040604 PlanningPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Tuesday, April 6, 2004
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONSENT BUSINESS
4. PUBLIC HEARING
· 4.1 Case 04-02
Request for preliminary plat approval and site/building plan review,
8801 Science Center Drive, Science Center Drive LLC/Matthew
Tieva, Petitioners
· 4.2 Case 04-04
Request for preliminary plat approval and site/building plan review,
8901 Bass Lake Road, A.C. Carlson, Petitioner
· 4.3 Case 01-09
Discussion of neighborhood issues regarding 9220 Bass Lake Road,
Tharp Family Partnership
· 4.4 Case 04-06
Request for platting of property, rezoning, Comprehensive Plan
amendment, and concept/development stage planned unit
development approval, 5620 Winnetka Avenue North, Armory
Development/Master Development Group, Petitioners
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1
5.2
Report of Design & Review Committee -April 15, 7:30 a.m.
Report of Codes & Standards Committee - to be scheduled
6. OLD BUSINESS
6.1
Miscellaneous Issues
> Ryland Homes-Approved as recommended.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of March 2, 2004
Review of City Council Minutes of February 23 and March 8, 2004
Review of EDA Minutes of February 23 and March 8, 2004
GTS Training for Commissioners
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
· Petitioners are required to be in attendance
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The
Planning Co.mmission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the
Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code
and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the
surrounding neighborhood.
The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn,
first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your
questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the
Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission
will utilize the following procedure:
1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal.
2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the
Planning Commission.
3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer
questions from the Planning Commission.
4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by
raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large
number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer
period of time for questions/comments.
5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give
their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your
questions.
7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity
to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal.
8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
Al If the Planning'Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the
planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this
meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting.
B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next
Commission meeting. ~
Planning Case:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: April 6, 2004
Report Date: April 2, 2004
04-02
Science Center Drive, LLC
8801 Science Center Drive
Preliminary Plat Approval and Site/Building Plan Review
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting preliminary plat approval of property to be known as Science Industry
Center 3rd Addition and site/building plan review to allow construction of a 21,600 square foot office/
warehouse building, pursuant to Section 4-35 and Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
II. Zoning Code References
Section 4-35
Chapter 13
Property Specifications
Zoning:
Location:
Adjacent Land Uses:
Site Area:
Building Area:
Lot Area Ratios:
Planning District:
Specific Information:
III.
Administration - Site Plan Review
Subdivision and Platting
I, Industrial
Southwest quadrant of the intersection at Boone Avenue and Science Center
Drive
Industrial land uses on all sides and R-4, High Density Residential, (North
Ridge Care Center) to the northeast
1.76 acres (irregular shaped - 76,665 square feet)
The proposed building footprint to be 21,600 square feet, 8,400 square feet
office, 13,200 square feet warehouse and 7,600 square feet bulk equipment
storage.
Proposed Building Area: 21,600 square feet 28.2%
Proposed Green Area: 24,443 square feet 31.9%
Proposed Paved Area: 30,623 square feet 39.9%
No. 3: The Comprehensive Plan indicates that this district has a strong
industrial base and is in excellent condition. The primary goal within this
district is the preservation and enhancement of its industrial land uses, which
can be accomplished through the promotion of industrial infill development of
the remaining vacant parcels.
Science Center Drive LLC is proposing to split off and purchase a portion of
property currently owned by CSM Equities, Inc. located in the Science
Industry Park area and build a new facility. As well, the applicant is proposing
ponding on the adjacent parcel where the city has a ponding easement.
Planning Case Report 04-02 Page 1 4/2/04
IV. Background
The applicant, Science Center Drive LLC, and property owner, CSM Equities LLC, have requested a
subdivision to create two new lots and a site and building plan review for Lot 1. The site is located at
8801 Science Center Drive and is zoned I - Industrial. The proposed expansion of the site will allow the
facility to remain in operation within the city of New Hope and meet the future needs of Northland
Mechanical Contractors. In order to proceed with the application, the applicant must go through a
preliminary plat to create lot and block description for the newly created lots. The property in question is
currently in a lot and block and metes and bounds description. The proposed subdivision will create new
legal descriptions. Additionally, the application will require site plan approval.
V. Petitioner's Comments
Correspondence from the petitioner submitted on March 12 states, in part: Science Center Drive LLC
was formed by the owners of Northland Mechanical Contractors Inc and their family to build a larger
building that will meet the current and future needs of Northland Mechanical. Northland Mechanical has
been located at 2900 Nevada Avenue for the past 18 years and has outgrown the current space. Their
strong desire to stay in New Hope led them to approach CSM Equities, Inc. about selling an unused
1.76 acre parcel of land located on the west end of 8801 Science Center Drive. They wish to build an
approximately 21,600 square foot building on the site made up of approximately 8,400 square feet of
office, 13,200 square feet of warehouse and 7,600 square feet of bulk equipment storage located over
the office.
No variances are being requested. They have an agreement with CSM for an egress only easement at
the south end of the property, and are proposing to build a storm water retention pond on an unused,
vacant portion of the west neighbor's (Avtec) property. The city has a drainage easement for this portion
of property.
o Correspondence indicated they intend to lease out approximately 5,000 square feet of the warehouse to
a future tenant. The exact footages will be determined by Northland's needs after moving into the
space. An eight-foot tall chain link fence with screening would be installed on the south part of the
property. The reasons a fence is desired includes: 1) elimination of unauthorized dumpster usage, 2)
temporary storage of a few service vans during "slow" periods in their service department -- service
vans can be outfitted with over $30,000 of tools and equipment, and 3) outside storage of one small
flatbed trailer used to move scissor lifts from jobsite to jobsite.
They stated they do not have the need to store other equipment or building materials outside. The
proposed building would be the basic pre-cast office/warehouse building. Construction would begin as
soon as possible following city approval, and they would take occupancy of the new building by
November or December 2004.
Separate correspondence submitted on March 12 requests that the Planning Commission waive review
of the final plat.
VI. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments. Staff
and the city engineer met with representatives from Avtec to review the plans and discuss the proposed
ponding. Additional information regarding the proposed ponding is included in the Enqineerinq
Considerations.
VII. Development Analysis
A. Zoninq Code Criteria
Planning Case Report 04-02 Page 2 4/2/04
Subdivision and Plattinq
The pur_pose of this chapter is to make certain regulations and requirements for the subdivision and
platting of land within the city of New Hope pursuant to the authority contained in Minnesota
Statutes 462.358, which regulations the City Council deems necessary for the health, safety and
general welfare of this community. It is also the purpose of this chapter to safeguard the best
interests of the city of New Hope and to assist the subdivider in harmonizing his interests with those
of the city at large.
The site is currently zoned industrial. Office and warehouse uses are permitted uses within the
industrial district. The applicant must go through a preliminary plat to create lot and block description
for the newly created lots. The property in question is currently in a lot and block and metes and
bounds description. The proposed subdivision will create new legal descriptions. The industrial zoning
district requires a lot area of one acre. The proposed Lot 1 would be 1.76 acres and the proposed Lot
2 would be 9.60 acres. Both lots meet the required lot area requirements in the industrial district.
Within the industrial district, a 100-foot minimum lot Width is required. Both Lot 'Is and 2 exceed this
requirement. The applicant's site plan illustrates that both Lots 'I and 2 buildings will meet all
required industrial setbacks.
Per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to city department heads, city attorney, city
engineer, planning consultant, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment.
Comments received include the following:
Utility Companies - Xcel Energy responded that it has no issue with the plat, as there are no
transmission facilities over site.
City Enqineer- see attached correspondence and comments.
Hennepin County- no comments were received.
City Attorney - see attached correspondence and comments.
The City Code states that copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its
review and recommendation, unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Commission
during its review of the preliminary plat. Per the attached correspondence, the petitioner has
requested waiver of the review of the final plat by the Plannin.q Commission. The Planning
Commission will need to make a determination as to whether it wants to review the final plat or not.
Due to the simple nature of the plat, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission waive the
review of this final plat.
Site and Buildinq Plan Review Code Criteri~
The purpose of the site plan review is to insure that the purposes of this Code are adhered to, it is
hereby determined that 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 pursuant to the procedure established by this section.
In making recommendations and decisi;3ns upon site and building plan review applications, the staff,
Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the compliance of such plans with the following
standards:
'I. Consistency with the various elements and obiectives of the city's long range plans, including'
but not limited to the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Consistency with the purposes of this Code.
Planning Case Report 04-02 Page 3 4/2/04
3. Preservation of the site in its natural state, insofar as practicable, by minimizing tree and soil
removal, and designing any grade changes so as to be in keeping with the general appearance of
neighboring developed or developing areas.
4. Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces with the terrain and with
existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the proposed development.
5. Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features including:
a. Creation of an internal sense of order for the various functions and building on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community.
b. Appropriateness of the amount and arrangement of oPen space and landscaping to the design
and function of the development.
c. Appropriateness of the materials, textures, colors, and details of construction as an expression
of the design concept of the project and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and
neighboring structures and functions.
d. Adequacy of vehicular, cycling and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking, in terms of location and number of access points, general interior circulation,
separation of pedestrian, cycling and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking
so as to be safe, convenient and, insofar as practicable, compatible with the design of
proposed buildings, structures and neighboring properties.
6. Creation of an energy-conserving design through design, location, orientation and elevation of
structures, the use and location of glass in structures, and the use of landscape materials and
site grading.
7. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for such matters
as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and those
aspects of design, not adequately covered by other regulations, which may have substantial
effects on neighboring land uses.
Development Review Team
The Development Review Team met to review the plans on March 17 and was generally supportive
of the projects, however, had some concerns with the easements on the property, ponding, and
ownership of the rail spur. Additional comments included shared access easement, water service,
drainage, grading, Shingle Creek Watershed approval, setback requirement for parking area on the
east and area adjacent to wetland, landscaping irrigation, size of some plants and trees, additional
lighting on the south side of property, storage areas, trash enclosure, fence, mechanical area,
racking plan of warehouse, protect hydrant with bollards, fire department connection and lock box.
Desiqn and Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee reviewed the plans on March 18 with the petitioner and was
supportive of the request. The same concerns as listed above were discussed with the applicant.
Plan Description
Revised plans and comments were submitted as a result of the Design and Review Committee
meeting and comments from the planning consultant and developer on the submitted plans are as-
follows:.
Developer Responses:
1. comment: 10-foot utility easements encircle entire lot
Planning Case Report 04-02 Page 4 4/2/04
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
response:
~:omment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
It is shown on the civil plan sheet 1 of 4, we will add it the architectural site plan
A-1
Existing sanitary sewer easement and utility easement that runs through Lot 1
will be encumbered by driveway and parking areas
It is shown on the plat drawing
Non-exclusive easement for spur trackage on a portion of the property - provide
ownership details
It is now Lot 4 - no longer an easement
Identify the shared access easement running between Lots 1 and 2 on the south
end of the property
Survey department will show this on an easement exhibit with description
Provide description of shared access easement across Lot 2 to illustrate site
plan works
Survey department will show this on an easement exhibit with description
Six-inch water service from Science Center Drive to be split - domestic and fire
It is shown on the civil plan sheet 3 of 4, we will add it to the architectural site
plan A-1 - the service is being moved to the west side and located at the
southwest corner of the building per conversation with fire marshal
Lot 2 drainage flows to pond through Lot 1 at the southeast corner of the
building and cross parking lot
Civil will add a catch basin on plan sheet 3 of 4 to show draining the storm water
over to the existing drainage ditch on the west
Grading plan does not illustrate loading bays on south side of building
The grading plan will be corrected
Shingle Creek Watershed approval required
Civil engineer to apply after Planning Commission approval
Setback requirement for parking lot on the east needs to be three feet from
property line
Building to be set parallel with the north property line and set three feet west of
the existing parking on the east
Check setback requirement for parking area adjacent to wetland on the west
No requirement
.;
Landscape irrigation required
It is noted in the general notes of the landscape plan A-1.1
Arborvitae and others - yews and potentilla - should be three-gallon size
To be changed in the schedule of the landscape plan A-1.1
Provide taller trees on north and west sides of building for variation
To be changed on the landscape plan A-1.1
Planning Case Report 04-02 Page 5 4/2/04
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
· 20.
21.
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
22. comment:
msponse:
23. comment:
response:
24. comment:
response:
25. comment:
26.
response:
comment:
response:
27. comment:
response:
Additional landscaping on the east near gate and screening of transformer pad
Additional landscaping added near east gate, transformer relocated to the south
side of the building out of site
Screening should be provided near the gated back yard space
Additional landscaping added near west gate
Provide additional landscaping along north and east sides of building
Additional landscaping added on the landscape plan A-1.1
Signage is compliant with sign code
No response required
Lighting and fixtures meet code requirements - possibly add lighting by storage
area at south end of building
Freestanding light pole added to the south end of the lot
Consider hooded wall lights
To be considered
Provide details on storage areas - total area designated as storage vs. parking
We have adjusted the south part of the lot and designated six parking stalls
for storage shown on the architectural site plan A-1
Provide details on trash enclosure at rear of building to match building design,
access
Trash dumpsters to be set inside the building - floor area noted on architectural
plan A-2, note that an eight-foot high chain link fence with slats is set around the
south area of the building away from the street where any dumpsters that may
be set outside would be screened
Eight-foot high fence requires a building permit - must provide wind-load details
Building permit for the fence to be applied for when applying for the building
permit - wind-load details to be submitted at that time
Mechanical areas should be shown on plans
Mechanical rooftop equipment is shown on the architectural site plan A-l, note
calls for the units to be painted, additional note calls for the color to match the
coping on the parapet wall of the building
Provide a color elevation of building
A colored perspecti, ve is now provided
Provide racking plan for warehouse
It is shown on the architectural floor plan A-2, a note will be added for the eight-
foot height of the racking
One fire hydrant with 100 feet of FD connection
It is now shown on the civil plan sheet 3 of 4 and architectural site plan A-l, it is
set in a peninsula near the southwest corner of the building per conversation
with fire marshal
Planning Case Report 04-02 Page 6 4/2/04
28.
29.
30.
