditional uses, R -1- Public, educational and religious buildings 4 -33(d) Administration - Conditional Use Permit amendment 4 -35 Administration - Site Plan Review III. Property Specifications Zoning: R -1, Single Family Residential Location: Southeast corner of 62nd and Boone avenues Adjacent Land Uses: Single family residential. Brooklyn Park to the north. Site Area: 509,189 square feet or 11.69 acres Building Area: 80,433 square feet Lot Area Ratios: Building area: 1.846 acres or 15.8% Paved area: 2.499 acres or 21.4% Green area: 7.344 acres or 62.8% Planning District: Planning District 1. City encourages upgrading of public facilities within the district. IV. Background Located at 8525 62nd Avenue N, Meadow Lake Elementary School is permitted by a conditional use permit in the R -1 single family residential zoning district. The school is proposing to reconstruct its two existing parking lots to the north and west of the school building and construct a new parking lot to the south of the building to accommodate additional staff parking needs. Currently, some staff park along adjacent streets as parking is limited in the existing lots. To accommodate the additional storm water run -off, the school is proposing to construct a bioretention pond to the east of the new south parking lot. The project will include new lighting and landscaping. The city has proposed a larger pond to accommodate additional storm water. V. Petitioner's Comments The proposed project consists of reconstructing the existing north parking lot, reconstructing the existing west parking lot, and constructing a new 27- vehicle parking lot south of the school building. Based on the existing condition of the north and west parking lots, the School District wishes to reconstruct the existing bituminous pavement and perimeter curb system. The footprint of the reconstructed north and west lots would remain very similar to the existing, with minor geometric modifications at the northern parking lot entrance. The resultant impervious surfaces in west parking lot would be reduced slightly due to the elimination of some bituminous pavement in the northwest corner of the parking lot. Modifications to the existing west parking lot lighting system are also proposed. The current parking demand at the school site exceeds the total number of available parking spaces. Reportedly, 12 to 16 staff members routinely park on adjacent residential streets during the school day. Planning Case Report 10 -01 Page 2 5/4/10 If approved, the proposed parking lot would provide 27 additional parking spaces at the site for staff and visitors, and alleviate the need for parking on residential streets. Construction of the south parking lot would include pedestrian walkways for access to the school building and new LED light fixtures. Landscaping west of the proposed parking lot has been incorporated into the design to reduce headlight glare to neighboring residential properties. Storm water runoff from the proposed parking lot will be directed to a new bioretention facility east of the parking lot. VII. Zoning Analysis A. Plan Description 1. Setbacks Parking lots in the R -1 zoning district must be placed five feet behind the property line. The existing north parking lot meets setback requirements and will continue to meet those requirements upon reconstruction. The existing west parking lot is at the property line and does not meet setback standards. The reconstruction will be allowed as a nonconforming use. The proposed south parking lot meets setback requirements. 2. Circulation, Access, Traffic and Emergency Vehicle Access Circulation to the site and within existing and proposed parking lots is adequate. The west lot is used for bus delivery and personal vehicle use. The north parking lot is intended for delivery and personal vehicle use. Both lots are appropriately sized for their intended use. The new south lot will be used for personal vehicle use only. Staff has recommended that the curb cut for the south parking lot be reduced from the proposed 28 feet to a recommended 26 feet. City Code permits a maximum 26 foot curb cut width at the property line for institutional land uses. 3. Curbing, Sidewalk and Pavement City Code requires parking lots be paved and have a continuous perimeter concrete curbing. The site plan illustrates compliance with this standard. 4. Pedestrian Access and Common Space Pedestrian access from the existing parking lots is adequate. The proposed south lot includes a cement pedestrian pathway to the school building. 5. Parking Off - street parking lot requirements as outlined Section 4- 3(e)(10)f require elementary schools provide one parking stall for every seven students based on design capacity and one parking stall for every three classrooms. The three parking lots will provide 106 parking stalls. The existing enrollment of Meadow Lake Elementary is 631 students. This would require 90 parking stalls. Due to ever changing enrollment and class size calculations, it's difficult for the school district to definitively calculate design capacity. The school building standards of today are much different than they were when Meadow Lake was first constructed. Special education and other programs have resulted in more classrooms being used for other activities with fewer students per room. As such, staff has used the current Planning Case Report 10 -01 Page 3 5/4/10 enrollment to calculate parking needs. It should be noted Meadow Lake is one of the largest elementary schools in the Robbinsdale system. There are 37 rooms that are classroom capable at the Meadow Lake School (although only 27 are currently used as classrooms). This requires 12 parking stalls for a total requirement of 102. 6. Landscaping and ScreeninZ Landscaping has been proposed for the south parking lot. Seventeen techny arborvitae along the west edge of the parking lot which will help to screen headlights and the view of the parking lot from adjoining residential properties. Techny arborvitae is a fast growing species that is often used as a hedge, screening or windbreak. They grow to a mature height of 15 -20 feet and 4 -6 feet in width. Staff has requested these plants be moved further to the west to avoid placement on top of the existing storm water sewer. Three Black Hills spruce will be planted along the south edge of the new parking lot. These larger trees are also commonly used for screening or windbreak. Their mature height is 30- 60 feet with a spread of 15 -25 feet. This planting schedule is acceptable to staff. 7. Lighting Plan As part of the parking lot plan, new lights will be installed in all three parking lots. Nine light poles will be removed from the existing parking lots. Those poles are towards the perimeter of the property. Six lights will be installed in the existing lot and four will be installed in the new lot. The lights have been moved toward the building, thereby reducing glare toward adjacent properties. Additionally, the lights used will be LED which will greatly reduce the amount of electricity used. The light poles as proposed are 25 feet in height, which does not meet the Design Guidelines maximum of 15 feet. Staff is willing to waive this requirement as the benefits of the new lights will outweigh the variance from the guidelines. It should also be noted that there is a discrepancy between the Zoning Code and the Design Guidelines. All minimum lighting standards of .2 foot candles have been met. 8. Utility Plan There appear to be no issues with the utility plans as shown less the issue with landscaping over the storm water pipes. 9. Location of Services Loading, Drive - through Trash Equipment and Outdoor Storage Areas No changes to the existing location of services. 10. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control To collect and treat storm water from the new parking lot, the applicant has proposed constructing a biorention pond immediately to the east of said lot. The pond will be a dry pond intended to handle large storm events. Preliminary engineering reviews indicate the feature appears to be adequately sized. Storm water calculations also support the design of this pond. The engineering consultant has requested the applicant submit design volumes before final approval. Planning Case Report 10 -01 Page 4 5/4/10 reduce nutrient runoff to Meadow Lake, the city would like to explore the option of partnering with the school district to provide additional water quality treatment by expanding the size and volume of the pond. Additional impervious areas would be redirected to the pond for treatment (west parking lot). This proposal was shared with the school district representatives at the Design and Review meeting and the school was receptive to the concept. Shingle Creek Watershed District has also been receptive to the idea. The engineer has suggested the pond could be doubled in size without having an effect on the usability of the open space or ball fields or creating hazardous grades. Additional details are provided in the engineer's report. 