31.
comment:
r_esponse:
comment:
response:
comment:
comment:
response:
32. comment:
response:
Protect hydrant with bollards
There is concrete curb around to protect it - no pipe bollards should be required.
Fire department to choose location of connection and it should be marked with
no parking, fire lane signage
Fire department has chosen a location near the southwest corner of the building,
a "no parking - fire lane" sign to be set near
Automatic sprinkler system required and notification devices to be located
throughout structure
Lock box for emergency access required
It is shown on architectural site plan A-l, design-build mechanical contractor to
develop sprinkler plans for the project
Fire extinguishers to be placed every 75 feet throughout structure
It is now noted in the code review box on the architectural site plan A-1
Planner Comments:
1. Lot Area/Setbacks - The following setbacks are pro )osed for the development:
Building Required Proposed I Compliant?
Front Yard Setback: North Side 30 feet 30 feet Yes
Side Yard Setback: East Side 10 feet 10 feet Yes
Side Yard Setback: West Side 10 feet 58 feet Yes
Rear Yard Setback: South Side 30 feet 240 feet Yes
In the planning consultant's review of the required setbacks and lot area, the site plan illustrates
that required setbacks are achieved and that Lot 1 exceeds the one acre lot area and 100-foot
minimum width requirements of the industrial district.
Site Data Summary
ISite Area 76,665 Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft. (%)
Building Area 21,600 28.2
Green Area 24,443 31.9
Paved Area 30,623 39.9
The proposed site plan shows that 68 percent of the entire site will be impervious surface. This
is compliant with the industrial standards of impervious surface not exceeding 80 percent of lot
area.
Easements
The preliminary plat shows utility easements around all proposed lot lines 10 feet in width, which'
meets city requirements. The proposed subdivision identifies the creation of two lots that are
fully conforming to City Code and the industrial district; however, additional information is
necessary regarding the existing easements that run across Lot 1, specific to the rail spur
trackage and the sanitary sewer line. These easements may encumber the lot in a manner that
Planning Case Repo~ 04-02 Page 7 4/2/04
would change the building and site development configuration. With regard to easements, a
number of issues are raised:
~. There is an existing sanitary sewer easement per plat and utility easement Document
3224670 that runs through Lot 1. This easement will be encumbered by driveway and
parking areas, and this must be reviewed and approved by the city staff for the site plan
approval to proceed.
b. The legal description shown on the preliminary plat indicates that there is a non-exclusive
easement for spur trackage and purposes related thereto over portions of the property.
This non-exclusive easement will become Lot 4 and will no longer be an easement.
c. A third easement is for shared access between Lot 1 and Lot 2. The easement is
required to be identified but will not be included on the final plat. With this easement, Lot
1 would exit the property on the south end and travel through Lot 2 parking lot for truck
maneuvering. A description of this easement will be required for review and approval by
the city staff.
d. Approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon approval from current easement
owners.
4. Drainage
The applicant is proposing to utilize land outside of this property for stormwater ponding. The
city engineer should comment as to the acceptability of this arrangement and whether this
property has the right to utilize this easement area. Without the availability of this area outside
the plat, the site plan would have to be modified to incorporate on-site ponding. The grading
plan should identify drainage from the loading berths on the plan. Furthermore, the plan will
require Shingle Creek Watershed District approval. Verification of all setbacks from wetland
areas will be required.
5. Utilities
The preliminary utility plans shows that water will be taken off of Science Center Drive and
extended along the east side of the building for connection. It is likely that if the building is to be
sprinkled, a separate utility connection will be required for fire suppression and with a second
line being provided for potable water. Sanitary sewer is intended to come off the west side of the
building, connecting with the sanitary sewer line that runs through Lot 1. The utility plan is
subject to the review and approval of the city engineer.
6. Signage
The applicant indicates a proposed monument sign on the north side of the building. The
monument sign is 9 ¼ feet in height and has a sign width of 8 to 10 feet. The total sign face is
40 square feet. This is compliant with the industrial district signage standards, which allow a sign
height of 30 feet and a sign area of 100 square feet.
The monument sign detail indicate~ a stucco finish for the face of the sign and a rock face block
finish for the base. Building elevations do not illustrate any wall signage on the building.
Applicant has indicated the only signage other than the monument will be tenant signage on the
glass entry. A sign permit will be required for the monument sign.
7. Exterior Building Materials
The proposed building elevation illustrates the planned building materials and appearance of the
building. The building is proposed to be constructed of 12-inch insulated pre-cast concrete wall
panels, standard gray finish with two smooth banding strips, blue in color, running around the
Planning Case Report 04-02 Page 8 4/2/04
circumference of the building. Aluminum window frames with insulated glass are proposed on
the west, north and east sides of the building.
8. Builaing Elevations
The north and east sides of the building have few architectural elements; additional landscaping
has been incorporated to address this. The west side of the building represents the major
entrance into the building. The entrance area contains architectural accents that include reddish
brown face concrete block at the lower part of the building entry, glass doors and glass windows
as an accent piece under an arched canopy blue in color. Second floor windows are illustrated
and provide additional accent. An arched roof parapet with a pre-finished concrete coping blue
in color. Tan colored stucco finish is also indicated on the face of entry. A color elevation to
illustrate the proposed building has been submitted.
9. Lighting
Proposed site lighting is to be provided from wall fixtures mounted on the building. The wall light
fixtures do not appear to be hooded, with luminaries exposed to public right-of-way and
adjoining properties. The planning consultant recommends that the type and illumination
patterns of the proposed site lighting must be reviewed to consider hooded fixtures on the
building. The photometric plan illustrates that the applicant meets the foot-candle measurements
at the property lines of less than one foot-candle.
A freestanding light pole was added in the south parking lot area in order to add lighting to the
storage area, as recommended by the Design and Review Committee. The pole is a 25-foot pre-
finished metal light post and fixture with a refractor lens.
10. Loading Area
The south building elevation illustrates six loading berths proposed, as well as an overhead
door. It appears, based on the site plan, that the loading areas are sufficiently dimensioned and
offer adequate maneuvering area for large trucks. This is provided that a shared access
easement along the south and east property line is established between Lots I and 2 of the
proposed preliminary plat. The applicant will have to provide a description of the shared access
easement.
The applicant has designated six parking stalls on the site plan as outdoor storage for trailers.
According to Section 4-20(8), outdoor storage may not exceed 20 percent of the gross floor area
of the principal structure. The proposed area is roughly 990 square and therefore, administrative
permit approval will be granted as part of the site plan.
11. Refuse Storage and Fencing
Trash dumpsters will be located inside the building. An eight-foot high chain-link fence with slats
is proposed around the south area of the building away from the street to secure the south
parking and loading area. The eight-foot fence is allowed within the industrial district, and the
location along the property lines is~acceptable based on the Zoning Ordinance. The fence will
require a building permit and shall Show wind-load details.
12. Parking
In accordance with city requirements, the applicant is required to provide 27 stalls based on the
8,083 square footage of office and eight stalls based on the 13,517 square footage of storage,
totaling 35 stalls. The applicant's plan indicates that 53 stalls will be provided, including two ADA
stalls, all of which are properly dimensioned per City Code. The provided parking appears to be
sufficient to meet the parking demands as well as the storage of service vans and the flat bed
trailer that has been identified in the applicant's narrative.
Planning Case Report 04-02 Page 9 4/2/04
The parking lot will have paved palrking area and drive lanes. Poured concrete curb and gutter is
provided around the entire parking and driveway area. Parking meets the minimum setback in all
areas.
13. Landscape Plan
The plan illustrates landscaping on the north, east and west sides of the building. In review of
the landscape materials, the majority of the landscaping includes ornamental plants and Iow
growing shrubs. However, the applicant implemented staff recommendations regarding
additional landscaping by adding plantings at the gate area and along the north and east sides
of the building and taller trees on the north and west sides. The most significant number of
plantings was added on the east side of the building.
All plantings appear to meet the required minimum plant sizes. No significant trees exist on the
site; all are less than six-inch diameter. All disturbed areas require plantings or sod. Landscape
plan notes indicate that all planting and sod areas will be irrigated.
Botanical Name Common Name Size Mature Quantity Actual
Height Noted Shown
Potentilla Fruticosa Potentilla - Gold Drop 3 GAL 3' 18 18
Malus "Springsnow" Springsnow Crabapple 2 ¼" c., B&B 15'-20' 8 8
Hermercollis Stelladora Daylily Bulb 18" 93 93
Thuja Occidentalis Arborvitae, American-Techny 3 GAL 15' 9 9
(Mission Strain)
Picea Glauca Denseta Black Hills Spruce 2" dia. 50' 6 6
Taxus Cuspidata Yew, Japanese Spreading 3 GAL 3' 49 49
Ginkgo Biloba Ginkgo 2 ¼" c. 60' 2 2
Total Items 185 185
According to the landscape plan, one springsnow crabapple will be placed on each side of the
driveway entry, with three Japanese spreading yews around each. Around the monument sign
on Science Center Drive are eight potentilla - Gold Drop and 14 Stelladora daylily. On the west
side, the main building entrance is landscaped with a numbers of yews and daylilies, as well as
three more crabapple tress. Based on Design and Review recommendations, six Black Hills
spruce have been added on the west property line and near the gate entrance. The gate
entrance has also been enhanced with two yews and four daylilies.
Along the east side of the building, based on Design and Review recommendations, landscaping
was added, which includes four crabapple trees, 15 yews and 30 daylilies. Initial plans did not
indicate any landscaping this side of the building so these additions represent a significant
improvement although most of the p,.lantings are Iow growing types.
Planninq Considerations
The planner's comments have been incorporated into this report.
Buildinq Considerations
The building official did not have any comment on the plans, other than those already contained in
this report.
Planning Case Report 04-02 Page 10 4~2~04
G. Le,qal Considerations
The city attorney's comments are attached. In addition, the city attorney will prepare a development
agreement for the project.
H. En,qineerin,q Considerations
Comments from the city engineer are as follows:
1. The new lot will be created via the platting process. A number of easement/ownership issues
must be addressed as part of this process. These issues have been reviewed with the applicant
previously.
a. A city sanitary sewer traverses the new lot along the western limits. This easement is
reflected on the new plat. The sanitary manholes will remain outside of the fenced area and
accessible to public works. The applicant is aware that the city maintains the right to access
the property for maintenance of this sewer including any required excavation. These
conditions are acceptable to both the city/Public Works and the applicant.
b. The proposed pond encroaches on the adjacent property. The encroachment area is
covered by a city drainage and utility easement. While the city feels this encroachment is
justified and is the appropriate use of the property and has, therefore, encouraged the
encroachment, the city attorney has advised that the encroachment be reviewed with the
adjacent property owner.
Kirk McDonald and the city engineer met with the adjacent property owner representatives,
Avtec, on March 24. They agreed informally, that a pond in this area did make sense and
that the city did maintain a drainage and utility easement over this area. However, they were
concerned regarding the liability of having another property's pond on their property.
The city could force the construction of the pond partially on the Avtec property as the city
does maintain drainage and utility easement over this area as mentioned previously, but this
is not the recommendation from staff and the city attorney. Instead, any of the following
approaches would resolve Avtec's issue of liability.
· Option 1 - The property line between 8801 Science Center Drive and the Avtec property
is complicated. It appears that the two properties could exchange equal amounts of
property to "clean-up" the property line. The property line could be reconfigured to follow
the drainage swale, which serves as natural boundary between the two properties. In
conjunction, this would remove the entire proposed ponding area from the Avtec property
and incorporate it into the 8801 Science Center property.
From a staff perspective, this is the favored option, as it would rectify an odd property
line. To facilitate this transition, the city could consider simple lot divisions for the
property exchange and not require additional platting requirements. This should be
reviewed further with the city planner, building official, and city attorney.
· Option 2 - The applicant .~:ould purchase the additional property from Avtec for the
ponding area. Again, the city could accommodate this transaction by allowing a simple lot
division on the Avtec property.
· Option 3 - The applicant could move the entire pond onto the 8801 Science center
property. It is understood that this would be a significant adjustment. The pond would be
moved well into the 8801 property such that there is not a conflict with the existing city
sanitary sewer.
These options have been reviewed with the applicant verbally but the preferred approach
has not been identified.
Planning Case Report 04-02 Page 11 4/2/04
c. Drainage and utility easement must be shown over the entire drainage ditch and pond. The
easement shown on the plat will require some adjustment.
d. 'l'he new Lot 1 will rely on secondary access through Lot 2. A ingress/egress easement is
shown over Lot 2.
2. A storm water pond is shown along the natural channel. Pond and drainage calculations have
been submitted. The city engineer must review the calculations in further detail.
3. A pond maintenance agreement will be required for the swale and pond as is typical.
4. This plan will need to be reviewed by Shingle Creek Watershed because of proximity to a DNR
water body. This requirement has been verified with the Watershed. Coordinate this submittal
through the city.
5. The plans have been revised to show a storm sewer through the site. The intent of the storm
sewer is to intercept runoff from the greater parcel before it crosses the new site. This
configuration has been reviewed with the Watershed's engineer. It is agreed that it would be
more beneficial from a storm water quality perspective to eliminate this storm sewer and allow
the runoff to enter the proposed pond as was originally shown. However, the pond and drainage
calculations must be modified to account for the increased runoff. The pond outlet and overflow
must be able to accommodate the increase in runoff.
6. Water service is shown from the existing main in Science Center Drive. A six-inch main is
stubbed into the property.
a. Do not wet tap the main in Science Center Drive as shown on the plans. Cut-in and sleeve
the connection. Coordinate water shut-offs with Public Works.
b. Patch Science Center Drive to the requirements of Public Works. A city representative shall
be present during the connection and street repair.
c. Verify on-site fire hydrant requirements with the West Metro Fire.
d. Split domestic and fire services on the exterior of the building. Provide shut offs for both per
Public Works requirements.
Following the staff and city engineer's meeting with Avtec, a proposal regarding a land exchange to
address ponding issues was submitted by Avtec. That correspondence is attached.
Subsequent Avtec's correspondence and the city engineer's comments, Northland Mechanical has
communicated directly with Avtec. The two parties are mutually working out an agreement where
Avtec would provide an easement over the pond and Northland Mechanical would provide an
indemnification. Staff is recommending that this agreement be a condition of approval.
Police Considerations
The police department was involved in the review of these plans and its comments have been
incorporated into the report.
Fire Considerations
Comments from West Metro Fire include:
1. On sheet A1 of the plans, the fire hydrant is located on the island near the building on the~
southwest side of the building. The fire inspector initially placed the hydrant there, but an error
was made. The hydrant needs to be relocated so that it is not in the collapse zone of the
building. Technically it should be either at a corner of the building or at least 40 feet away from
the building, but it would be acceptable if the hydrant was located directly across the parking lot
Planning Case Report 04-02 Page 12 4~2/04
from where the hydrant was originally located. The hydrant should be no more than 100 feet
from the fire department connection.
2. The-applicant has a choice of providing either a direct access with a rated room or a WPI for the
sprinkler riser and controls. If the riser will be located in the warehouse, protection around the
riser will be required.
VIII. Summary
Staff believes that the overall site design is well conceived for this property and is pleased that
Northland Mechanical desires to remain in New Hope and construct a new, expanded facility. The
applicant is requesting no variances; the major issue is working out an appropriate ponding
arrangement. Additionally, staff believes that the proposal provides a good opportunity for infill
development on a vacant parcel of land. The development is compatible with the existing zoning and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Based on staff's review of the Northland Mechanical facility,
staff recommends approval of the development application, subject to the conditions listed below.
IX. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and site/building plan review, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Comply with city engineer recommendations dated 4-1-04.
2. Approval of plans by building official.
3. Approval of plans by West Metro Fire.
4. City attorney to review and comment on shared access easement between Lot 1 and Lot 2.
5. Comply with planning consultant recommendations including:
a. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the city engineer.
b. Fire hydrant to be protected by bollards or other approved method.
c. The fire department location (approved by the fire department) shall be marked with a sign
stated "No Parking Fire Lane".
d. Indicate the location of all mechanical areas on the exterior elevations plan.
6. Enter into development agreement with city and provide performance bond (amount to be
determined by city engineer and building official).
7. Establishment of an agreement where Avtec provides an easement over the pond and Northland
Mechanical subsequently provides an indemnification.
8. A sign permit and a fence permit are required.
Attachments:
Zoning/Address/Topo/Section/Aerial Maps
3/26 Petitioner Correspondence'
3/12 Petitioner Correspondence
Preliminary Plat
Legal Description
Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan
Preliminary Utility
Utility Details
Site Plan/Details
Landscape Plan/Details
Monument Sign Details
Planning Case Report 04-02 Page 13 4/2/04
Photometric Plan/Lighting Details
Building Elevations/Notes
Floor Plan
Planning Consultant Report (3/31/04)
City Attorney Memorandum (4/1/04)
City Engineer Memorandum (4/1/04)
Avtec Correspondence re: ponding proposal
Application Log
Planning Case Report 04-02 Page 14 4/2/04
)R
5~2 \
56O0
9201
PARK
555O
8748
8700
CENTER
EAST
8801
~5oo PUBLIC
WORKS
GARAGE
g101
9O0O
542O
5410
5501
5425
5417
5401
9101
56TH AVE
NORTH L
5500
RIDGE
APART-
MENTS ~'-~..
543O
NORTH
RIDGE
CARE
CENTER
5300
9210
9211
5101
~ 51ST
AVE N
5100
:CHURCH
CHRIST -
_';-::.;-:..-~_'_;-7;_'; - ' ,',' f:'-; .... ~ -
~ "::
AVE ~
HOUSE OF .......
HOPE .....
LUTHER~ ; ~:.
COOPER
HIGH SCHOOL
HOOWMAN
...... 8~3 T'~IRO ~TREET SOUTH WEST. NEW'bRIgHTON, M'N 551i-~---
651 63'1 o~Oo
651 639 97~6
Design & Review Committee
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Ave. N
New Hope, MN' 55428
March 26, 2004
page 1 of 5
Project:
Platting and Site/Building Plan Review
8801 Science Center Drive
Science Center Drive LLC / Matt Tieva
The following
Item # 1 -
is a response to your review letter dated March 18, 2004.
comment: 10-foot utility easements encircle the entire lot
response: it is shown on the civil plan sheet 1 of 4, we will add it to
the architectural site plan A-1
Item # 2 -
comment:
response:
existing sanitary sewer easement and utility easement that
runs through Lot 1 will be encumbered by driveway and
parking areas
this ¥. iii be shown on the plat drawing
Item # 3 -
comment:
response:
non-exclusive easement for spur trackage on a
portion of the property - provide ownership details
it is now Lot 4 - no longer an easement
Item # 4 -
comment:
response:
identify the shared access easement running between lots 1
and 2 on the south end of the property
survey department will show this on an easement exhibit
with description
Item # 5 -
comment:
response:
provide description of shared access easement across Lot 2
to illustrate site plan works.
survey department will show this on an easement exhibit
with description
Item # 6 -
commentl
response:
6-inch water service from Science Center Drive to be split
- domestic and fire
it is shown on the civil plan sheet 3 of 4, we will add it to
the architectural site plan A-1 - the service is being moved
to the west side and located at the south west comer of the
building per conversation with fire marshal
A-I
info hoLIwman corn www flouwmafl corn
Design & Review Committee - City of New Hope
Proj%:: Platting and Site/Building Plan Review
response to review letter dated March 15, 2004.
Science Center Drive LLC
Houwman Aa-chitects/SchoelI and Madson Civil Engineers
March 26. 200,4
page ~
~ of 5
Item # 7 -
comment:
response:
lot 2 drainage flows to pond through Lot 1 at the southeast
comer of the building and across parking lot
civil w/ll add a catch basin on plan sheet 3 of 4 to show
draining the storm water over to the existing drainage ditch
on the west
Item # 8 -
comment:
response:
grading plan does not illustrate loading bays on south side
of building
the grading plan will be corrected
Item # 9 -
Item # 10 -
Item # 11,
Item # 12 -
Item # 13 -
Item # 14 -
Item # 15 -
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
comment:
response:
Shingle Creek Watershed approval required
civil engineer to apply after planning commission approval
setback requirement for par'king lot on the east needs to be
3 feet from properB, line
building to be set parallel with the north property line and
set 3 feet west of the existing parking on the east
check setback requirement for paring area adjacent to
wetland on the west
no requirement
landscape irrigation required
it is noted in the general notes of the landscape plan A-I.1
arborvitae and others - yews and potentilla - should be 3 -
gallon size
to be changed in the schedule of the landscape plan A-I.1
Provide taller trees on north and west sides of building for
variation
to be chan_oed on the landscape plan A-lA
additional landscaping on the east near gate and screening
of transformer pad
additional landscaping added near east gate, transformer
relocated to the south side of the building out of site
Design & Review Committee - Ciw of New Hope
Projezr: Platting and. Site/Building Plan Review
response to review letter dated March 18, 2004.
Science Center Drive LLC
Houwman Architects / Schoell and Madson Civil Engineers
March 26, 2004
page 3 of 5
Item # 16 - comment:
resp OhS e:
screening should be provided near the gated back yard
space
additional landscaping added near west gate
Item # 17 - comment:
response:
provide additional landscaping along north and east sides of
building
additional landscaping added on the landscape plan A-i.1
Item # 18 - comment:
response:
signage is compliant With sig-n code
no response required
item # 19 - comment:
response:
lighting and fixtures meet code requirements - possible add
lighting by storage area at south end of building
freestanding light pole added to the south end of the lot
Item # 20 - comment:
response:
consider hooded wall lights
to be considered
Item # 21 - comment:
response:
provide details on storage areas - total area designated as
storage-vs- parking
we have adjusted the south part of the lot and desig-nated 6
parking stalls for storage shown on the architectural site
plan A-1
Item # 22 ~ comment:
response:
provide details on trash enclosure at rear of building to
match building design, access
trash dumpsters to be set inside the building - floor area
noted on architectural plan A-2, note that a 8' high chain-
link fence with slats is set around the south area of the
building away from the street where any dumpsters that
may be set outside would be screened
Item # 23 -
comment:
response:
8-foot high fence requires a building permit - must provide
wind-load details
building permit for the fence to be applied for when
applying for the building permit - wind-load details to be
submitted at that time
Desig-n & Review Committee- City oz N~.,a Hope
Project: Platting and Site/Building Plan Review
response to review letter dated March 18, 2004.
Science Center Drive LLC
Houwman Architects / Schoell and Madson Civil Engineers
March 26.2004
page 4 of 5
Item # 24 -
comment:
response:
mechanical areas should be shown on plans
mechanical rooftop equipment is shown on the architectural
site plan A-l, note calls for the units to be painted.
additional note calls for the color to match the coping on
the parapet wall of the building
Item # 25 -
comment:
response:
provide a color elevation of building
a colored perspective is now provided
Item # 26 -
comment:
response:
provide racking plan for warehouse
it is shown on the architectural floor plan A-2, a note witl
be added for the 8-foot height of :he rackdng
Item # 27 -
comment:
response:
one fire hydrant required within 100 feet of FD connection
it is now shown on the civil plan sheet 3 of 4 and
architectural site plan A-i, it is set in a peninsula near the
southwest comer of the building per conversation with fire
marshal
Item # 28 -
comment:
response:
protect hydrant with bollards
there is a concrete .curb around to protect it - no pipe
bollards should beirequired
Item # 29 -
comment:
response:
fire department to choose location of connection and it
should be marked with no parking, fire lane signage
fire department has chosen a location near the southwest
corner of the building, a "no parking - fire lane" sign to be
set near
Item # 30 -
comment:
response:
automatic sprinkler system required and notification
devices to located throughout structure
automatic sprinkler system requirement is noted in the code
review box on the architectural site plan A-l, design-build
mechanical contractor to develop sprinkler plans for the
project
Item # 31 -
comment:
response:
lock box for emergency access required
it is now shown on architectural site plan A-1 near the
southwest comer
Design & Review Committee - Ciw of New Hope
Project: Platting and Sire/Building Plan Review
response to review letter dated March 18, 2004.
Science Center Drive LLC
Houwman Arckitects / Schoell and Madson Civil Engineers
March -e, 2004
page 5 of 5
Item # 32 - comment:
response:
fire extinguishers to be placed every 75 feet throughout
structure
it is now noted in the code review box on the architectural
site plan A-1
This completes the response. Please contact myself or the owner with an3' questions.
Sincerely, f .
Brian Houwman'V architect
SCIENCE CENTER Draw LLC
2900 NEVADA AVENLrE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MN 55427
PHONE: 763-544-5100 FAX: 763-544-5764
March 12, 2004
City Of New Hope Planning Commission And City Council
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Science Center Drive Office/Warehouse Project Overview
To Whom It May Concern:
Science Center Drive, L.L.C. was formed by the owners of Northland Mechanical
Contractors, Inc. and their family to build a larger building that will meet the current and
future needs of Northland Mechanical.
Northland Mechanical, located at 2900 Nevada Avenue in New Hope for the past 18
years, has outgrown our current space. Our strong desire to remain in New Hope led us
to approach CSM Equities, Inc. about selling us an unused 1.76 acre parcel of land
located on the west end of 8801 Science Center Drive. We wish to build an
approximately 21,600 square foot building on the site made up of approximately 8,400
SF of office, 13,200 SF of warehouse and 7,600 SF of bulk equipment storage located
over the office.
We are not asking for any variances to build this building. We do have an agreement
with CSM for an egress only easement at the south end our property. Pursuant to our
meetings with City Officials, we are also proposing to build our storm water retention
pond on an unused, vacant portion of the west neighbor's property. The City has a
drainage easement for this portion of property.
Our intention is to lease out approximately 5,000 SF of the warehouse footage to a future
tenant. The exact footages will be determined by Northland's needs after we move in to
the space and the future tenant's needs. We are also planning to fence in the south part of
the property with an 8-foot tall chain link with screening. Northland Mechanical wants
the fence for a number of reasons including:
1. Elimination of unauthorized dumpster usage.
2. Temporary storage of a few service vans during "slow" periods in our service
department. Our service vans can be outfitted with over $30,000.00 of tools and
- equipment and we wish to keep them secure.
3. Outside storage of 1 small flatbed trailer that we use to move scissor lifts from
jobsite to jobsite.
We do not have the need to store other equipment or building materials outside.
Other than the above items of interest, our proposed building is your basic pre-cast
office/warehouse building. We hope to proceed with constrUction as soon as possible
following City approval. Our intent is to occupy this building in November or December
of 2004.
We thank you for your consideration.
Thank you,
Science Center Drive, L.L.C.
Matthew R. Tieva - Governor
~A.!R~5_._2_O.O4~ll'4~AM LINDQUIST & VENNUM
DAYBRN McLEOD & ~OSttER I_LP
AT?O~R~Y~ AT
A~n ~, aoo4
~0~ J- DAV]~q
Do~u~ M_ A~
o~ Cotm5~
2002)
BY FAC$IMIL~ TO 612-371-3207 and 763-544-5764
Your CIient:
My Client:
Dea~ Ms. Page,
$~ieac~ Cemer Dfive~ LLC
9101 $oi~ C~t= ~ve, New H~,
, ~ voi~ m~ag~, it is my ~~ ~/~ c~m~ ~vc
a~ ~t C~ ~ve, ~C ~ h~ ~d hdd ~ss A h~ ~~ in
prop~ ,byA~ope~ ~9101 $5~C~~ve~New~ ~o. ~cpond~
__ ~e ~ge ~~ ~ favor of~ ~ ofN~ ~e ~, [~ ~ ~e plat
&c N~ Hope ~l~ing C~si~ n~ ~da% ~d ~ s~ ~g~r ~~~ we ~ you ~ve ~y ~mm~m or qu~o~, o~ ~o ~
~U~OSOi~Ol,~
TOTal. P. 01
SCIENCE CENTER Dmv~ LLC
2900 NEVADA AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MN 55427
PHONE: 763-544-5100 FAX: 763-544-5764
March 12, 2004
City Of New Hope Planning Commission
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Science Center Drive, LiL.C. Request For Waiver Of Final Plat Review
To Whom It May Concern:
Science Center Drive, L.L.C. respectfully requests that you waive the requirement for
final plat review for our proposed building.