11. Neighborhood Character This project will not negatively affect the character of the neighborhood. 12. Environment As outlined, this project includes numerous environmentally sensitive improvements. The inclusion of LED lights will decrease the amount of energy used to light the site. The bioretention pond will help alleviate storm water quantity and quality issues. This is especially important considering the close proximity of Meadow Lake. B. Zoning; Code Criteria 1. Conditional use permit amendment. The purpose of a CUP amendment is to allow for significant changes to the original CUP agreement following city review. By reviewing proposed changes, the city can ensure all previous conditions will remain in effect and all proposed changes will meet city standards as outlined by the CUP section of the code. Findings Staff believes the applicant has met the requirements of the CUP for the R -1 zoning district. The applicant has followed the conditions of its original CUP agreement. The proposed renovation and expansion project will benefit the applicant and surrounding neighborhood by removing daytime street parking. The proposed environmental features will also be a benefit to the community. As such, the CUP amendment should be granted. 2. Site Plan review. The purpose of site plan review is to ensure major construction projects meet city standards. Findings. Staff believes through the review process that the applicant has met all city standards. Of the few standards not met in the plans, the applicant has agreed to make changes per the city's request. As proposed, the project is well thought out and should have no negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. As such, the site plan review should be approved. C. Design and Review Committee The Design and Review Committee met with the applicant on April 15. The committee was generally supportive of the project but had the following comments: - Provide inlet protection on 62nd Avenue. - Provide storm water calculations for the south parking lot. Planning Case Report 10 -01 Page 5 5/4/10 - Driveway entrance to south lot should be reduced to 26 feet. - Landscaping should be shifted so it is not planted directly over storm sewer piping - Ball fields are utilized all summer; therefore, minimal construction interference is requested. D. Approval 1. Conditional Use Permit amendment - quasi - judicial 2. Site Plan Review - quasi - judicial 3. Timeline a. Date Application Deemed Complete: April 8, 2010 b. End of 60 -Day Decision Period: June 7, 2010 c. End of 120 -Day Decision Period: August 6, 2010 VI. Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified. Two residents carne to the Community Development Department to review plans and may be in attendance at the public hearing. VIII. Summary The applicant is requesting Site Plan review and a Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow a new 27 -stall parking lot on the south side of the school along Boone Avenue N. The new parking area would provide adequate space so staff and guests do not have to park on nearby residential streets. Both north and west parking lots would be reconstructed and modifications made to the existing lighting. IX. Recommendation Staff believes the applicant has met all of the requirements of the two requested approvals. The project will benefit the nearby residential areas as well as nearby Meadow Lake. Staff recommends approval of the CUP amendment based on plans dated March 25, 2010, with the following conditions: 1. Applicant to enter into a CUP /site improvement agreement with city (to be prepared by the city attorney). 2. Applicant to provide financial guarantee /performance bond for site improvements (amount to be determined by city engineer and building official). 3. The south parking lot curb cut reduced to 26 foot width. 4. Landscaping along the west side of the south parking lot shifted west to avoid placement over the storm water pipes. 5. Provide additional landscaping along 62nd Avenue N, north of the north parking lot. 6. The applicant should provide storm water calculations for the impervious areas. Staff also highly recommends the school district explore the options to direct drainage from a larger portion of the site's impervious area to a larger bioretention facility to improve water quality. Attachments: • Application • Planning consultant memorandum (4/27/10) • Revision to application (4/21/10) • Engineering consultant memorandum (4/28/10) • Plans • Application log • Location maps Planning Case Report 10 -01 Page 6 5/4/10 Applicant acknowledges that before this request can be considered and /or approved, all fees, including the basic zoning fee and any zoning deposits (as outlined in the attached application materials) must be paid to the city and that, if additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by the city, the city manager has the right to require additional payment. The city hereby notifies the applicant that state law requires that the development review be completed within 60 days from the city's acceptance of this application. If the development review cannot be completed within 60 days, regardless of the reason, the city shall extend the review completion deadline an additional 60 days as also permitted by state law. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant in writing. The Community Development Department will notify you of all meetings. Signed: Fee Owner (print or type name) Applicant Other than Owner (print or type) 'Sbr .rat ®�'r e-5 FOR CITY USE ONLY Evidence of Ownership Submitted: Certified Lot Survey: Legal Description Adequate: Legal Ad Required: Date of Design & Review Meeting: Yes Nc Required Yes No Required Yes ✓✓ _.. No Required Yes j � � No Required Date of Planning Commission Meeting: Approved: Denied: By Planning Commission on: Approved: Denied: By City Council on: Subject to the following conditions: Smart engineering of roofs, walls, pavements Community Development City of New Hope and waterproofing 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Re: Application for CUP Amendment and Site Plan Review Dear Planning Staff: Enclosed you will find the submitted documents for consideration of a CUP Amendment and Site Plan Review at Meadow Lake Elementary School. The proposed project consists of reconstructing the existing north parking lot, reconstructing the existing west parking lot, and constructing a new 27- vehicle parking lot south of the school building. North Parking Lot Based on the existing condition of the north parking lot, the School District wishes to reconstruct the existing bituminous pavement and perimeter curb system. The footprint of the reconstructed north parking lot would remain very similar to the existing, with minor geometric modifications at the parking lot entrance. The proposed project also incorporates revisions to the existing parking lot lighting system. Four existing light poles at the perimeter of the parking would be removed and replaced with two light poles, one near the center of the parking lot and one at the eastern edge, with LED fixtures. Erosion control and sediment control practices will be incorporated prior to excavation and during construction, which will include inlet protection at the catch basin structures along 62 "d Avenue. West Parking Lot Based on the existing condition of the west parking lot, the School District wishes to. reconstruct the existing bituminous pavement and perimeter curb system. The . 