We thank you for your consideration.
Thank you,
Science Center Drive, L.L.C.
Matthew R. Tieva - Governor
· /'
I!! 108~reI-Ptat dw~o 3;25/2004 4:~"39 I:~1 CalwnT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lots 2 and 5; that part of Lot 1 described as beginning at the most Easterly corner of Lot 1:
thence West along the South line of Lot 1 a distance of 85.47 feet; thence North deflecting to the
right 90 degrees 07 minutes 53 seconds to an intersection with the Northeasterly tine of Lot 1'
thence Southeasterly along said Northeasterly line to the point of begnning; Lot 4, except that'
part thereof lying Westerly of a curve drawn from a point on the North line of Lot 4 distant .3382
feet East from the most Westerly corner of Lot 4 to a point in the South line of Lot ] distant
54-0.42 feet West from the most Easterly corner of Lot 1, said curve being concave to the
Northwest and having a radius of 498.54 feet;
All in Block 1, Science Industry Center.
Porceto.
That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Science Industry Center, described as beginning at a point on the
South line of said Lot 1 distant 540.42 feet West from the most Easterly corner of said Lot 1;
thence East along said South line a distance of 454.95 feet; thence North deflecting to the left 89
degrees 52 minutes 07 seconds, a distance of 50 feet; thence West parallel with said South line fo
an intersection with a curve drawn from the point of beginning to a point on the I,lorth line of Lot
4 in said Blocl~ 1, distant 55.82 feet East from the most Westerly corner of said Lot 4, said curve
being concave to the Northwest and having a radius of 498.34 feet; thence Southwesterly along
the above described curve to the point of beginning.
Toget. her with a non-e.,:lusive easement for spur trackage purposes and purposes related thereto
over: Th,at part ,:,f Lot 1. Block 1, Science Industry Center, described os beginning at a point on
the South line of s,3i,:t Lot 1 distant 540.42 feet West from the most Easterly corner of said Lot 1'
thence Northeasterly along a curve concave to the Northwest having a radius c,f 498..54 feet;
which curve interse,:ts the North line of Lot 4 in said Block ] at a point 35.82 feet East from the
nqost Westerly ,:orner of said Lot 4 to an intersection with the North line of the south 50 feet of
said Lot 1' thence West ,]long the North line of the South 50 feet of said Lot 1 a dist,]nce of 68.4.5
feet more or tess t,:, ,an intersection with o curve drown parallel with and 40 feet Horthwesterly
from tine ,~bove described curve; thence Southwesterly along said par,]tlel curve and its
continuation to an inter'section with the South line of said Lot 1 tt~ence East along said South
tine to the point ,)f b,~qinr~lng, created by deed recorded in
L~otument No -~581:50,-,is reformed in Torrens Case 16142 -: ...... :,f Deeds, Page 576,
GROSS AREA = 494,897 SQ. FT. OR 11.36 AC.
LOT 1 77,700 SQ. FT. 1.78 AC.
LOT 2 417,197 SQ..,FT. 9.58 AC.
GRADING NOT[S:
10'50"
L=I05 94
/
/
/
/
/
' :"
SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE
LEGEND
¢¢
-
?!
WARNING
Science Center Drive llC
CONSIRUCIION NOIES
/ / '
/ /
/
/
/
/ /
/
/ /
CENTER DRIVE'.
Schoell ~, Madson Inc.
_~ Houwmen Architects
~-~' Science Center Drive LLC
BLAH-TOP CATCH BASIN MANHOLE
EKIMMER ~THUCTU~E
DETAIL
ROCK CONITRUCTIOfl ENTRANCE
CONCRETE CURB ANO GUTTER DETAILE
FABRI~ 8ILTATION FENCE
Houwmln Archltectl
SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE
Proposed Office / for:
Worehouse
New Hope,
SCIENCE CENTER
DRIVE, L.L.C.
(~,j.C.~,,.S I ..O~N ELEVATION
1~.6.~6___E SSIBL~ E
CITY SITE
PLAN REVIEW
COMMENTS SET
3-26-04
PLAN
26'
~NTERIOR DRAIN / OVERFLOW DETAIL
(~)C,~HAIN LINK FENCE
0q%
PC)URED CC)NC.
CURB 4: ~'~UTTER
A~PHALT PAI~I(-.I N®
POURED CONC :
CURB ~ d~UTTER
NO SCALE
E L_
crrY OF NEW HOPE SITE REQUIREMENTS
NIlNII'.'IUM PAP. KING SETSAOK--.S:
NORTH SIDE - 5' - PIEETS REQblIRF:MENT
50UTH SIDE - .5' - N1EETS REQUIREF'IENT
EAST ~113~ - D' - I"'IEETS REGUIREI'4ENT
P, IEST SIDE - 5' - MEETS REQUIREMENT
F::'AP-.K. I N~ ~F:QUI P-.F:h4F:NTS:
TOTAL S.F. = 21~OO
8,083 5.F. OFFICE / 300 S.F. = 2-/ STALLS
ID,..Sf-/ 5.F..STORAGE / I,:..5OO S.F. = q STALLS
TOTAL PAP. KIN®
TOTAL PARt(.IN® REQUIRED 36 STALLS
TOTAL PARId-,..IN.~ PROVIDED ...53 STALLS - OF INHICH / 2 REQUIRED AS
H.C. ACCESSIBLE STALLS.
BUILDINm~ SF:TBAC, KS:
NORTH SIDE - 30' - f"IEETS REQUIRENJENT
ExDUTH SIDE - 30' - NIEETS REQUIREF'IENT
EAST SIDE - IO' - MEETS REQUIREMENT
I,',[EST SIDE - IO' - HEFTS REQUIREMENT
LANE::)SC, APE FREQUI P-.F:h'IENTS=
SEE LANE25C, APE PLAN
SITF: LIgHTINg..
LOT COVERA®F:S=
E~,UILDIN® 96 = 21,~OO
®REEN AREA 96 = 24,443
ASPHALT % = 30,g;,23
12"
AC~ESS~LE~
NOTE: PRFF:INISHED t Lu ~ '~
HETAL POST tE~U~IED / ~ ~ z f
--h-
= (b l,.u i..L
//'."///'///// //////// ~
NOTE: ALL SI®NS MOUNTED
DIRECTL'f' ON THE BUILOlN®
SHOULD BE AT THE SAhdE
HE I®HT
IST ACCESSIBLE STALL TO
Bt= "VAN" ACCESSIBLE
¢1~" INIDE. ALL OTHF:P-.S
l'vlA"r' HAVE ~0" P41DE
ACCESSIBLE LANE.
/4 = I'-O"
~.L__ F::',,/A T I ON
(-i]LANDSCAPE PLAN
~)~c,,,: ,-. ~.,.
SCIENCE CENTER ORIVE
/
ItOUW~,I AN
AR( HITE( TS
' 'k"~.=,,.;-,,
SCIENCE CENTER
DRrVE. [ LC.
CITY SITE
PLAN REVIEW
COMMENTS SET
3-26-04
LANDSC, AF:'IN® HATEtRIAL SC, HEE)ULF
SYMBOL
0
COMHON NAME
POTENflLLA - ®OLE) PROP
SPRIN®C)NOH C, RADAPPL E
5TELLAE)ORA DAYLILY
ARBORVITAE, AMERICAN -
TECHNY (HISSION 5TRAIN)
BLACK HILL5 SPRUCE
YEN, .JAPANESE ~PREAI;)IN®
®INK®O
E~OTANICAL NAHE
POTENILLA FRUTIC. OSA
MALU:5 ".c~PRIN®SNOk, i,,
HERMEROCALLIS "STEt LADORA"
THUJA OCCIDENTALI5
PIC. EA ®LAUCA DENSETA
rAXU5 CUSPIDATA
®INK®O BILOBA
HEI®HT
:~'
15'-20'
15'
50'
REMARKC~
~ ®ALLON
2 I/2 "C., B~tB
®ALI.ON
2" PlA.
®AI_I_ON
2 I/2 "C.
LANE:).~C. APIN® NO1-E_~:
I. NO EXISTIN® SlCSNtFICANT TREEE~ ON ~ITE, ALL LE~ TI4AN ~" DIA.
2. OHNER ~ 6.0. TO HAINTAIN LANDSCAPE HATERIAL5 TO COHPLY ~ITH IHE
FOI_LO~IN~ 5TAN~ARD~
- ALL OIS'IURBE~ AREAS REQUIRE PLANTIN~ OR ~OD.
- ALL PLANFIN¢ ~ ¢O~ A~EA~ TO HAVE AUFOHATIC LAMN 5P~INKI.ER IR~I~AflON.
- PLANTIN~ AREA5 TO HAVE ROC~ HULCH I BI_ACK PLA~FIC FI2OIN~
- ~O~ ~U~T BE PLACE OVER 4" OF NATIVE BLAOK PlRT FORH ~11~. ~OP
HU~T BE PLACE TO THE EPeE OF THE ROA~.
TENANT
- .'5TLICCO FINh~H
----ROCK FACE BLOCK
5CALI~: I/2" = I'-0"
SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE
(~-)1:~ h 0 TOM E TRI C PLAN
LUMARK'
IM.WAL-PA
LUMARK·
~'~,~t G.. H,/J. ,.P.2 L E DETAIL
LUMARK'
IIOIJWMAN
ARCHIT[CT%
SCIENCE CENTER
DRIVE, EL,C.
CITY SITE
PLAN REVIEW
COMMENTS SET
3-26-04
-LUMARK'
INLWAL-PAK
LUMARK'
GPGLASS-PAK
50-400W
High Pressure Sodium
Pulse Start Metal Halide
Metal Halide
WALl. MOUNT
LUMINAIRE
35-175W
High Pressure Sodium
Metal Halide
WALL MOUNT
LUMINAIR£
Footcandle Table
Select mounting height and reed across for footcandle
values of each isofootcandle line. Distance in uni~ of
mounting height.
Mounting Footcandle Values for
Height I.ofootcandla Un#
A B C
1(~ 8.00 4.0O ZOO
1,,6' 3.64 137 0.89
20' ~, 2.0O 1.00 O. BO
25' ! 1.28 0.64 0.32
2.50 MATT METAL HALIDE
D E
0.44 0.17 A
0.20 0.10 ~ 10'
0.16 0.06 ~_.~,90
1~'5 PLATT METAL HALIDE -_.._a
Footcandle Table
Select mounting height and read across for footcandle
values of each isofootcandle line. Distance in units of
Mounting Footcandle Values for
~t Isofoot~anclle Lines
B C D E -----'---
2.00 1.00 0.50 0.20 0.10
0.45 0.25; 0.09 0.04
PI~.F::F t N I~HF:[::) I'.'IF:TAL
LIGHT PO~T ~ FIXTUt~.E
-ELF::C, TtRIC, AL I::2F:~te, N/~UI L[::)
~U~C, ONTt~.AC. TOt~. TO C, OOR, DINATF
~I~Lt:::(_.TION OF: LI~-IT FIXTUP. E
" !
t~.E F:~AC. TOIR
LUMARK'
~.: .e'~.~ ??~ ..: . '~
PFH
HAMMER AND
POLE COMBO
150-4OOW
High Pressure Sodium
I 5'-30'
Pole
POLE AND FIXTURE
COMBO
24" E:)IA. POUtREO ~
C..ONC_.~E TE E~A~E
Lt HT POLE
~C. ALF: I/4" : I'-O"
L
FoOtclndle Tlble
Select mounting height end read acmes for
footcIndle velueI of each ilofool:cindle line, Distance
in units of mountin~l hei~lht
Mounting
Height Footcandle Vllull for
HR-1 I~footr~ndle Unes
A B C D E -
20' 11.26 4,60 2.25 1.13 0.45
25' 7.20 2.88 1.44 0,72 0.29 .
30` 5.00 2,00 1.00 0.52 0,?,0
Footcandle Table
Select mounting height Ind read ecroes for
fool=andle vlluel of loch i~ofootcandle line. Distance
in units of mountin~r height.
MouSing
HMgM ~ndle VelueI f~
H~2 tsd~ndle ~
A B C D E F
20' 22.50 11.25 4,50 2.25 1.13 0.46
25' 14.40 7~.0 2~8 1,44 0.72
30' 10,00 6,00 2.00 1.00 0,60 0,~_0
(i/ /B~ (^)
UP ANIP kin Ix. ALLId .SH.O
N O P--.Tt--t ~I-tZVATION
5C, AI__E: 1/16" = I']O"
H ELEVATION
7-i,_o~,
- HALL NIOUNTE[~
LI®HT FIXTURE
5Ed, URIFI' LI®HT /
POI/IN C, AST.
NOTE: LI®HTIN® ON THEE, E IELEVATIONS
E~UPEIRSEDE THE LI®HTIN® ON EXllERIOR
El EVATION~ 5HEEl' (A~].
-- IPE6ORATIVE LI®HI- FIXTURE -
UP AI',II~ POi,fiN t,'flALLIdA~H.
tZI_LTV'ATION
LEA~T
.~d.,ALE~ 1/16" ~ I'-0.
(4) (.~)
ELEVATION
[i~zl_ _OR TH ELEVATION
~__-'~S_ OUT H ELEVATION
~ =,~.i ~,~- ;,.:i~ .........
It o u w M A N
~,..-~ ,
SCIENCE CENTER
DRIVE, L.L.C
CITY SITE
PLAN REVIEW
COMMENTS SET
3-26-04
~REPINISHED HE'FAL
COP N® BLUE COLOR.
BLUE PAINTEE) FLAT
BAND.
~ 5TUC, C,O FINI`BH
FNTR'f, TAN COLOR.
OHNERS Stile -
THRU 6LA%S UP -II®H.
51DE -
/ SPANDREL
DIA®ONAL ROD
SUPPORT FOR
CANOPT-
CONC.
RAKE
ARCHED CAi'
BLUE 60LOR
TENANT SI®N
ON '~LASS.
REDDISH BROHN -------/
ROC, KFAC, E CONE...