5801 Duluth Street Minneapolis, MN 55422 footprint of the reconstructed west parking lot would remain very similar to the Ph. 763 -546 -3434 existing, with minor geometric modifications at the northern parking lot entrance. Fax 763 - 546 -8669 The resultant impervious surfaces in the west parking lot would be reduced slightly due to the elimination of some bituminous pavement in the northwest corner of the Chicago parking lot. Milwaukee Modifications to the existing west parking lot lighting system are also proposed. Five existing light poles at the perimeter of the parking would be removed and replaced Minneapolis with four light poles, three near the center of the parking lot and one near the southern edge, with LED fixtures. www.inspec.com City of New Hope April 21, 2010 Page Two Proposed South Parking Lot The current parking demand at the school site exceeds the total number of available parking spaces. Reportedly, 12 to 16 staff members routinely park on adjacent residential streets during the school day. If approved, the proposed parking lot would provide 27 additional parking spaces at the site for staff and visitors, and alleviate the need for parking on residential streets. Constriction of the south parking lot would include pedestrian walkways for access to the school building and new LED light fixtures. Landscaping west of the proposed parking lot has been incorporated into the design to reduce headlight glare to neighboring residential properties. Stormwater runoff from the proposed parking lot will be directed to a new bioretention facility east of the parking lot. A few modifications will be incorporated into the final design plans for the south parking lot in order to address recent requests by the City's Development Review Team. These modifications will include reducing the width of the entrance drive to 26 feet, shifting the western landscape plantings so they are not directly over an existing storm sewer pipe, and providing a temporary construction fence along the eastern edge of the project area to minimize the impact to users of adjacent ballfields. We appreciate your consideration of this request and may be contacted if you require any additional information. Very truly yours, INSPEC, INC. Brent Boelter, P.E. Project Manager :C DEFERRED PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENTS MEADOW LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OWNER: ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 281 4148 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 CIVIL ENGINEER: INSPEC, INC. 5801 DULUTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55422 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: WUNDERLICH-MALEC ENG. INC. 5501 FELTL ROAD MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55343 SURVEYOR: SONDE LAND SURVEYING 9001 E. BLOOMINGTON FREEWAY SUITE 118 BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55420 DRANING SCHEDULE -- eeN£R b4ffr 1 mPW.IMJN (@tOnIW GGNIFQ. PL.W MWIFI) faRM4Yi <IMAINK+E FVN MLRM1U 4 CiRADMi t OIeAM.KiE PW! IBGII{1) 5 LAYOUT, 6TFIPIN6, a PLMi R10RM11/ 6 LAYart, BTRfilltl, aLNObfN"� PLMI tWtH/ Et OEiALB PA<11IL 811E I°I.Ia - LIGFrlMp PEI IXHIM PARTIAL BnE IiA - PIGtOt�'IRIG BITE 01MVt 8525 62ND AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA SCOPE OF WORK Nm� �1� Lot m do cmtrd dMCe i piar b f Uv�elat of ®vc� to ai'btig si[a faJlltl« xMrLetl to rerttln. >, leemeia Ntudmv Per carlata Pwanane, carcse[e aNNrg. ntam eewr piw arA narak, ad 4. Im�leli vwefmm�u+r PIPe ea mvbl« m trevn. s Imwl ron P ala rF� ad wdmwm nyar gttmn m aaw. 6'r""w1tM t row Nfitdnan P a.-a.a�t, �a,�.te tdbug ad eaernee ddn.nk m cant A l idvJectae m man, remava sodm coned dwic« rdloNng uM Yu eim111mua+, and a s pvkmg lot s,e vnrnl zl m nrn.. N amrmt� 9a1 prolmt vd Wilm lrlrlq «n u pevart dareg. u sdalrg Yu taANU« erJadlsd u main. 1 inttal aedm cantrd devices pi Va ttat Pf ecevtticn. vs axlYlrg id Wirer pave ml�cPrv.0 PevamrR. caystn cudrg etl Pakllg bt il�tlrg m amrt 4. Imur ran pvkl��Yfli Ilg.eirg getarte m eaw�. 5. Canu�t ron Meedn pava°erc. eorereu eaMrg, ad eerrreu ddeMt m darn. 6. Imtdl nen kd.:ew mtteNae, rmae aadm caivd devrc« rawwag n.a Yte bvanmuat ad «ars al articled aem. 7. baps peklrg bt eN Irotal dgage m dawt 6ww P�ur�Ml prate! evi Wlia ta= Mcplee ro Rn'/mt da is u edeurg du rslilfl« etivdJed u raMn. 1 Rrotal e%m cmtrd dMCm pia u ule etas d ecwatlm Bung cavele Pevemaa. corc�su urtdrg rercng etam «ir pw ea carte Pmn m dioln. Imtal rcn paklrg kt Ilg Hnt � 5. Caarul ron blWinae pNemmt ubircy ad rarcrMw ddeMk m Yarn i . Comae! bi >eteW« fslllty mr1 etam eerla Mkt m 4arr�. � sec�..e al � t aae�aas. rmave modm crawl derem rdloNr� nrcl at. berolumuar. and B. btrlpe peklrg Id e+d IMaI ron dgags m efnrn. EXCERPTS FROM 5V4F"FP NARRATIVE da, Idumti, pq rar, ed mYtt on�a w m dada nwmES fend etcrmeasPe �t ra eon. �um 4cuvitY hUa nlrm«te Pa timed .ngaey Pal nP'mw <nfn acuwe« a. f',enpl.�t.d a ivwe: w t Pn �� C.@IERAL cCNSrpLCITON PRq£CT Ir&mwtATCN Canaeticn ctiviuw I. er aaYan aarcra daviceb. e i b . bedetm phera e bran 6e�.a INe4 ii emeryrn�eepfa�eedcctt VesetaJan r�I ". 1 ac Nbnlneee Pa�rti ;,N ° rte ° te a se. ;,d �s ��g �n ami r � I mllw;um. ',,,.. m memepl5 va pataml ,vf . «ureuen ad fiM eudll�lar se tmnor im�p�aar ei mea�mt a w <wda� .mlen as marr.ne w,vd erma 2 9tt fence s m q , d �Inr� tine or � wne >�n�irt tt tl efam ««r Ids4 NWn pajct a« pia u ew= avttioe t FMeI plaRifgs atl a Ong in al detubad brn asm. I. fmlrmto' P �Iw�a b s� ro mt tP ce deWbed (ng. Nlh rlep, aeko. tlgn. YIt .aNWn dle2ym� II f.:� of mss: m scw%�a. N °tl W a. � � m Bml 4 — n 1 { HIdeye for Yepee steeps ff >�I b. I 5 dqn fa tlopw betwm 11 >. eioapied t I aa' poN w a!e N+ae cenu.cum ecuvlty Nn ta�pPrall dqe, ad ,Mv Ns eoik an .q»md to P«dbin erodm, NII bs ba,llrmd wm t«oe�w u� a.� �f.«dsi or un, � dqe nan w ku cPml�uae �n.nty x o-nt a«. n^Pa'aY eaedrg dal perada rysyeee a+d area watt gclred tt e rtte of Ira p .if pa are atl �0 paM per are reepauvay. Ira acrored etran rrvYN Uai b• qr.+l ed tt a rtte �0mm pa ass. a i mmp.ey edl em. 11. be o-.tted wa eppropi � memre.. ImJUdag rc rase, was et«rp1�m n an Irstn. r> palate Img.r !` r deyt I M1,a etrtxllmJ« �` °° � r� l �.�a1« n w m`n n ua prP,imt aen mat be Ted wu epprwed .edd«t` de�le« yxs lore�uaw I w41 m cW as gn�t Hsl«0. e�MM > dvJ� cmat be plmed in ° 9al proviW ork caeaction aroaeee tt emF e � �tl« se«n IxWrn. 5. Pe�M Matte a°f CITY +,reatn edJrart u Vn pre « ewyt a miNmm or mca per .wt ea P�� w ed «dmmt ,rae Pana<ba� �a;e,� " pafe�m eddtlaal e«gArg if Vec[ed eedmat In decevered. �me ;d �� ,.nr qn«n w Wn w. ,rtiftt aan R«PV. dy a�.nwneed ..dn�nt nam ..na «. piping..tan.eK beelm, etc. „� N� rfAlNiBi4VGE I. �n gaec �odon cmVd devicen ed ntmlllmd aam a MNmm of ace pa M ad ni,a Bali 2 Imps d f� eedeb . f rt ebem I " O°p i°i an ro�ed eV, �er«Im hW Izetla arse le «cued and PK Ppem an card, ad u naitu dgaW ai eedmem. sae vsinceum devlc« NWn 24 tore arcs a Jment reaMe i/> the nNyrt of u+e devlu. >. s ock �ae�m eNesee dal taw imprtb rw doggly. Bermes ad replxs rorl ua[ Ira become t '�t a ty N smve wee m srdmmintl« rtae e1M1a aau eaaaeum muNry 4 ' .e resw ° i u,e aeJeae am dal be etimr.e dey m ldaralry ay s. P �r�eeurn er o-aie�.«sm�`em nom catarum Ya+a «. n If trmkW mdmed le deeov ad drug ws�ebllY�rp+enbcaerce Pa eagle ad NWn 14 Mue flNN. 6tA64VATON 2 C�on�u M1�Ial�etarillnuen e n - rvdde. flr ProJeeeB ad castncU« Cralrcp Pcifvatian l dl t«paay aWm rmlrol Racuue acs M1nd etdaillmum tae bem �lPdt ea NWU of TtimlrcalPn�t « tM MI hNa >0 dqn dk M1M nttlNFarlrn Is conplau. A8d'cY NiMn GENERAL PROJECT NOTES t GENERAL DETAIL NOTES + DETAIL SYMBOLS i VenfY mavauremevb "va c00Ntinva on of eY J�l i SMaea parflop on key ma mtv U repamant 6kmtmp DwIGNgs p DEFERRED PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE &IMPROVEMENTS oae�e nvegetivaw� v b �aa,r nna , mar as oar a puvm N "a rva i Evnew apac,n µtronevr lrvcl,vn n Sian "sa. rcia e�,� = New soil Naw concceta _ .. m... �. °° " w (® eM fafsw,,,� y Da "mea s ma m amm "" a S 6MGaUy one. yonrona on rcei�oes ° em,uaoti not ^eArpeow -� MEADOW LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS Ozom e xaw,ew p ,pp a , , ammti ,opwo a, " br o •e ek,waiNaw NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA N, �_ _ _ �;..., ROJ. wcR °A ' , n.. mpan„ is rar ma, rnm ara wm ,n cn6lloas o" vam far empivyea, or aUOr pmwm et Da srta ± OlWmrwua p"voment ma . ..� m o No. 9 pC D A I DATb m,1 25 /im SNT. , OF T a V :very mmememenu entl centllUmm pn IM1a pro,gct L Sbatletl pottlnn On DEFERRED PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE &IMPR key aetl mte Plan "Present -9 tivp b wlN • TmV` 3 SpaPRicnbom mclatla brief tlemnphcns of azutmA contlmcnc ExisunA! a EnSUnA� OVEMENTS . Renew apeelflGUVVe for wmracboru aor aM1Pwe on anvnvopss = Naw sou Naw eoanrele MEADOW LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL L. EneUnA e w me ne common vattl tlalaAa may La nptetl "" °"`� "'� ° """"9' M�e35wurr ly one. ne Existin Mew I INSPEC mzmo 5 S�aOetl portbna on tleletb repreaevt eztaUnA contllUOna A e Renew p:%iea apecrFlCnuoos ror manionm ae vm mown on • bese ee8regelc � �� ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS croeniNeo _ NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA PRD1 MGX BB qi. Bi ab� Pcnamie ror mnmtemm ser. wtlr�m � exi �� o .New ��....�m.... contlivovs on for emPlpyeav or o ner persons ee a to bl um us pevemevs n<. � e -- PAO� No. ainl swt lX. � y c, MATCH LINE cEN n__ FR I nto MATC LINE _ _ � .