DLOCK IN SHADED
AREA.
ALUHINUH
=RAHE5 (®RE"r')
LANDSCAPING IN
SlE;'Ek,IALK APPROACH
KEY NOTES
INSULATED PRECAST CONC. HALL PANELS - STANI~ARE) RAKE FINISH WITH ~HOOTH BANE)IN~
I0' X I0' OR 12' X 12' PREFINISHED HETAL INSULATED I~RI¥~ IN.O.H POOR
ALUMINUM 5TORE FRONT FRAHE5 ~ITH INSULATEp ~LA55 - THERHALL% BROK/N~INIHIZE THERMAL TRAN~MI9910N
ALUMINUM HIN~OH FRAME~ HITH INSULATED ~LA55 - THE~MALLT BROKEN~INIMIZE THERMAL TRAN~MI~510N
P~BFINICHE~ METAL COPIN¢
POURED CONCRETE APRON ~ ~RIVE-IN O.H. DO0~
POURED CONCRETE STOOP ¢ MAN ~00~
PAINTED ~" ~IA. STEEL PIPE BOLLA~ - CO~E FILL ~/CONC. ~ ~OME TOP. 5ET OUT I'-0" F~OM
T~ANSFo~ME~ - 5ET ON OONC. PA~. VERIFT EXACT LOCATION HITH ELECTRICAL 5U~ONTRACTO~.
~MOOTH BAN~ - HATCH TOP OF HINPo~ AT ENTRT.
~LLNOSE 5ILL BLOCK - PAINTED, 5ET AT ~INPoH5 AT MAIN ENT~.
;~' X -/' IN~LATEE~ STEEL MAN O00R - PAINTEE)
ROCK:FACE CONC. BLOCK VENEER UNDER E~LLNO~E, AT ENTRy: ONLY. ROCKFACE FINISH ON ALL EXPO~E~
FACE$.
5~000 FINI$H.
HALL MO~TE~ LJCHT FIXTURE - UP
CANoPT - P~OJEC~D ~T 24" HITH NECE55ED CAN LICHTS.
5ILL BLOCK - TTPICAL ~ ALL
POUR[~ CONO. RETAININ¢ HALL HITH PAINTEp ~TEEL I I/2" ~IA. PIPE ~ARDRAIL - MAX. 12" 9PACIN~,
MIN. 42" ABOVE CRADE
DOCK LEV~LE~
~ALL ~O~TE~ LIGHT FIXTURE - PARKIN~ LOT LI~T / ~OHN ~ OUT CAST
IIOUWNIAN
SCIENCE CENIER
DRIVE, L.L.C.
CITY SITE
PLAN REVIEW
COMMENTS SET
3 - 26 - 04
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners~nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Michael Darrow / Alan Brixius
March 31, 2004
New Hope - Science Industry Center 3rd Addition-Preliminary Plat
and Site Plan
131.01 - 04.04
BACKGROUND
The applicant Science Center Drive LLC and property owner CSM Equities LLC have
requested a subdivision to create two new lots and a site and building plan review for
Lot 1. The site is located at 8801 Science Center Drive and is zoned Industrial District.
The proposed expansion of the site will allow the facility to remain in operation within
the City of New Hope and meet the needs of Northland Mechanical Contractors. In
order to proceed with the application, the applicant must go through a preliminary plat to
create lot and block description for the newly created lots. The property in question is
currently in a lot and block and metes and bounds description. The proposed
subdivision will create new legal descriptions. Additionally, the application will require
site plan approval.
ANALYSIS
Lot Area
The Industrial District requires a minimum lot area of one acre. The proposed Lot 1
would be 1.76 acres in size. The proposed Lot 2 would be 9.60 acres in size.
Therefore, both lots meet the required lot area requirements in the Industrial District.
The proposed plan would create an industrial building of 21,600 square feet. The
building will include 8,400 square feet of office, 13,200 square feet of warehousing.
Lot Width
Within the Industrial District, a 100 foot minimum lot width is required. Both Lot 1 and 2
exceed this requirement. The applicant's site plan illustrates that both Lots 1 and 2
buildings will meet all required I-1 setbacks. The proposed building on Lot 1 meets the
required I-1 setbacks as shown below:
Required Proposed
Front Yard Setback
Rear Yard Setback
Side Yard Setback
30 feet
30 feet
10 feet
30 feet
240 feet
East Property Line - 10 feet
West Property Line - 58 feet
Easements
The preliminary plat shows utility easements around all proposed lot lines 10 feet in
width which meets City requirements. The proposed subdivision identifies the creation
of two lots that are fully conforming to City Code and the I Zoning District, however,
additional information is necessary as far as the existing easements that run across Lot
1, specific to the reil spur trackage and the sanitary sewer line. These easements may
· encumber the lot in a manner that would change the building and site development
configuration. With regard to easements, a number of issues are raised:
There is an existing sanitary sewer easement per plat and utility easement
Document 3224670 that runs through Lot 1. This easement will be encumbered
by driveway and parking areas and this must be reviewed and approved by the
City Staff if the site plan is to proceed ahead.
The legal description shown on the preliminary plat indicates that there is a non-
exclusive easement for spur trackage and purposes related thereto over portions
of the property. This non-exclusive easement will become Lot 4 and will no longer
be an easement.
A third easement is for shared access between Lots 1 and Lots 2 required to be
identified, but will not be included on the final plat. What is being proposed is Lot
1 would exit the property on the south end and travel through Lot 2 parking lot for
truck maneuvering. A description of this easement will be required for review and
approval by the City Staff.
Approval of the Preliminary Plat is contingent upon approval from current
easement owners.
Drainage
The applicant is proposing to utilize land outside of this property for stormwater
ponding. The City Engineer should comment as to the acceptability of this
arrangement and whether this property has the right to utilize this easement area.
Without the availability of this area outside the plat, the site plan would have to be
modified to incorporate on-site ponding. The grading plan should identify drainage
from the loading berths on the plan. Furthermore, the plan will require Shingle Creek
Watershed District approval. Verification of all setbacks from wetland areas will be
required.
Utilities
The preliminary utility plans shows that water will be taken off of Science Center Drive
and extended along the east side of the building for connection. It is likely that if the
building is to be sprinkled, a separate utility connection will be required for fire
suppression and with a second line being provided for potable water. Sanitary sewer is
intended to come off the west side of the building, connecting with the sanitary sewer
line that runs through Lot 1. The utility plan is subject to the review and approval of the
City Engineer.
Impervious Surface
Impervious surface shall not exceed 80 percent of lot area. The proposed site plan
shows that 68 percent of the entire site will be impervious surface, thus compliant with
the I-1 standards.
Landscape Plan
The landscape plan illustrates intended landscaping on the north, east, and west sides
of the building. In review of the landscape materials and locations, we find that most of
the landscaping includes ornamental plants and Iow growing shrubs. Plantings are also
shown near the gate and will provide some screening of this backyard area. All planting
and sod areas will have an automatic lawn sprinkler irrigation system.
Site Lighting
Proposed site lighting is to be provided from wall fixtures mounted on the building. The
wall light fixtures do not appear to be hooded with luminaries exposed to public right-of-
way and adjoining properties. The type and illumination patterns of the proposed site
lighting must be revised to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The photometric
plan does illustrate that the applicant meets the foot candle measureme'nts at the
property lines of less than one foot candle.
Refuse
Trash dumpsters wilt be located inside the building.. An 8' high chain-link fence With
slats is set around the south area of the building away from the street. The fence will
require a building permit and shall show wind-load details.
Parking
The applicant indicates that the buildinq includes approximately 8,083 square feet of
office, which requires 24 parking stalls. ~,n additional 13,517 square feet of the building
is proposed for storage. Based on City requirements, this would require 8 parking
stalls, for a total of 32 parking stalls between the office and storage uses. The applicant
illustrates 53 parking stalls on the site plan, all of which is properly dimensioned per City
Code. The parking lot will have paved parking lot and drive lanes. Poured concrete
curb and gutter is provided around the entire parking and driveway area. The provided
parking appears to be sufficient to meet the parking demands as well as the storage of
service vans and the fiat bed trailer that has been identified in the applicant's narrative.
Parking meets the minimum setback in all areas.
Off-Street Loading
The south building elevation illustrates six loading berths proposed, as well as an
overhead door. It appears based on the site plan that the loading areas are sufficiently
dimensioned and offer adequate maneuvering area for large trucks. This is provided
that a shared access easement along the south and east property line is established
between Lots 1 and 2 of the proposed preliminary plat. The applicant will have to
provide a description of the shared access easement.
The applicant has designated six parking stalls on the site plan as outdoor storage for
trailers. According to Section 4-20 (8), outdoor storage may not exceed 20 percent of
the gross floor area of the principal structure. The proposed area is roughly 990 square
and therefore, administrative permit approval will be granted as part of the site plan.
Fencing
The applicant is proposing an 8 foot fence to secure the south parking and loading area.
The 8 foot fence is allowed within the Industrial District. The location along the property
lines is acceptable based on the Zoning Ordinance.
Signage
The applicant indicates a proposed monument sign at the north side of the building.
The monument sign is 9 ~ feet in height and has a width of 8'to 10 feet. The total sign
face is 40 square feet. This is compliant with the I-Industrial signage standards which
allows a sign height of 30 feet and a sign area of 100 square feet. Building elevations
do not illustrate any wall signage. Wall signs within the Industrial District limit the
number of signs to two per building, not to exceed 15% of front facade or 250 square
feet, whichever is less. A sign permit will be required.
Building Elevation
The applicant has provided building elevations. The building will be constructed of 12"
insulated pre-cast concrete panels, standard gray finish with smooth banding.
Aluminum window frames with insulated glass are proposed on the west, north and
east sides of the building. The north and east side of the building have little other
architectural elements and as such additional landscaping has been suggested. The
west side of the building represents the major entrance into the building. The entrance
area includes architectural accents that include reddish brown block face concrete block
at the lower part of the building, glass doors and glass windows as an access piece
under an arched canopy blue in color. Second floor windows are illustrated that provide
additional accent. An arched roof parapet with a pre-finished concrete coping blue in
color. A color elevation to illustrate these items should be provided for Planning
Commission review. The applicant should show all mechanical areas on the building
elevations.
conditions.
Additionally, the applicant will be required to adhere to all fire code
CONCLUSION
The proposed Preliminary Plat and Site Plan site plan are generally consistent with the
City Code. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat
and Site Plan, staff would recommend approval be based upon the following conditions:
1. Approval of the Preliminary Plat is contingent upon approval from current easement
owners.
2. The plan will require Shingle Creek Watershed District approval. Verification of all
setbacks from wetland areas will be required.
3. Grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City
Engineer.
4. The applicant shall show all mechanical areas on the building elevations.
5. A color elevation shall be required for Planning Commission review.
6. All fencing shall require a building permit.
7. A sign permit shall be required.
8. One fire hydrant shall be required within 100 feet of the fire department connection
to the building.
9. Fire hydrants shall be protected from damage with bollards or another approved
method.
10.The Fire District shall pick the location of fire department connection and have it
marked with a sign stating "no parking fire lane."
11.As noted on plan, the building shall be required to be covered by an automatic
sprinkler system.
12. Notification devices (horn'and strObes) shall be located throughout structure and
shall activate upon activation of the automatic sprinkler system.
13.The type and illumination patterns of the proposed site lighting shall be revised to
meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
14.A lock box for emergency access shall be required. Fire District staff shall determine
location of fire department lock box.
5
15. Fire extinguishers shall be selected according to
every' 75 feet throughout the structure.
16.Additional comments from City Staff.
the
hazard
covered and
placed
DOUGLAS J. DEBNERz
GORDON L. JENSEN~
GLEN A. NORTON
STEVEN A. SONDRALI
STACY A. WOODS
OF COUNSEL
LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD
Real Property Law
Specialist Certified By
The Minnesota State
Bar Association
2Admitted in Iowa
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A.
Attorneys At Law
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201
BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1968
TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193
e-mail law~jensen-sondrall.com
April 1, 2004
VIA E-MAIL TO kmcdonald~ci.new-hope.mn.us
AND BY REGULAR U.S. MAIL
Kirk McDonald
Community Development Director
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Re,'
Science Industry Center 3ra Addition
Our File No.: 99.15060
Dear Kirk:
I have examined the preliminary plat for the Science Industry Center 3rd Addition and have the
following comments:
the plat indicates Science Center Drive, LLC is the owner of the involved real
estate. However, the title work provided with the plat indicates CSM Equities,
LLC is the fee owner subject to a purchase agreement to sell the property to
Science Center Drive, LLC. Science Center Drive, LLC will need to establish its
fee ownership prior to execution of the final plat, otherwise, CSM Equities will
need to be a signatory on the plat as well.
the plat does not contain a signatory dedication sheet. As a result, I am unable to
determine other signatories, if any, for the plat. A dedication sheet is required with
additional title evidence establishing that the signatories on the dedication sheet are
consistent with the parties in title or with an interest in the involved property.
the plat also shows several existing easements. Said easements are public with the
exception of the spur trackage easement . To the extent these easements are no
longer necessary they should be vacated or extinguished per New Hope Code
section 6-9. As you know, this will require a public hearing after notice to any
affected parties with an interest in or adjacent to the easements. Those easement
which are still required can be left in place. A determination will need to be made
in this regard and the developer should be required to petition the City to vacate
the unnecessary easements.
4. all real estate taxes for the year in which the final plat is recorded will need to be
paid in full prior to recording of the plat.
Very truly yours,
April 1, 2OO4
Page 2
Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney,
City of New Hope
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A.
sas~jensen-sondralt.com
Direct Dial (763)201-0211
P:~ttomey\SAS\l Client Files~2 City of New Hope\99-15060\preliminary plat letter.doc
Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal
Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto G. Bonestmo, P.E. · Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. · Glenn R. Cook, P,E. · Robert G.
Schunicht, P.E., Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. · Mark A. Hanson, P.E.
Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P,E. · Joseph C. Anderlik, P.;=. · Richard E. Turner,
P.E. · Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A.