�; � - �°F,�L�pGYL Fi ,- r ,� ,i t'� i oti� a,a,.m a�e.E.:m e ra•n,me .. . as .vr,asrmm ea+ r»dr nu. uartm em,eaeern ' _C 1 , ,i 19 +r�nxnan rove raaa+o arm on+r�an uopm,aam aroma � r I v �camw K+o[auni�,as'w¢e C� A il ' M V al eun«aetae salt. Ga +u,.w vtr aw nu raaverm, rtvna. -. (y� Y v aroreee aranw emarnn aro veuraew, watt aae zo �.w � .:I _ •11:.: � ,..1' l ( 1 3 9D195 ^ r t III �I � J ,. � � b • Il � Avs a2 «a.�.m to�ea ai a w.ae .•o.«ma.�.,. tnv %��.i: �ave•am rn eex«wxa racu.sa va imun eruae so sanns3« . � 4 I orxeoo u «wna.n w s� « wm«. • • .,, ' I ;i .. �� I • .. .;: 1 J I M MPE �1 t E Sf d3E ,TnP l �"' a evmvioe "® ®na uo ma - wv ocee ` _ �� 1N4 90 I TDF' 4,G III IM1V 9I10.J 11.A I'.' f i` IVV s08S I tA' J14 I1CNC1 KEYEb NOTESr ,,, fVV 9DJIN x iDP 9113 1 °i4 9D^ w Mama« ,. e V' 9805 i B Oa"e' �'"°.. e°„reeero s :� „�v. n' � �, r• I�r -nauI < U S _Q (w T U �. CCVL � � l ..rm.�a Ore+ese ruec9e ore are als.ee :ta ve *xw � � t, It1 yJ =;�� I 1 a I i lit' _� .� uma, s� � i �mrae emcn.a.w � 1 ' Q an men¢a cv u®eee nsnene we setH.tamry w re« r - - _ _ _ - uavee+l« acre l•lr[wo, narsua art0 ravrOSaesaraucc � I I WI� 1 ,.\ - y_ 92 \ +�I nrva •+mane eomie w e,®. a.sw rwnm w esn�.um �„ uMae+s w[wiramrt.vevas menu maoawl«w, v .'O : IW I � I J , ,: I Q e.a«e ce re,r eemrax x ws. r•rn nx ®ss •'• i D'i .. .. J ? 1 '<. ` > _1_ <, l:'.' � LEGEND] a10 v s 0 ' r7 t � s, tj s 67ST eews�.� AVENUE — -'� eeawe a*eaw ewe NORTH re, eron ta.ea ma m..i s/v .. • 5 w - . I � 2 � � 9�&m: •” , A .... _...� ,. ? re. a- ore.ar,ee «:,M, a~.a,�.rm, ray.,,. . ; O If. � - - � ,: •mar - t ��- - �\ - - � . r r � a z \ ": •: � e — atns su sat _ � i �-,+ CP't - i•'� !" 4['E ,� f .., �._ y _ _ ,,.. .n, ? v rxn,nre «.meow ` I Oc sxnseu ewe m,x s+e I � � S PVL• � C81 ) Iv IXrerro unrEeawaro w e. :�we ` ,.. ... 3 � \ � � 1 BIOPEiB•ITICks �OLIIT' 5v9.7 .3.r _ 3 ( 5 � PBtRE19i EtEV.•'D'i9m , umne « »avxe a I I \ r \ EE k wttu s,mesavanar t .,r�'i gC -. ( '� ..a jl J -]3.i - �I ...t STORM SEWER SCHEDULE r, GN ° me ez:`•°tawl °'^- asva r ro : , , t, ,`4. Ii, : �.:'.? _ . -. L _ . - . _ _ _ _ ft GRADING 8 DRAINACxE PLAN (SOUTH) .tm Noa1u eta! E w r�r GENERAL PROJECT NOTES r GENFAAL DETAIL NOTES r DETAIL SYMBOLS en y ea nmeare ,aa pp alupae pa ma pre snmea pp un pn ea aw mb pan tap n ant ewa mg nwwmgc & IMPROVEMENTS s S og p,aeNna, m lain eN�P �e npUnn, er n mt E ell g . EnsOnOn DEFERRED PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE . Renew en oevUmelazm °r w r000Ona no��ho 0'a be oo New 80,: New c crab �°'`« " Exulag a Ie enmmnn e i Y MEADOW LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL s. StaneO port one on Cete,la rep em e s g .�5'�7 E ieun i g /New tNSPEC eulo ° a ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS ,. C n�e clot ,hell be pOneDle far meln�ulamg seta wOr�in s E l sa Exlsting /New ...mb a�N....o. r te- po „. ' O � NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA „ can ans Ov arwa ampl0yem m er pmmm et e a tom' 17( It_.1 bituminous pavement � � wpm & -01 Etc- LANE*CAPING NOTE$' LAYOUT t STR IPI NG KEYED NOTES; PLANT SCHEDULE rr � _=n= _ L Z _EcdFNt� Q) C, 61 72 TH AVENUE NORTH .0 o --- lkle=."" 62ND A VENUE NORTH "UE ------- T -------- -------------- I — ------ mm so as .ILL I af V, �6" /C :T r, D 1.3 �MATCH LINE LAYOU T, STRIPING, LANDSCAPING (NORTH) 2 REVISEY LICHT LOCATION 4107AO GENERAL PROJECT NOTES GENERAL DETAIL NOTES _�EjAfl_ SYMBOLS am entl Home nn a X2 DEFERRED PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENTS to — " , =1 `11=yt - — "I In New — MEADOW LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL lin d - rune ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS INSPEC m NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA PM Ml W . . . .. PRO& No. 21213 CK. OATEN Z WT. 5 OF I LL MATCH LINE r FNF��Ea �. w. ow.�� gnaw. �CfnN�' =—Q— GENERAL PROJECT NOTES GENERAL DETAIL NOTES DETAIL SYMBOLS KEYED NOTES DE FERRED PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENTS rol L N-1 ke ud P� represent l—W F. , ' 0 5 OEM New PLANT Sr-WMLLE m', por ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS INSPEC 1�1 61ST NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA AVENUE NORTH 2M PROJwo. w- CK. 5 oar. 6 I R. I I lmml'� Lai Mi 5r 's 'o -'r, To AlK, I , IN v= .. ... B T U 1 0 U f, ED "v" LA*rOUT, STRIPING 8 LANDSCAPING (SOUTH) NORTLI "I 9118 li REWSED; LANDSCAPNG 4107110 GENERAL PROJECT NOTES GENERAL DETAIL NOTES DETAIL SYMBOLS DE FERRED PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENTS rol L N-1 ke ud P� represent l—W F. , OEM New MEADOW LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL m', por ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS INSPEC 1�1 NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA OJ. MGR OR 2M PROJwo. w- CK. 5 oar. 4f 6roE sLOFgg TO \I'/ HMM13E fONOFF FROM 617E (3)T,Or-< ENTIRANGE tgcp 08HA. REGIiRFTIENTB f-yr- (ED : LEE- BEE)tDING DETAIL (I)IILT FENCE DETAIL t0 PER ORHINO NORK OF 6" FALTER BACK TO HasuBasl r " cg�mwb N , 1. 3 �§Wy ff) s ft P BASIN INLET PROTECTION DRAM Dl- ,9 (@ CONCRETE CURB DETAIL I T a AND SEAL DETAIL (� F w1 g a elan sa sets sy be notes I IN Pror Dinar oars Me sue —IMM. I F (M PAVEMENT DETAIL N PLACE a` WOJD I AMD /4 "•I /T' WASHED RWER (8N PEA GRAVEL =T GROSS - SECTION A-A ND eC 4E � DEFERRED PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENTS WiLllJ El MEADOW LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS INSPEC PRU Mr.9 . NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA m& No. DR &EENGRETE PAVEMENT DETAIL L DETAIL NOTES rmRrAR BED —" I @) ELTC- P BA51N/MANPOLE DETAIL v 815E Yfa�ATEW�LiBI OF q )�LCE,551BLE RAMP 160. 6LAD A4 �4/f MFDRTN � x r. � NEbi =a z 3 DT�3 .. W w - — 3 C d E Auv $ w m l I , T — Y rr 0 GENERAL NOTES w ALL CW WR ExPDYD ABOVE CPAOE SRALL Y Rp10 f t rt - QS LOGTE NEW EYS REUY ABOuE PANEL B. PoU XAVD MOTE COVEfl SCREWB S4At1 R TAMPER PROOF. ___� E. EICHi POLE 8156 SHALL WVE A 1Z' N.— 0 SIpEWAUE M E%iEI00R FACE OF CONCRETE BAY. :� D. NEW CONWIIS UNDER IXISTiNG TO R— BLRCMOP AND CONCRERE WALI6 TO BE NYALLEO RV NORI20MAl BORE ". ` 3 E COVER ANO PROTECT CONCRETE SUBS. CURBS .WO CURERS PEp =-11% BE PREVE UIpF]iMS NG. BF REVLACEO l? —T. _ E _ IXPEF1 _ F LOCATpNS AND BZES OF ALL —B—BO U B. aC Na NiR.1ttOR REVxa Touw UNDERGROUND MLFRE$ A 'w COMMGIOR RfsPoN518LE FOR IOUTiNG AND PBOiECT. ALL snE UIIL10E5, INCLUDING PRIV TE -LR1ES COMACF .,WR STATE ONE GLL PRIOR TO AVY IXGVppN. 15 E OMRACrOR SHALL BE REEPoNSBLE FOR AND PAY FOR CONSTRUC1pN SENONG. ._ •.... LO.TgN - 0 xEW 11' x t0' RUSH IN B— JB.— BD %. OVAZRE ' -.., : PC1118Wi2- PC1118MA00. COVER TO BE BUxK. FOR URG. OR PROIFD EWN. SPECIFIC NOTES: SCONN ANO : _. /;\ Oj d ECT PFAID.E IXSRNC LIGM FdNRE PRE AND CONCRETE .5E ��/ M ERAPMEM. E%TENO TNTENOR• 2 FEET T OF OF CAME. CABLES TO iX5 PoM PRD,BDE - -- 2O FEET CARE FOR Ef[FENSpN AXD ,.. „_ TFRUiwapN DSTR tt. r BRN E, cA EW AND UBFL BT PqE NUMBER COORgWiE WRH DSTRICF S E PERSONNEL ROUTE LAKES R ': AND R c N EORS R—. —E CEILING N COPRIDORS, FPOM WALLS. O I - E. PNC - 21e (CCT 1, ]) + 2�0 (CCi 5, ]) +CND, WNn. CU. ROLE TOPTE . N POLE Ai POLE . PRONE 5 FEET OF wxx AT PIXE TOP, E%iFND N CANE. ..p.- RWU PER HDiE 2 O ANEW CIHU / HG PPtlA E FIRE sTOP PRODUCS� Y rr 0 � e TNPONECioR —E R. OF OR DNE s eDI f t rt - QS LOGTE NEW EYS REUY ABOuE PANEL E P FD BEFER FOR .—B +GXD, WNW. 4U. oU�TOnw aooNm RTO R� ANp �" f O COXWRS TD EN1ER BUI(LMC ABBE CTNDE FIRE STOP ANO SEAL CCNdM PEP B S R.lB G11DK$. IXPOSEO —B- L CONOUrt t0 E Rp�O StEEp ftEUDJE O TO .SE BASE TO BE 24 50lgNY e — ARE EPIA SIDE WA.0 AS REWnEO. 5 ARE NE, TANK SYSTEFA LINES. WILdNG EtECTPIGLL SEMpE FEEDERS. WNRAL GI5 PUNNC LtIGIE ALL PPoRt N xEW WORK. © W1L TER.— RRERIOR ANO E%1EPI. -- 1. iN5 ENCLOSURE. OR— SULK LARf FOR RPULINC BY -.. STRICT. VBN CARES BY POLE NUYBEfl. YEA¢Y 15 ._ •.... LO.TgN - 0 xEW 11' x t0' RUSH IN B— JB.— BD %. OVAZRE ' -.., : PC1118Wi2- PC1118MA00. COVER TO BE BUxK. FOR URG. OR PROIFD EWN. r� :P COptdNATE IDGTpN O2' MC CONWrt FOR SURrFILLANY CWEW GBLINO. wt 1M5 POLE FOR.. AND INSTALL txRFE wR.NDtw+cE C CNGNEER PLp.tE ROLE TOPTE . N POLE Ai POLE . PRONE 5 FEET OF wxx AT PIXE TOP, E%iFND N CANE. ..p.- RWU PER HDiE 2 A] 4 1© IXSNH SUT2RIAlILE CAUf. TO flENAN 11• FlUBN JUN BON�G RE ]Y 9 13 � % 16' I G.OE O—R O 1 lN%IRHO E MPROVFD EOEW" COOftdW,E � .. 6 LDG,pX ENGINEER. ©E%SRHG WALL PACT( MCHPNC FtTUPF TO REMAIN. f °° tO5 IXSRNG UNDER CNpPY WHRHG —.BE. REMNN. i , S7 I t© AT TIB6 PoIE.NRNiSH AND INSTALL ONE SURVflW1NCE GBLEf. CPo� COORO PIXE ryM ENGX F TQtMIWtE IN 16 ' n • D 2 GNFPA EOV EM ROOM PER NOTE I® E%ACF LCGTgN N BE -ED . FIELD IN6TALUTpN RERAPE EN5 AND COORgWTED WNN ENCNEER. B� LOB 1' FNC CONWR FOR --EE CANFIb. E—B. _-- -•. Q T PPDR s AT TH5 PO;E roa PwN/mT/zoou OD E. BY —ER. NRMRAUE 12O Vd.T CONdlCNRS AT NOtE FOq FUNPE FMENSgN. „ ' 2OT i'C. P.0 Tie (CCT i. ]) + Z(6 (CAUEW POWFA) ® 1 T /A "C. PVC 2I0 ((CCT 1. 31 + 21e 0- E. ]) + 2/t0 (CAYEW PONER) + GXD, —. W. �I r \ COONpWTE fYAL'f IDCAIpN WDH GWL ANp ELECiRIW. s ® (CAYEPA 2 PONEP [O t PANEI LGiB1��PPOVIOE + NEV1 1 2o /2 PARTIAL SITE PLAN — LIGHTING RWR BR AK rofl ucHPNG. vn YE sP PE xon claCLlR BRFAItER FOR cYLERA. Powrn. WUndedich -Malec FN+�+Blsy.wlsAeW RABD xolE 1CP OF BASE B SNR1 WVE rt � � e TNPONECioR —E R. OF OR DNE s eDI CNNA �1.P WQ BE RSTNt PFR'aRCpFEM MNIMUM EO COVEx W /LL REwf'DRCEYENf ENdnEfREO BACMLL -- ' OF p E P FD BEFER FOR .—B oU�TOnw aooNm RTO R� ANp 1 10' PWFI�O Np .PoD / .ER p— RISE Ml' VS O TO .SE BASE TO BE 24 50lgNY SHOP pWn NGSC RCIE RFIXRREMENR WRH n LIGHT POLE BASE DETAIL E1 scuE: xoNE As R— DEFERRED PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENTS yN MEADOW LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 'RE ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS, I.S.D. #281 O R 1 . " /2f /f0 FARIW. BBE PUN - LIGNIN. AW IN1W OF CT R f O�BRSE Br R � UM1t 15! COKKRETE A �g� V ch-Malso mZ s IX D AM-- W" p —ON 11 —OR — cnncBElE �� 4. LIGH BASE DETAIL 8525 62nd AVENUE NORTH, NEW HOPE ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS, I.SZ. 828 GENERAL NOTE -7� 'j,j W P, . A41tL ,, SITE PLAN PHOTOMETRIC I�a t v —1 WT AVENGE .. ...... . . .. ':W %i V ch-Malso mZ s IX D AM-- W" p —ON 11 —OR — cnncBElE �� 4. LIGH BASE DETAIL 8525 62nd AVENUE NORTH, NEW HOPE ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS, I.SZ. 828 GENERAL NOTE -7� 'j,j W P, . A41tL ,, SITE PLAN PHOTOMETRIC I�a t v —1 WT AVENGE ,VYVC/ 3,YV7 A40GV3n -4 e I, "a r i vl. I �. rw. nu. nu. nu. u. n ". nu. �w. \/ v �� " — itb� �np: tt �' � I Jilt 41 "T Z�Z 7 1 4�- m I 17; i Ell 1110— ---------- Noll JOG v NOS8-71 -7d 'd N) Q) I O O O II Z am O N) I � � N $ e- •" r _� r r o a- ' o 0 6150 Qeoo CP gam 6100 LAI(E . s m m 6080 '. ELEMENTARY 61112 AVE N 6089 6096 8401 MARY: 6525 = 6090 MEN IMM l n z 59TH Ti i 80c 6182 6116 81 tifEAUQW . 6166 ' o 0 6150 cl 6100 LAI(E . 61 in AVE N : ORO MY' 6080 '. ELEMENTARY 6098 6089 6096 8401 MARY: 6525 = 6090 6081 6088 6089 6012 PARK SCHOOL;" < 6082 6073 z 6080 6081 6064 6074 6065 ,W 6072 6073 Z 8056 8030 PARK 6066 6057 6066 6065 < 6048 6058 6041 z 6058 6057 6040 60112 AVE N 6050 6033 � 6050 6049 p 6032 - 60112 AV 8509 4 8472 6025 6040 6041 6024 5040 -' s 6017 6032 6033 6016 gm 6032 v `1 f � -eP 6009 6016 . - -- 6025 CA47 8130 ° C, o o $ $ MEN IMM l n z 59TH Ti i 80c �� m � � i ! ql tb �R� � �� r -� p�� .,��'�1 e f ~ & i 1� 4 �'R �iY^l � 4 � 3 Y t }( �tf �■ ��t�l K'� , ,��i��lt +�kt 4�r�� i �" � ��, 1 l �� }_ ®_ � - �� ;. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners @nacplanning.com TO: Curtis Jacobsen FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: April 27, 2010 RE: New Hope — ISD 281 Meadow Lake Elementary School CUP FILE NO: 131.01 —10.01 BACKGROUND Within the R -1 Zoning District, schools are allowed by conditional use permit. Meadow Lake Elementary School, located at 8525 62 Avenue in New Hope, is proposing to reconstruct their two existing parking lots and construct a new parking lot and stormwater facilities south of their building. The new parking lot is proposed to eliminate faculty parking on adjoining streets. The introduction of the new parking lot alters the school's site plan, triggering the need for a conditional use permit. Following is the review of the conditional use permit and site plan changes. The site changes do not affect building placement or operation. In this respect, staff review will address the parking lot location and design. This application was reviewed at a Staff Development Review meeting on April 14, 2010 and by the Design and Review Committee on April 15, 2010. ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing Parking Lots. Currently, Meadow Lake has two parking lots on the north and west sides of the school building. These parking lots are being reconstructed with new pavement and perimeter curbing. The parking lot lighting is being relocated to the center of the parking lots. New Parking. A new 27 stall parking lot is being proposed south of the school. Access to the south parking lot is aligned with 61 Avenue North. Accompanying the new parking lot is a stormwater bioretention facility that will serve to collect and treat stormwater from the south parking lot and paved play area south of the school. Setbacks. Section 4- 3(e)(4)h.15 requires parking lot curbing to be set back five feet from any property lines. The north and south parking lots meet this standard. The west parking lot curb line is at the property line. This is a legal non - conforming condition that will not change. Paving /Curbing. Section 4- 3(e)(4)h.11 and 15 require all parking lots be paved and have a continuous perimeter concrete curbing. The site plan illustrates compliance with this standard. Striping and Dimension. Section 4- 3(e)(4)h requires all parking lots to be striped and stall and drive aisle width to be the following minimum dimensions for 90 degree parking: e -• •R• -• Stall Width 8 feet 9 inches 9 feet Stall Depth 19 feet 19 feet Aisle Width 24 feet 24 feet The parking stall and aisle dimensions all meet or exceed City standards. Curb Cuts. Section 4- 3(e)(4)h.6 establishes a maximum curb cut width at the property line of 26 feet for commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses. Wider widths may be approved by the City Engineer where traffic or vehicle types warrant a larger turning radius. Lot Curb Cut Width North 25 feet Conforming West 22 feet / 28 feet Conforming /Acceptable South 28 feet Non - Conforming The north curb cut in the west lot has a width of 28 feet entering 62 Avenue. This is seen as acceptable since this parking lot must accommodate school bus traffic. The southern parking lot is designed for automobiles only. The curb cut must be reduced to a maximum of 26 feet. Landscaping. Section 4- 3(e)(4)h.17 requires all exposed parking lots of six or more spaces shall be landscaped on all sides of the parking lot abutting public right -of -way or adjoining properties. The site plan shows a staggered row of Techny Arborvitae along the west edge of the south parking lot and three Black Hills Spruce along the south edge of the south parking lot. These plantings will be six feet in height. The type and size of the landscaping is 4 acceptable. Staff is recommending that the Arborvitae be shifted west to avoid being planted over the existing storm sewer. The landscaping along the west parking lot is not practical due to the existing setbacks. The Planning Commission and City Council may recommend additional plantings along the northern edge of the north parking lot. Lighting /Security. As part of the parking lot construction, the School District is redesigning the parking lot lighting and installing security cameras. The new plan removes the perimeter light poles and locates them interior to the parking lot. Examination of the light plan reveals that the light fixtures are shoe box fixtures that offer 90 degree cut off lighting. Total pole and foundation heights meet the City's 25 foot maximum height. Light levels at the perimeter of the site along Boone Avenue and 62 Avenue are below 1 foot candle at centerline. Additionally, the internal light level levels exceed the City's minimum light levels of .2 foot candles for a low activity institutional parking lot. The light plan is compliant with City standards. Drainage. The site plan reveals that ISD 281 will be installing a bioretention feature to collect and treat stormwater from the south parking lot and the hard surface play area south of the school. The City Engineer's initial review indicates that this facility is sufficient in size to address the new parking lot and play area. The City Engineer did request stormwater calculations for 2, 10 and 100 year storm events to verify the pond sizing. The City Engineer has expressed interest in routing more of the stormwater from the building and western parking lot to the bioretention facility as a means of treating more stormwater that drains to Meadow Lake. The City and School District will examine the options to improve stormwater quality from this site. RECOMMENDATION Meadow Lake Elementary School is a conditional use in an R -1 Zoning District. The proposed parking lot improvements will eliminate faculty on- street parking and enhance the site, both aesthetically and functionally. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit application based on plans dated March 25, 2010 with the following conditions: 1. The south parking lot curb cut be reduced to a 26 foot width. 2. Landscaping along the west side of the parking lot be shifted west to avoid placement over the stormwater pipe. 3. Additional landscaping be provided along 62 Avenue, north of the north parking lot. 4. The applicant provide stormwater calculations. 5. The School District explore options to direct drainage from a larger portion of the site's impervious area to the bioretention facility to improve water quality. c: Eric Weiss Jason Quisberg Roger Axel Pam Sylvester 0 2335 Highway 36 W St, Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651- 636 -4600 Fax 651- 636 -1311 www.bonestroo.com TO: Curtis Jacobsen B0ne5tC00 FROM: Jason Quisberg CC: Eric Weiss, Roger Axel, Guy Johnson, Paul Coone DATE: April 28, 2010 SUBJECT: P.C. 1O -01 Meadow Lake Elementary Parking Lot Improvements — 8525 62 n' Avenue North Our File No. 34 -Gen NE6.10.01 We have received plans and a revised narrative for the proposed parking lot improvements on the Meadow Lake Elementary School property at Boone and 62 d Avenues. Comments based on a plan review were previously submitted. The following comments are should be considered in the review of this application. 1. Previous comments relating to the erosion control have been addressed. 2. A bioretention feature is shown to treat runoff generated by the additional impervious surface to be constructed as the south lot. This type of feature is an acceptable method to satisfy the requirements set forth in the City's Local Water Management Plan for site redevelopment projects. A preliminary review of the feature design has been performed and the feature appears to be adequately sized. Design volumes for the proposed feature should be submitted to the City for review. 3. Storm water calculations for the site have been submitted. The calculations support the design is adequate for the proposed improvements. It should be noted that if it is decided to expand the storm water treatment feature (see comment #4), the calculation would need to be revised and another review completed. 4. The majority of the project area is tributary to Meadow Lake, which is listed on the State's Impaired Waters List for excess nutrients. As a means to reduce the nutrient load to Meadow Lake, the City would like to explore the option of partnering with the school district to provide water quality treatment for a larger portion of the site by oversizing and redirecting additional flows to the bioretention feature. The concept of this partnering was discussed with the school district representatives at the April 15" Design & Review meeting. The applicant was receptive to considering this partnership. Additionally, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission engineer was contacted and showed support for expansion of the feature to provide additional benefit to runoff discharged to Meadow Lake. Possible improvements have been explored in a general way. It appears the bioretention feature could be expanded to approximately double its current size without impacting the ball field areas or creating any grade issues that could hinder ongoing maintenance of the grounds. Additional runoff from the west parking lot could be redirected into the expanded bioretention feature to utilize the expanded feature. The amount of runoff captured from this lot and sent to the treatment featured would be limited by the size to which the feature could be expanded. The volume of water rerouted to the feature could be controlled by installing a structure with offset inverts just upstream of the existing storm vault located between the west and proposed south lots. If decided to move forward with this partnership, further analysis and design would need to be coordinated between the City and the School District's engineers. End of Comments Please contact me at 651- 604 -4938 with any questions or concerns. CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG A B C D E F G H I J Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 60- Date Deadline Date city Date city cation application was sent day time day Applicant for city approved or sent response number Name received notice limit extension was notified action denied the to Applicant Address by city that required expires expires of under application Phone information extension extension was missing or waiver 10 -01 Inspec, Inc. 4/8/10 5801 Duluth Street 6/7!10 8/6/10 Minneapolis 55422 763- 546 -3434 ISD 281 4148 Winnetka Ave N New Hope 55427 763- 504 -8137 Boxes A -C and E -F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the city's procedures and the date of a specific application. A. Assign each application a number. B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). C. List the date the city received the application. D. List the date the city sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the city gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60 -day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 60 -day extension, begin counting from the day following the first 60 -day limit, include all calendar days. G. The city will notify the Applicant by mail that a 60 -day extension period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver. 1. The city must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) J. List the date that the city sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the city not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. To: Planning Commission From: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development Date: April 30, 2010 Subject: Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on Council /EDA actions on Community Development related issues or other city projects. 1. April 12 Council meeting The following planning /development/housing items were discussed: • Project #862, Resolution approving plans and sp ecifications and authorizing seeking of quotes for New Hope Athletic Field complex Approved, see attached Council request. • Ordinance 2010 -04 An ordinance amending New Hope Code Sections 3- 31(3)(7) and 14- 2(10) by reducing the point of conversion inspection fee for rental property Adopted, see attached Council request. Council will discuss at a future work session whether or not to refund the higher fees paid from the beginning of 2010 or from January 2009. 2. April 26 Council meeting - The following planning / development/housing items were discussed: • Motion approving the installation of shoreline plantings to act as a noise buffer for residents and provide aesthetic benefit to the west side of Northwood Lake approved, see attached Council request. • Motion approving alterations to New Hope's current tree replacement program for the 2010 calendar year Approved, see attached Council request. • Project #861 Resolution approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for public improvement (Bass Lake Road water main infrastructure improvement p roject): Approved, see attached Council request. • Motion approving Gannett Offset for design and . 12rinting of the second round of the "Shop New Hope" coupon book Approved, see attached Council request. Council also requested of the cost to broaden mailed distribution. 3. Codes and Standards Committee - The Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in April. 4. Design and Review Committee - The Design and Review Committee met in April to review plans for Meadow Lake School and the fence variance. At this time, no pre- application meetings have been scheduled. 5. Dialogue with City Council - The City Council has requested a dialogue with the entire Planning Commission at its work session on May 17. If at all possible, please try to attend. Miscellaneous Issues Page 1 3/26/10 6. Commission Update to Council - Chair Houle will be giving an update on planning activities to the City Council at one of the meetings in June. 7. City Center Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Study - Roger Landy volunteered to be part of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC). A block exercise will be conducted on Thursday, May 20, at 5:30 p.m. at city hall. Please let Eric know if you are attending - eweiss @ci.new- hope.mn.us or 763- 531 -5196. 8. Planning; Commission Minutes - Minutes from the February 2 Planning Commission meeting are attached for your review. Please remember that all approved minutes are posted on the city's website. 