Associate Principals: Keith A. Gordon, P.E. · Robert R. Pfeffede, P.E. · Richard W. Foster,
P.E. · David O. Loskota, P.E. · Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. · Ted K. Field, P.E. · Kenneth P.
Anderson, P.E. · Mark R. Rolls, P.E. · David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. · Sidney P. Williamson, P.E.,
L.S. · Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A. · Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E. · Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. · James R.
Maland, P.E. - Miles B. Jensen, P.E. · L. Phillip Gravel III, P.E. · Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E.,
Ismael Martinez, P.E. · Thomas A. Syfko, P.E. · Sheldon J. Johnson · Dale A. Grove, P.E. ·
Thomas A. Roushar, P.E. · Robert J. Devery, P.E.
Offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar, MN · Milwaukee, WI · Chicago, IL
Website: www.bonestroo.com
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM:
Vince Vander Top
CC:
Mark Hanson, Guy Johnson
DATE: April 1, 2004
SUBJECT: Northland Mechanical site review - 8801 Science Center Drive
Our File No. 34-Gen E04-04
We have reviewed the revised plans for the site improvements. Previous comments which were
not addressed should still be considered and may be repeated herein:
The new lot will be created via the platting process. A number of
easement/ownership issues must be addressed as part of this process. These issues
have been reviewed with the applicant previously.
ao
A city sanitary sewer traverses the new lot along the western limits. This
easement is reflected on the new plat. The sanitary manholes will remain outside
of the fenced area and accessible to public works. The applicant is aware that the
City maintains the right to access the property for maintenance of this sewer
including any required excavation. These conditions are acceptable to both the
City/Public Works and the applicant.
bo
The proposed pond encroaches on the adjacent property. The encroachment area
is covered by a City drainage and utility easement. While the City feels this
encroachment is justified and is the appropriate use of the property and has,
therefore, encouraged the encroachment, the City Attorney has advised that we
review the encroachment with the adjacent property owner.
Kirk McDonald and I met with the adjacent property owner representatives,
Avtec, on March 24th. They agreed informally, that a pond in this area did make
sense and that the City did maintain a drainage and utility easement over this area.
However, they were concerned regarding the liability of having another
property's pond on their property.
The city could force the construction of the pond partially on the Avtec property
as the City does maintain drainage and utility easement over this area as
mentioned previously, but this is not the recommendation from staff and the City
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
o
Attorney. Instead, any of the following approaches would resolve Avtec's issue
of liablilty.
Option 1 - The property line between 8801 Science Center Drive and the
Avtec property is complicated. It appears that the two properties could
exchange equal amounts of property to "clean-up" the property line. The
property line could be reconfigured to follow the drainage swale, which serves
as natural boundary between the two properties. In conjunction, this would
remove the entire proposed ponding area fi.om the Avtec property and
incorporate it into the 8801 Science Center property.
From a staffperspective, this is the favored option as it would rectify an odd
property line. To facilitate this transition, the City could consider simple lot
divisions for the property exchange and not require additional platting
requirements. This should be reviewed further with the City Planner,
Building Official, and Attorney.
Option 2 - The applicant could purchase the additional property fi.om Avtec
for the ponding area. Again, the City could accommodate this transaction by
allowing a simple lot division on the Avtec property.
Option 3 - The applicant could move the entire pond onto the 8801 Science
Center property. We understand that this would be a significant adjustment.
The pond would be moved well into the 8801 property such that there is not a
conflict with the existing City sanitary sewer.
These options have been reviewed with the applicant verbally but the preferred
approach has not been identified.
c. Drainage and utility easement must be shown over the entire drainage ditch and
pond. The easement shown on the plat will require some adjustment.
d. The new Lot 1 will rely on secondary access through Lot 2. A ingress/egress
easement is shown over Lot 2.
A storm water pond is shown along the natural channel. Pond and drainage
calculations have been submitted. The City Engineer must review the calculations in
further detail.
A pond maintenance agreement will be required for the swale and pond as is typical.
This plan will need to be reviewed by Shingle Creek Watershed because of proximity
to a DNR waterbody. We have verified this requirement with the watershed.
Coordinate this submittal through the City.
The plans have been revised to show a storm sewer through the site. The intent of the
storm sewer is to intercept runoff fi.om the greater parcel before it crosses the new
site2 We have reviewed this configuration with the Watershed's engineer. We agree
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 65~-636-4600 · Fax: 65~-636-~3~
that it would be more beneficial from a storm water quality perspective to eliminate
this storm sewer and allow the runoff to enter the proposed as was originally shown.
However, the pond and drainage calculations must be modified to account for the
increased runoff. The pond outlet and overflow must be able to accommodate the
increase in runoff.
Water service is shown from the existing main in Science Center Drive. A 6-inch
main is stubbed into the property.
a. Do not wet tap the main in Science Center Drive as shown on the plans. Cut-in
and sleeve the connection. Coordinate water shut-offs with Public Works.
b. Patch Science Center Drive to the requirements of Public Works. A city
representative shall be present during the connection and street repair.
c. Verify on-site fire hydrant requirements with the West Metro fire.
d. Split domestic and fire services on the exterior of the building. Provide shut offs
for both per Public Works requirements.
End of memo
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 65~-636-4600 ° Fax: 65~-636-~3~
Avtec Finishing Systems, Inc. - Avtec Properties
New Hope, Minnesota Property
Terms for Exchange of Drainage Properties
Avtec Finishing Systems, Inc., as tenant, and Avtec Properties, as landlord and owner
(collectively, "Avtec"), hereby agree to exchange real property with Liberty Property Limited
Partnership ("Liberty") pursuant to general terms, as follows:
1. Avtec owns property which shares a common boUndary with Liberty.
o
The area of the common boundary is used for drainage and is encumbered by an
Easement in favor of the City of New Hope (the "City") for drainage purposes.
Avtec and Liberty will exchange property in the area of the common boundary,
which exchanged property (a) will be of approximately the same size (in area) and
(b) will continue to be used for drainage purposes.
In connection with the exchange, Avtec and Liberty will enter into a written
Agreement confirming the exchanged areas and the comparable value for the
exchanged areas. That Agreement will alsc~ contain statements of liability and
indemnity for use of the drainage areas.
5. A surveyor will determine the legal descriptions of the final exchanged parcels.
o
At the closing, (a) Avtec will provide a quit claim deed of the Liberty area to
Liberty, and (b) Liberty will provide a quit claim deed of the Avtec area to Avtec.
All lenders of both properties will need to consent to the exchange and mortgages
will need to be restated to the new legally described property areas.
The City will waive any subdivision requirements otherwise necessary by reason
of the exchange.
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 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City
cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response
number Name received notice limit limit 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
04-02 Science Center Drive LLC 3/12/04 5/11/04 7/10/04
2900 Nevada Avenue N
New Hope 55427
763-544-5100
Matthew Tieva
B.
C.
D.
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.
Assign each application a number.
List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
List the date the City received the application.
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.
To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
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.)
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:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
Meeting Date:
Report Date:
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
April 6, 2004
April 2, 2004
04-04
A. C. Carlson
8901 Bass Lake Road
Preliminary Plat Approval and Site/Building Plan Review
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting preliminary plat approval for property to be known as AC Carlson Addition
and site/building plan review to allow construction of a new 17,130 square foot office/showroom/
warehouse, pursuant to Section 4-35 and Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
I1. Zoning Code References
Section 4-35
Chapter 13
Property Specifications
· Zoning:
Location:
Adjacent Land Uses:
Site Area:
Lot Area Ratios:
Planning District:
Specific Information:
III.
Administration - Site Plan Review
Subdivision and Platting
I, Industrial
Southwest quadrant of the intersection at Bass Lake Road and International
Parkway
Industrial land uses to the east a'nd west, R-3, Medium Density Residential,
and R-l, Single Family Residential to the north across Bass Lake Road, R-4,
High Density Residential and Victory Park Pond/wetland to the south
128,520 square feet or 2.95 acres - per site plan, survey shows 128,551
Proposed green area: 64,903 square feet = 50.5%
Proposed building area: 17,130 square feet = 13.3%
Proposed paved area: 46,267 square feet = 36.0%
No. 3: The Comprehensive Plan indicates that this district has a strong
industrial base and is in excellent condition. The primary goal Within this
district is the preservation and enhancement of its industrial land uses, which
can be accomplished through the promotion of industrial infill development of
the remaining vacant parcels.
The site has been owned by the petitioner for many years and has remained
undeveloped. Planning for this project has been ongoing for many years. The
site consists of two separate parcels that will be combined as a result of this
action. The property is .adjacent to a Department of Natural Resources
wetland to the south. No improvements will be allowed within the wetland. The
proposed ponding is currently under review by the city engineer and the
developer. The ponds, as shown along the south property line may infringe on
the wetland and proposed ponding may be excessive. The city engineer will
Planning Case Report 04-04 Page 1 4/2/04
coordinate with the applicant regarding further wetland delineation and
ponding requirements. The Shingle Creek Watershed District will review the
plans for compliance.
IV. Background
AC Carlson has submitted an application for preliminary plat and site plan approval for the property
located at 8901 Bass Lake Road. The area is zoned I-Industrial. The company is proposing to provide a
retail, showroom, and warehousing space for their facility. As part of the proposal, the applicant is
seeking plat approval to combine Lot 1 and Lot 2 into one lot. The combination will result in a total site
area of 128,520 square feet or approximately 2.9 acres. The proposed building is 17,130 square feet in
size. The applicant has submitted a cover letter referencing the history of their business, as well as,
revised plans based on comments from the Development Review meeting of March 17 and Design
Review meeting of March 18. The following approvals are necessary for this project to proceed:
1. Site Plan Approval. . :_
2. Subdivision and Platting
V. Petitioner's Comments
The petitioner submitted correspondence dated March 12, which states: "A.C. Carlson has been selling
appliances in this community for 50 years. We have operated at two different locations in Crystal (1954-
1982) and at our current location in New Hope for 22 years (1982-2004). Currently, we have a 6,000
square foot office/showroom and an off site warehouse at Science Center Drive in New Hope. We
would like to expand our facilities to upgrade our showroom and combine it with our warehousing so
everything would be at a single location. This is necessary to better compete in the ever changing
marketplace we find ourselves in - Sears, Home Depot, Lowes, Appliance Smart, are fierce
competition, however, we still offer something they can't: personal, courteous service and competitive
'prices. If given the choice, many people prefer to buy locally from a family owned business who is
actively involved in the community. This site and the plans we are proposing would fulfill our current,
and hopefully, our future needs."
VI, Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments.
VII. Development Analysis
A. Zoninq Code Cdteria
Subdivision and Plattinq
The purpose of this chapter is to make certain regulations and requirements for the subdivision and
platting of land within the city of New Hope pursuant to the authority contained in Minnesota
Statutes 462.358, which regulations the City Council deems necessary for the health, safety and
general welfare of this community. It is also the purpose of this chapter to safeguard the best
interests of the city of New Hope and to assist the subdivider in harmonizing his interests with those
of the city at large.
Per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to city department heads, city attorney, city
engineer, planning consultant, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment..
Comments received include the following:
Utility Companies - no response.
City Engineer- see attached correspondence and comments.
Hennepin County - please refer to city engineer's comments.
Planning Case Report 04-04 Page 2 4/2/04
City Attorney - see attached correspondence and comments.
The City Code states that copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its
review and recommendation, unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Commission
during its review of the preliminary plat, The petitioner has not submitted correspondence
requestinR a waiver of the review of the final plat by the Planninq Commission, but the issue
was discussed and the commission may want to discuss this further with the applicant. The
Planning Commission will need to make a determination as to whether it wants to review the final plat
or not. Due to the simple nature of the plat, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
waive the review of this final plat.
Site and Buildinq Plan Review Code Criteria
The purpose of the site plan review is to insure that the purposes of this Code are adhered to, it is
hereby determined that 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 pursuant to the procedure established by this section.
In making recommendations and decisions upon site and building plan review applications, the staff,
Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the compliance of such plans with the following
standards:
1. Consistency with the various elements and objectives of the city's long range plans, including
but not limited to the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Consistency with the purposes of this Code.
3. Preservation of the site in its natural state, insofar as practicable, by minimizing tree and soil
removal, and designing any grade changes so as to be in keeping with the general appearance of
neighboring developed or developing areas.
4. Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces with the terrain and with
existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the proposed development.
5. Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features including:
a. Creation of an internal sense of order for the various functions and building on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community.
b. Appropriateness of the amount and arrangement of open space and landscaping to the design
and function of the development.
c. Appropriateness of the materials, textures, colors, and details of construction as an expression
of the design concept of the project and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and
neighboring structures and functions.
d. Adequacy of vehicular, cycling and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking, in terms of location and number of access points, general interior circulation,
separation of pedestrian, cycling' and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking
so as to be safe, convenient and, insofar as practicable, compatible with the design of
proposed buildings, structures and neighboring properties.
Creation of an energy-conserving design through design, location, orientation and elevation of
structures, the use and location of glass in structures, and the use of landscape materials and
site grading.
Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for such matters
as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and those
Planning Case Report 04-04 Page 3 4/2/04
Bo
aspects of design, not adequately covered by other regulations, which may have substantia,
effects on neighboring land uses.
Develol~ment Review Team
The Development Review Team met to review the plans on March 17 and was supportive of the
project. Comments included drainage and utility easements, vacation of one easement, wetland
mitigation, storm sewer and ponding, water main and sanitary sewer, irrigation and landscaping,
sidewalk, retaining wall, parking, curb cut on Bass Lake Road, building materials, trash enclosure,
location of mechanical area, racking plan, protecting hydrant with bollards, fire department
connection and lockbox.
C. Design and Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee reviewed the plans on March 18 with the petitioner and was
supportive of the request. The same concerns as listed above were discussed with the applicant.
D. Plan Description
Revised plans and comments were submitted as a result of the Design and Review Committee
meeting and comments from the planning consultant and developer on the submitted plans are as
follows:
1. Lot Layout and Platting
The proposed Industrial use is consistent with the city's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive
Plan for the area. The area to the north is zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential, to the east is
zoned Industrial, to the south is zoned R-4 High Density Residential and Open Space, and the
area to the west is zoned industrial. According to City Code, Section 4.20, the purpose of the I-
Industrial District is to provide for the establishment of heavy industrial development uses which,
because of the nature of the product or character of activity, requires isolation from residential or
non-compatible commercial uses.
The current site includes two lots. The proposed plan will create one lot with 9,600 square feet
of retail and 7,530 square feet of warehouse space.
2. Setbacks
The following setbacks are proposed for this development:
Building Required Proposed Compliant?
Front: West 30 ft. 210 ft. Yes
Side: North 10 ft. 40 ft. Yes
I. Side: South 10 ft. 197 ft. Yes
Rear: East 30 ft. 58 ft. Yes
In the planning consultant's review of the required setbacks, the building is fully conforming to
the I standards. .~
Site Data
Zoning I- Industrial
Site Area 128,551 SQ. FT. (per survey)
(SQ. FT.) (%)
Building - Retail & Warehouse 17,350.2 13.5
Asphalt 46,267.2 36.0
Green 64,902.6 50.5
Planning Case Report 04-04 Page 4 4/2/04
Impervious surface shall not exceed 80 percent of the lot area within the Industrial District. The
proposed plan shows a building area of 13.5% and the green area of 50.5%, thus compliant with
I District standards.
Parking
According to Section 4-3-e of the Zoning Ordinance, the gross floor area of each use shall be
calculated and a 10 percent reduction shall be made for nonproductive space. Based upon the
submitted plans 51 parking stalls are required based upon the following calculation:
Required Parking Proposed Parking
Retail 9,600*.9=8,40/200=43
Warehouse 7,530'.9/1,500=5+3=8 spaces.
Total 51 51
The applicant shows four accessible spots, including one accessible van space. Accessible
spaces are compliant with code.
The applicant will be required to identify and post "No Parking Fire Lane" signage and dedicate
an area for fire emergency purposes. West Metro Fire-Rescue District has indicated that it would
like to see the fire department connection at the south end of the retail portion of the building.
Furthermore, they indicated that the curb area south of the retail facility be posted "Fire Lane -
No Parking." No parking stalls would be used for fire department access.
Revised plans did not account for additional expansion. Preliminary plans identified future
expansion to the south and east of the proposed retail and warehouse building. Future business
expansion will be limited by the number of parking spaces that can be provided on the site.
5. Access and Traffic Circulation
Access to the site will be prOvided from International Parkway. Patrons to the retail area will gain
access from International Parkway. The access onto Bass Lake Road will require a driveway
permit from Hennepin County. The applicant is proposing a 28 foot curb cut onto Bass Lake
Road to accommodate truck traffic. Per Design and Review comments, the applicant expanded
the turning radius to accommodate truck turning at Bass Lake Road.
The applicant will be required to complete the sidewalk along Bass Lake Road as part of plat
approval.
The applicant has provided a traffic circulation plan for the proposed truck traffic. Based on the
submitted plans, there appears to be sufficient truck traffic maneuverability to the site provided
that trucks enter the site via International Parkway. Access off of Bass Lake Road should be
identified as a one-way exit and will be limited to truck traffic only.
6. Refuse Enclosure
The applicant has identified a fully enclosed dumpster location at the southem portion of the building.
The enclosure meets the requirements regarding design. The trash enclosure will be 84 square feet.
The plan indicates that on the south elevation the trash enclosure will be behind integral color rock,
face block similar to the building. The gate will swing out and materials are not identified, but will be
required for identification as a condition of approval.
Landscaping
According to City Code, where an industrial use abuts property zoned for residential use, that
industry shall provide screening along the boundary of the property. The applicant has identified
nine Black Hills Spruce plantings on the southern side of the building. The northern property line
includes a mix of shrubs, trees, and perennials. The western side includes a mix of ornamental
Planning Case Report 04-04 Page 5 4/2/04
trees and shrubs. The planning consultant is recommending landscaping within all parking
islands. Landscaping was not added to the concrete medians as discussed at the Design and
Review Committee meeting. The commission may want to discuss landscaping in the concrete
medians at the meeting. An irrigation system will be required for the site. Seeding and
restoration types and methods will need to be defined in the areas shown on the plans.
Common Name I Species I Size I Noted I Shown
Overstory Trees
Ash, Patmore I Fraxinus pennsylvanica 'patmore' I 2.5" BB 4 I 4
Maple, Autumn Blaze Acer x Freemanii 'Jeffersred' 2.5" BB 8 8
Ornamental Trees
Crab, Red Splendor I Malus 'Red Splender' I 1.75" Pot I 6 I 3
Evergreen Trees
Pine, Ponderosa Pinus ponderosa 6' BB J 6 6
Spruce, Blackhills Picea glauca densata 6' BBI 9 9
Deciduous Shrubs
Maple, Compact Amur I Acer ginnala 'Bailey Compact' 24" r32 132
Spirea, Anthony Waterer Spiraea x bumalda 'Anthony Waterer' 18' 7 13
Evergreen Shrubs
Arborvitae Techny Thula accidentalis 'Techny' 4' BB 3 3
Juniper, Hughes Juniperus horizontalis 'Hughes' 18" 8 8
Juiper, Seagreen Juniperus chinensis 'Sea Green' 18"
Perennials, Vines
Daylily, Assorted Spp. Hemerocallus spp. #1 Pot 37 49
Purple Coneflower Echinacia purpurea #1 Pot 6 6
Black Eyed Susan Rudbeckia fulgida 'Goldsturm' #1 Pot 7 7
Grass, Feather Reed Calamagrostis acutiflora 'Karl Foester'
Total Items 133 148
The following inconsistencies were noted on the landscape plan:
1. Crab, Red Splender - Three noted on the west side of the building, no symbol shown.
2. Spirea, Anthony Waterer - Per Design and Review comments, six added on west side of
building. Plants noted on plan, but not on schedule.
3. Daylilly, Assorted Spp. - Per Design~ and Review comments, 12 added on west side of
building. Plants noted on plan, but not on schedule.
Sod will be placed around the majority of the site. Per Design and Review comments, sod will be
placed to the east side of the building. Seed will be placed on all disturbed areas not receiving
sod. Also per Design and Review comments, the plan was revised to note that an automatic
underground irrigation system will b'e designed and installed by owner approved contractor.
The following new landscaping is proposed for the site:
Trees: Four patmore ash overstory trees will be placed on the site, two on the northeast portion
of the site and one on each side of the International Parkway entrance. Eight autumn blaze
maple over-story trees will be placed on the site, four on the north side of the parking lot and
four on the west side of the parking lot. Six red splendor crab trees are proposed, three east of
the front entrance (moved away from the front door per police comments) and three are noted to
be placed on the west side of the building (no trees shown). Six ponderosa pine evergreen trees
are noted, all are proposed to be on the northeast portion of the property along Bass Lake Road.
Planning Case Report 04-04 Page 6 4/2/04
Finally, nine Black Hills spruce are proposed to be placed along the southwestern end of the
trucking lanes to provide screening to the south property.
ShrL~bs: Thirty-two compact amur maple shrubs will be placed on the site, 16 will lie beneath the
autumn blaze maples on both the west and north edge of the parking lot. Thirteen Anthony
Waterer spirea will be added to the site, seven will be placed near the front entrance and six
were added to the east side of the building per Design and Review comments. Three techny
arborvitae will be placed at the northeast corner of the building. Eight hughes junipers will be
placed near the front door entrance and six seagreen junipers will be placed around the
monument sign near the northwest corner of the site.
Perennials, Vines: Forty-nine daylilys will be placed at the site, 19 will be placed near the front
entrance, 18 around the monument sign and 12 were added to the east side of the building per
Design and Review comments (shown on plan, but not noted on schedule). Six purple
coneflowers will be placed on the north side of the monument sign base. Seven black eyed
Susans will be placed near the front entrance. Finally, nine feather reed grass plants will be
placed at the site, nine on the north and south end of the monument sign base and three near
the front entry.
Signage
One freestanding sign is allowed per property within the Industrial District. The applicant has
identified a pylon sign to front Bass Lake Road. Below are the requirements for freestanding
signs within the I-Industrial District.
Freestanding Signs Height Square Feet
I-Industrial Standards 30 foot maximum 100 square feet max.
Proposed Sign 22 feet 56 square feet.
10.
Two wall signs are proposed on the north and western sides of the building. According to the
City's Sign Ordinance, not more than two walls signs are permitted per building. The total area
of all wall signs shall not exceed the lesser of 15 percent of the front face of the principal
commercial or industrial building or 250 square feet. The proposed wall signs are 72 square feet
each for a total square footage of 144 square feet which is in compliance with City Code. The
plan notes that the wall sign will be internally lit channel letter, plex-face. The pylon sign will be
internally lit and will be mounted on two painted steel columns. A sign permit will be required.
Snow Storage
Snow storage is not specifically located on the plan. It is assumed that the applicant will store
snow in the two ponding areas. The applicant should provide for snow storage on the plan and
will be noted as a condition of approval.
Lighting/Photometric Plan
A photometric plan was submitted.;AII lighting should be down cast and meet the requirements
of City Code. No fixture details were provided.
The following lighting will be added to the site:
Building: Fourteen fixtures will be added around the perimeter of the building. Eight single'
12,600 lumens lights will be installed, one on the northwest corner of the building, one on the
southern wall and one on the east wall of the retail portion of the building, one on the west side
and one on the south side of the warehouse portion of the building, one on the northeastern side
of the warehouse portion of the building and one along each truck unloading area. Six single
5,500 lumens lights will be installed, three at the northeast corner of the building and three at the
southwest part of the retail portion of the building.
Planning Case Report 04-04 Page 7 4/2/04
Parking Lot: Two back to back, 23,000 lumens pole lights will be located in the parking lot.
As required, the lighting plan indicates foot-candle measurements, but does not extend to the
south property line. According to the foot-candle measurements in other locations, the south
property line will measure 0.0 foot-candle. City Code requires a maximum one foot-candle of
illumination at the property line when abutting residential property. An updated plan was not
submitted with revised plans.
11. Building Elevations
The proposed building will be a mixture of painted concrete, cast stone, integral color rock and
face block, glass, and EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finish System). The planning consultant
recommends that the painted concrete be replaced with colored masonry for long-term durability
and less upkeep.
The applicant will be required to indicate all of the mechanical areas on the exterior elevation
plans. The applicant will be required to provide a racking plan for the warehouse and showroom
on the floor plan. Additionally, the applicant will be required to adhere to all fire code conditions.
The total area of the building is 17,130 square feet. The building has two sections, retail and
warehouse. The building is one story tall and 24 feet high at its tallest point.
Building materials will be consistent around the structure. The main entryway of the building at
the west entrance will be surrounded by glass. Cast stone base will be on each side adjacent to
the entry. Face brick will be placed upon the base up to an EIFS cornice with a pre-finished cap
flashing at the top. Four sets of windows are shown to the south of the entryway. EIFS will
continue southward over the glazing. The lower eight feet of material will be integral color rock
face block. The remainder of the wall will be painted concrete block. Pre-finished metal cap
flashing will be installed along the entire roofline. A 42 square foot internally lit channel letter,
plex-face identification sign will be placed in the EFIS section on both the west and north section
of the building (see sign section). Screening will be placed along the roof where the rooftop
equipment is placed. Approximately 105 feet south of the northwest corner of the building, the
building turns toward the east. At the inner-corner of the building a man door and steel overhead
sectional door is planned.
The same material and configuration of the entryway will continue around to the north elevation.
No entry is planned for the north side of the building.
Materials are consistent around the east elevation. Approximately 120 feet to the rear of the
building will be two semi-truck loading docks. Both will be steel overhead sectional doors. A steel
stairway to a man door is located at the very southeast corner of the building. The refuse
enclosure is located to the south of the building in an enclosed outdoor storage area, fixed to the
south exterior wall. A corrugated metal roof will cover the area. The trash enclosure will have two
five-foot high swinging doors. Material is not specified. The open air storage area will 'continue
around the south elevation approximately 80 feet and will be on a concrete pad. The exterior of
the open area will be integral color r~ock face block. Steel tube columns located approximately 10
feet apart will line the open storage area. The northern portion of south elevation will include
several windows and a man door.
A color elevation was submitted, but specific colors were not identified.
12. Outdoor Storage
Outdoor storage is proposed at the southern end of the warehouse building and requires an
administrative permit. According to Section 4-20(8), outdoor storage may not exceed 20 percent
of the gross floor area of the principal structure. The applicant has identified an area of roughly
1,040 square feet (or 17% of the gross floor area) for outdoor storage which is below the 20
Planning Case Report 04-04 Page 8 4/2/04
percent threshold of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, administrative permit approval will be
granted as part of the site plan.
13. Fir~ Considerations
As stated in the parking section, the applicant will be required to identify and post "No Parking
Fire Lane" signage and dedicate an area for fire emergency purposes. West Metro Fire-Rescue
District has indicated that they would like to see the fire department connection at the south end
of the retail portion of the building. Furthermore, they indicated that the curb area south of the
retail facility be posted "Fire Lane - No Parking".
West Metro Fire-Rescue District staff recommended that the sprinkler riser be identified on the
plan.
14. Floor Plan
According to the site plan, the total area of the building is 14,130 square feet. 9,600 square feet
in the retail portion of the building and 7,530 square feet of warehouse space. Rooms include:
three offices, break room, sales area, vestibule, two restrooms and a small storage area. A
racking plan was requested by the building official and will be submitted during plan review.
15. Utilities and Drainage Plan
As part of the plat, the applicant is seeking to vacate the existing drainage and utility easement
which runs north south between Lot 1 and Lot 2. Approval of the preliminary plat and vacation of
the utility easement will be contingent on the verification that the easement is no longer
necessary for the site as recommended by the city engineer.
The proposed drainage easement is located on the perimeter of the preliminary plat. With the
approval of the site plan, it should be acknowledged that preparation, improvements, and/or
restoration within easement areas will occur at the expense of the property owner. An easement
and maintenance agreement for the ponding area will be required.