9. If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff. Attachments: New Hope Athletic Field Rental conversion fee ordinance Northwood Lake shoreline plantings Tree replacement program Bass Lake Road water main infrastructure improvements Shop New Hope coupon book February 2 Planning Commission minutes Miscellaneous Issues Page 2 3/26/10 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 3, 2010 City Hall, 7 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chair Houle called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Jeff Houle, Sandra Hunten, Roger Landy, Ranjan Nirgude, Tom Schmidt Absent: Pat Crough, Kimberly Johnson, Steve Svendsen Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Eric Weiss, Community Development Assistant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC09 -12 Chair Houle introduced Item 4.1, discussion of an ordinance amending Item 4.1 Chapter 3 of the New Hope City Code by requiring registration of vacant buildings, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Weiss stated that the city was considering adopting a Vacant Properties Registration (VPR) program to help ensure properties are maintained in a safe and healthy condition despite their vacancy status. Staff researched VPR programs from around the state and provided information to the Codes and Standards Committee. A draft ordinance based on Brooklyn Center's program was provided to the Committee for consideration. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft at its meeting in January and recommended that several areas be revised to fit the needs of New Hope. The Committee thoroughly reviewed the ordinance at its meeting in January. The New Hope VPR would require the owner of a vacant property to register with the city and provide contact information, a timeline and property plan for the property within 30 days of the property becoming vacant. A property is considered vacant after two months. Owners should inform the city regarding the status of all utilities, and a property plan would be submitted to the building official for re -use. A one -time fee would be established based on administrative costs for registering and monitoring the vacant property. All vacant buildings must be secure. The city reserves the right to secure any unsecured buildings, which is authorized under another section of the city code. Building exteriors and yards must be maintained. Definitions for vacant and abandoned properties were added to the draft ordinance. A property would be defined as vacant after two months of being unoccupied and an abandoned property would be a building that is not being actively monitored or maintained. The language in the previous draft pertaining to demolition of a vacant building was removed. Exceptions to the vacant property registration were expanded to include fire, water, storm, ice and other extreme forms of damage. The exemption for "snowbirds" was renamed "seasonal residence" to reflect those who take extended vacations outside of the winter season. If an application for a vacant property would be made in conjunction with a point of sale application, the VPR fee would be waived. Timelines were altered to allow the property owner more time to register the property and make changes to the property. The program is intended to protect the vacant properties and adjacent properties. Mr. Weiss stated that staff and the Codes and Standards Committee recommend approval of the ordinance. Commissioner Brinkman commented that the Committee, staff and consultants did a very thorough job on this proposed ordinance and stated he felt it was ready to be approved. Commissioner Nirgude initiated discussion on registration for property owners away from their residence for an extended period of time. Mr. Weiss stated that those owners would not be required to register, however, the owner should contact the city and request the exemption and provide contact information. Discussion ensued on the minimum length of time a property owner would be gone before being required to register. Registration would be beneficial to the city to know how long the property may be vacant and have contact information on file in the event of an emergency. The property owner would benefit knowing that the city was keeping an eye on the property. Currently, if a someone calls to inform the city of a vacant property, staff does not know if the homeowner intends to return or if the property was abandoned. The exemption excludes the seasonal residence owners from providing a property plan and paying a fee. Mr. Sondrall, city attorney, stated the difference between registering as a vacant property or a seasonal residence is that the owners of the seasonal residence intend to come back within a specified period of time. A property owner could determine if he wanted to contact the city based on his comfort level for less than two months. A homeowner planning on being away for two months or more would be the general rule when to seek an exemption and register the property. However, a homeowner could register if away for less than two months, as well. Commissioner Nirgude pointed out that many people may be away from home due to business reasons and may be working out of the state or country for an extended period of time. He stated he felt it would be good to advise the city of the situation. In answer to a question regarding liability to the city, Mr. Sondrall responded that this ordinance exempts homeowners from registering as a vacant property and there would be no liability on the city's part. In order to exempt the seasonal residence owners, they need to register as seasonal and not a vacant property. Commissioner Hunten stressed that the city should not be obligating itself to look at all these properties, it would just be done as a courtesy. If something did happen to a registered property, the city would have contact information Planning Commission Meeting 2 February 3, 2010 on file. Mr. Sondrall commented that the seasonal residence section could be removed and treat anyone on vacation or extended business or out of their home due to casualty damage to the property in the same manner as any other vacant property. If the property would remain vacant for two months or if they had not started repairs on a casualty issue for two months, the city could start enforcement action. Commissioner Anderson raised the issue of the Minnesota Statutes 463.15 dealing with hazardous buildings. He stated he was concerned with the amount of time spent reviewing this ordinance. Other ordinances in the city code already dealt with most of the issues caused by the vacant buildings. Mr. Sondrall stated that statute 463 mainly dealt with hazardous buildings, which was removed from this ordinance. Anderson stated he did not support this ordinance. Chair Houle initiated discussion on foreclosed residential properties and the steps the city takes to monitor those properties. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that this ordinance was a continuation of an ordinance passed a year ago to allow the city to secure vacant unsecured buildings that were getting close to becoming hazardous due to broken water pipes and so forth. The City Council felt it would be beneficial for the city to have property owners with vacant buildings to register with the city. In answer to a question from Chair Houle, Mr. Jacobsen responded that Brooklyn Center mainly applies their ordinance to commercial /industrial properties. New Hope's housing stock has been maintained in good condition through the city's point -of -sale inspections and the City Council desires to continue that practice. Mr. Jacobsen indicated that once residents become aware of the ordinance the majority of them would comply with registering their vacant properties so that in the event of an emergency or damage from graffiti, they could be contacted by the city. Commissioner Hunten commented that the registration of the property and monitoring the property by the city not only protects the property owner, but also the neighbors. She added that adjacent communities have adopted ordinances regarding the registration of vacant buildings and must have found it beneficial. Chair Houle raised the issue of whether or not owners of multi- tenant buildings needed to register if one or more tenant bays were vacant and the answer was no. Mr. Sondrall replied that the intent of the ordinance was to insure that a property manager was overseeing the property and that if the property became vacant that there was a plan for the re- occupation of the building. The city would like to build a database of the properties so if someone contacts the city regarding a particular vacant building, the city can respond with the current plan. Planning Commission Meeting 3 February 3, 2010 Discussion ensued regarding the registration permit and whether or not it would be a good idea to post the permit on the building. The name of the permit was discussed and if it was intended to be posted on the property, it should not indicate building is vacant. The permit would be developed by staff upon adoption of the ordinance. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Brinkman, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.1 approve an ordinance amending Chapter 3 of the New Hope City Code by requiring registration of vacant buildings, city of New Hope, petitioner. Voting in favor: Brinkman, Hunten, Landy, Schmidt Voting against: Anderson, Houle, Nirgude Absent: Crough, Johnson, Svendsen Motion approved. Chair Houle stated that this ordinance would be considered by the City Council at its meeting on February 22. PC09 -13 Chair Houle introduced Item 4.2, discussion of an ordinance amending Item 4.2 Chapter 3- 31(e)(7) and 14 -2(10) by reducing the point -of- conversion inspection fee for rental property, city of New Hope, petitioner. Mr. Jacobsen stated that staff and the Codes and Standards Committee had been reviewing the Rental Registration Program, focusing on the rental conversion fee at this time. The fee was approved in late 2008 and enacted in January 2009. Since that time, numerous residents and property owners have complained about the $1,000 conversion fee. Per correspondence sent to the city on this matter, the most common complaint is that the owner feels little is received for the large fee amount. The conversion fee is in addition to the annual registration fee charged to all single family rental properties. An inspection is included with the annual registration. The rental inspection and conversion inspection are essentially the same. The city inspects for compliance with minimum standards as set forth in the property maintenance code. The City Council reviewed the point of conversion portion of the rental program in February 2009 and declined to make any changes at that time. Since that time, the Codes and Standards Committee was directed to study the rental housing registration program in its entirety. In 2009, 39 properties paid the $1,000 fee, and four have paid the fee in 2010. There are approximately 370 single family rental properties in the city. The Community Development Department is unaware of any problems with the remainder of the Rental Registration Program. The Codes and Standards Committee intends to review the remainder of the program in the near future. The inspections staff has noted that rental properties have vastly improved since the rental program was enacted in 2006. The Codes and Standards Committee recommended the code be amended to provide for a smaller initial fee and a partial refund if property owners Planning Commission Meeting 4 February 3, 2010 complete a course provided by the Minnesota Multi- Housing Association. The Committee recommended the fee be lowered from $1,000 to $400. After the owner completes the course, "The Fundamentals of Renal Property Management in Minnesota," the city would refund the property owner $150. The cost of the course is $49. The course would be very beneficial to individuals who are not experienced landlords. Robbinsdale has approved a similar approach to its rental conversion program. Commissioner Hunten clarified that it would be up to the property owner whether or not they took the class to educate themselves about rental property management. The property owner would need to provide the city with a copy of the certificate received after taking the class to receive the refund. A question was raised whether or not the property owners who had paid the fee would get a refund, and Mr. Jacobsen indicated that would be up to the City Council. Commissioner Nirgude questioned whether there were any other expenses to the city for the conversion of the property. Mr. Jacobsen responded the utilities generally are changed into the tenant's name, but there was no cost for that. Commissioner Hunten stressed that the city should not penalize the property owners who, due to circumstances, may be forced to rent their property. Mr. Jacobsen mentioned that many times landlords who own multiple properties have more experience and are aware of issues related to rental property. The class offered by the Minnesota Multi- Housing Association would provide a good rental background for property owners who are renting their property for the first time. Commissioner Schmidt stated that he was saddened to read the letters from property owners who were forced to pay the $1,000 fee and felt the Council should have dealt with this issue last year. Commissioner Hunten initiated discussion on the length of time allowed for a rental property owner to attend "The Fundamentals of Rental Property Management in Minnesota" class. She recommended six months prior to until six months after renting was ample time rather than 12 months as stated in the draft ordinance, depending on how often the class is offered. Commissioner Nirgude requested clarification on the effective date of the ordinance. The ordinance would be effective upon publication in the city newspaper. It would also be advertised in other city publications and posted on the city's website. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Hunten, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.2 approve an ordinance amending Chapter 3- 31(e)(7) and 14 -2(10) by reducing the point -of- conversion inspection fee for rental property, city of New Hope, petitioner, subject to the following change: Planning Commission Meeting ' 5 February 3, 2010 1. The 12 month time frame to attend the Minnesota Multi- Housing Association's rental housing orientation program called "The Fundamentals of Rental Property Management in Minnesota" be changed to six months prior to or subsequent of the property's conversion. Chair Houle added that he felt there was a perception with the public that there were too many single family rental properties in the city and the residents he spoke to had indicated a concern. Commissioner Schmidt commented that he felt the city's rental inspection program had encouraged property owners to maintain the property. Commissioner Nirgude stated he was not in favor of changing the conversion fee. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Hunten, Landy, Schmidt Voting against: Houle, Nirgude Absent: Crough, Johnson, Svendsen Motion approved. Chair Houle stated that this ordinance would be considered by the City Council at its meeting on February 22. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design and Review Chair Houle stated that the Design and Review Committee did not meet in Committee January. Mr. Jacobsen added that no pre - application meetings were Item 5.1 conducted and staff was not anticipating any new applications to be submitted on February 5. Codes and Standards Commissioner Schmidt reported that the Codes and Standards Committee Committee met in January to revisit the vacant building ordinance and rental conversion Item 5.2 fee. The committee will be continuing its discussion on the entire rental registration program and the licensing of massage parlors. Mr. Jacobsen mentioned that the City Council indicated it wanted solicitors to register and have the city conduct background checks. The city attorney would be drafting an ordinance and it will then be reviewed by the Citizen Advisory Commission and Human Rights Commission for comments. The next Committee meeting will be on March 17 at 6 p.m. OLD BUSINESS Chair Houle called attention to the memo in the packet stating the City Miscellaneous Issues Council thanked the Codes and Standards Committee and Planning Item 6.1 Commission for their work on the temporary sign code regulating the setbacks for small temporary signs and finding a solution to meet the needs of New Hope citizens. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Meeting 6 February 3, 2010 Discussion Item Mr. Jacobsen gave a brief update on the Village on Quebec redevelopment Planning Case 06 -06 project that was constructed in 2006/2007. He commented that the end Item 7.1 product was very close to what had been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. This project was approved prior to the adoption of the Design Guidelines. The vacancy issue was beyond the scope of the Planning Commission. Motion to Approve Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brinkman, to Minutes approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 5, 2010. All voted in Item 7.2 favor. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 7 February 3, 2010