Two drainage ponds are proposed for the site, one on the southern and one on the western side
of the site. The grading, utility, and drainage plans are subject to the review and approval of the
city engineer. The grading and drainage plan is also subject to the review and approval of
Shingle Creek Watershed District because of the close proximity to the DNR protected wetland.
The applicant has identified a retaining wall on the southern and eastern portions of the plan,
however wall details are not provided. The retaining walls will be subject to the review and
approval of the city staff.
E. Planninq Considerations
The planner's comments have been incorporated into this report.
F. Buildinq Considerations
The building official's comments have b~een incorporated into this report.
G. Le.qal Considerations
The city attorney's comments are attached. In addition, the city attorney will prepare a development
agreement for the project.
H. En.qineerinq Considerations
City engineer comments include:
1. A list of all easements to be vacated should be provided. The easement between the two
existing lots is noted for vacation.
Planning Case Report 04-04 Page 9 4/2/04
2. Hennepin County has received a copy of the preliminary plat and has deemed it is incomplete.
Additional information was required regarding Bass Lake Road including the location of the
median and the median opening near the east driveway. The applicant should contact Hennepin
County for additional information.
3. Two significant retaining walls are noted on the property. An engineered design and detail must
be provided and approved by the building official and city engineer.
4. In lieu of the retaining wall along the south and west property line, the city and applicant could
discuss the potential of grading onto the city property and eliminating the need for a wall. It does
not appear that this would impact the adjacent wetland. A restoration plan for the city property
would need to be further defined.
5. A wetland delineation report has been provided. The city has reviewed this report as LGU for the
wetland conservation act. Some revisions to the delineation were recommended.
No improvements (including ponding) will be allowed within the wetland. The ponds, as shown
along the south property line, should be reconfigured to avoid the wetland. Please refer to
comments regarding ponding elsewhere in this report.
The entrance drive may also infringe on the delineated wetland. This must be clarified and
mitigated if appropriate. Mitigation could occur on the adjacent city property if agreed to by the
city.
6. Seeding and restoration types and methods will need to be defined in the areas shown on the
plans. A native seed mix will be needed in areas to remain natural and not actively mowed and
maintained.
7. Drainage and utility easements will be required over all ponding areas. A pond maintenance
agreement will also be required. This will identify that pond maintenance is the responsibility of
the property owner.
8. Storm sewer is shown to be extended along International Parkway as is required.
9. Storm water calculations have been provided for review. The city engineer will review these
calculations in further detail.
Two ponding areas have been provided on site in conjunction with an infiltration basin. In our
opinion, the infiltration basin will not be successful because of the heavy soils (Iow infiltration
rates) native to the area. It is recommended that the infiltration area be eliminated. This would
enable the ponds to be reconfigured and eliminate the need for the storm sewer between ponds.
This issue was reviewed with Single Creek Watershed and it is agreed that infiltration will not be
forced into situations where it is not likely to succeed. However, it would be recommended that a
vegetative filtration strip be established between the pond discharges and the edge of the
wetland.
10. The runoff from the parking lot to;the north pond should be controlled through a catch basin
and flared end structure. A rip-rapPed swale and curb cut will lead to an on-going maintenance
issue.
11. The plans will need to be submitted to and reviewed by Shingle Creek Watershed because of
the proximity to a DNR protected wetland.
12. With the modifications to the ponding area, Public Works access to the sanitary manholes
along the south property line must be maintained. Easement must be maintained over this line.
13. The eastern driveway should be signed as an egress only. A Hennepin County driveway permit
will be required for this access.
Planning Case Report 04-04 Page 10 4/2/04
Police Considerations
The police department was involved in the review of these plans and its comments have been
incorporated into this report.
J. Fire Considerations
West Metro Fire was involved
incorporated into this report.
VIII. Summary
in the review of these plans and its comments have been
Staff believes the overall site design for the property is well conceived. Furthermore, staff believes that
the proposal provides a good opportunity to use a site that is ready for development. The development
is compatible with the existing zoning and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The building
would be an attractive addition to New Hope's Industrial District on a heavily traveled thoroughfare.
Based on staff's review of the AC Carlson facility, staff recommends approval of the development
application, subject to the conditions listed below.
IX. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the site/building review and subdivision and plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. Comply with city engineer recommendations, including those dated April 1, 2004.
2. Comply with Hennepin County requirements for platting and access.
3. Approval of plans by building official.
4. Approval of plans by West Metro Fire-Rescue District and comply with recommendations.
-5. Enter into a development agreement with the city and provide performance bond (amount to be
determined by city engineer and building official).
6. Comply with planning consultant recommendations including:
a. Make determination if additional landscaping is needed within parking islands. Seeding and
restoration types and methods should be defined in the areas shown on the plans.
b. Revised plans did not show future expansion, but any expansion would be required to be
approved through the planning process and proof of parking would be necessary.
c. Verify turning radius with building official at plan review. Access off of Bass Lake Road should
be identified as a one-way exit and will be limited to truck traffic only. Finally, the applicant
should complete the sidewalk along Bass Lake Road.
d. The applicant has identified a retaining wall on the southern and eastern portions of the plan,
however wall details are not provided. The retaining walls will be subject to the review and
approval of the city staff.
e. Make determination if proposed 'i3ainted concrete block should be replaced with colored
masonry for long term durability and less upkeep.
f. Indicate the location of all mechanical areas on the exterior elevations plan.
g. Submit photometric plan showing foot-candle measurements at the property line and
demonstrate fixtures comply with City Code.
7. Correct minor plan issues including:
a. Landscaping plan correction, snow storage identification, identify refuse enclosure door material,
and match survey and site plan area.
Planning Case Report 04-04 Page 11 4/2~04
9.
10.
Attachments:
The Commission should determine if final plat review is to be waived.
The plan is subject to review and approval of the Shingle Creek Watershed District.
Sign permit is required.
Address/ZoningFFopo/Aerial/Maps
Petitioner Narrative
West Elevation Rendering
Plat
Property Description
Grading, Utility and Erosion Control Plan
Engineering Notes and Details
Site Plan
Project Data
Floor Plan
Exterior Elevations
North Elevation
South Elevation
West Elevation
East Elevation
Pylon Sign Elevation
Landscape Plan
Landscape Plan Notes
Landscaping Schedule
Photometric Plan
City Attorney Correspondence, 4-1-04
Planning Consultant Memorandum, 3-31-04
City Engineer Memorandum, 4-1-04
West Metro Fire-Rescue District Comments, 3-30-04
Application Log
Planning Case Report 04-04 Page 12 4/2/04
5981
5955
5921
5917
5960
5928
5955
5949
5909
LIBERTY
9015
PARK
5956 5957
594-8 5949
594.0 5941
5952 5955
5924 5925
5916 5917
5908 5909
590O 5901
5848 5857
5840 5849
5852 / 584-1
594-8 5949
5940 5941
'5932' 5933
5924- 5925
5916 5917,
5908 5909
5900 5901
5856 5857
5848 5849
5840 5841
5852 5833
97~0
565 / PKWY
5621
CTR RD WEST
565O
VICTORY
5832 k,~ PARK
5600 / 5550
5901 1~301
8731
8701
5625
8748
870O
CENTER
EAST
5555
HOSTERMAN ~ I
JRHIGH
SCHOOL WINNETKA
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL =
905.4
904.7
×
×
$97.4
893.
\
\
\
x,
/
G£TTYSB£RG CIRC
a.c. carlson
SOURCE Appliances
7550 Bass Lake Road
New Hope, MN 55428
(763} 533,5333
A.C. Carlson has been selling appliances in this community for 50 years. We have
operated at two different locations in Crystal (1954-1982) and at our current location in
New Hope for 22 years (1982-2004). Currently, we have a 6,000 sq ft. office/showroom
And an off site warehouse at Science Center Drive in New Hope. We would like to
Expand our facilities to upgrade our showroom and combine it with our warehousing so
Everything would be at a single location. This is necessary to better compete in the ever
Changing marketplace we fred ourselves in--Sears, Home Depot, Lowes, Appliance
Smart, are fierce competition, however, we still offer something they can't: personal,
Courteous service and competitive prices. If given the choice, many people prefer to buy
Locally from a family owned business who is actively involved in the community. This
site and the plans we are proposing would fulfill our current, and hopefully, our future
needs.
, I.
/ I ~
~ I
/
_//
/ I
I
I .........
! ;
/ /
/
/
// /
I
'T'
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Az provided)
Lot I, Block I, MINNESOTA SUN ADDITION,
And
That part of the Northeast ~ of the Southwest ~ of Section 6, Township 118
North, Range 21, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of Tract A, Registered Land Survey
Number 1014; thence Southerly along the Southerly extension of the West line
of said Tract A a distance of 34.12 feet; thence Westerly deflecting to the right
104 degrees 45 minutes o distance of 121.36 feet; thence Westerly 380.75 feet
feet along a tangential curve to the left, having a radius of 1432.4 feet to the
actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence Southerly
250.52 feet along a line radial to said curve; thence at a right angle Westerly a
distance of 204.45 feet; thence Northerly deflecting to the right 77 degrees 15
minutes ,31 seconds a distance of 233.03 feet to an intersection with the
Westerly extension of the aforesaid curve; thence Easterly along the westerly
extension of the aforesaid curve 257.57 feet to the actual point of beginning,
EXCEPT, oil that part of above described tract which lies Northerly of a line
drawn parallel with and 50.00 feet Southerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Southwest ~; thence Southerly
along the West line of said Southwest ~ a distance of 18.3.00 feet; thence
Easterly, deflecting 81 degrees 50 minutes to the left, a distance of 414.74
feet; thence deflecting to the left along a tangential curve having o radius of
1909.86 feet (delta angle of 21 degrees 32 minutes 06 seconds) for a distance
of 717.85 feet; thence Easterly on a tangent to said curve a distance of
384.75 feet to the point of beginning to the line to be described; thence
deflecting to the right along a tangential curve having a radius of 1432.40 feet
(~ distance of 400.00 feet and there terminating, according to the plat or map
thereof on file or of record in the Office of the County Recorder, in and for
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
architects'
minneapoli9
newport beach
pasadena
~(KE Archltects~ Inc.
~00 firsl ovenue north
m~neapoUs, mn 5540!
/ / I
///'"~ I
/ /
/
-- LO;" 2
V
A C CARLSON
N~IN HOLT., MN
J J GRADING, UTILIIY,
SEE SHEET C2 FOR ADDITIONAL ~ ~OS~ON com.o~.
NOTES AND DE-rAILS
: 'i:?..:!:.-::. :" .;.',~ :. :;i!:,~:.,-.: :" ~: .': :.:~/ii:,'i~:..,,: :.:' ,', ~ ::.. :::.::,: ,..i...: ':: :::.' .:: .:,:~; ..:. ,':.,: .:.. :. i.'<' :.:":.~;:' ~'-- .....
· :,.':: '"' F.-' ..'::?;-~:'.:L.: . ' ,- , -:':: .... . :' ,~' ..:...ii.. ; .-.. .. ':..: :.
m N.k'V F/mIEnS-IlION
I KKr'
~rch~ec~$
minneapolis
newport beach
pasadena
KKE Archltecls, Inc.
ZXO0 first avenue north
minneapolis, mn 5§,t01
A C CARLSON
AoDmot4.
NEW HOPE, MN
ao~s AND OETAIL$
BASS LAKE ROAD
KKr'
architects
,,
AC CARLSON
NEW HOP~ MN
PROJECT DATA
RETAIL S.F.
PARKING
REQUIRED 1/200
TOTALS
8,780
44
WAREHOUSE S.F.
PARKING
REQUIRED 1/1500
8,360
6
TOTAL S.F.
TOTAL PARKING
REQUIRED
17,140
50
PARKING
PROVIDED
51
SITE AREA
BUILDING AREA
128,520 S.F.
13.5
GREEN AREA
50.5
ASPHALT AREA 36 ~
II
KKr'
architects
AC CARLSON
NEW HOPE, MN
FLOOR PLAN
°
KKr'
architects
AC CARLSON
NEW HOPE, MN
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
INTEGRAL COLOR
fACE BLOCK
PAINTED CONCRETE
BLOCK
INTE~R.AL
ROCK FACE BLOCK
LEYATION
EXTERIOR ACCENT LIGHT
yHECN.
5CREENIN~
I NTEI~J'"I~ad,-LY LIT,--....._
CHANNEL LETTER, '~
FW.E FIcNIApE~FL~AL --.., E.I.F.D.-~.,. , ,.-
ACCENT' LIGHT CADT DTONE BADE
ALL~INUH DTOREFRONT ~
FACE BRICK
E)OT. OF
HEAD
CADT DTONE BADE
FLOOR. LINE
ioo,_~, ~f..
r~ T.O. HASONI~¥
?
~ I~IINDOI~I HEAD
,.~ PIO0~ LINE
? IOO'-O"
(~SOUTH ELEVATION
~.tALE= I/~" = I'-0"
FACE BLOCK
ENCLOSURE I
CAST .STONE E~A,E/E
~ FLOOIR. LINE
~d I00'-0"
E.I.F..~. f'--- ~ FINIE, HED I',~TAL ~_--- INTER. NALLY LIT, CHANNEL ~ INTEGRAL COLOR. R~CK. ~
~_~E~T ELEVATION
~ALE: I/~," = I'-0"
5CREENIN~
ACCENT LI~'tT
BLOCK
EXTERIOR AC, CENT
LIS, H?
STEEL OVERPEAD
E~ECTIONAL DOOR
INTE~R, AL COLOR.
ROCK FACE BLOCK
ROCK. rACE E~LOCK.
FIN-I~IALL
ACCENT LIGHT ~ PAINT, ID C,ONC, Ia4~TE
j,
FINISHED METAL /-
CAP FLAE:4"IIN~____/
-- PAINTED CONCRETE
INTEGRAL COLOR. ROCK-.
FACE BLOCK
I&
~ a.c. carlson
r aplll~nce~ ~
LIT,
PIPE~ ¢OLLJIv1N,
PAINT
(~F'"r'LON 51~o,N' ELEVATION
,~....,ALE: I/,D" =
~AA~-h
IHA¢o-Ii
MAAU-4
-
architects
1
AC C~.LSON
NE~ HOFF., ~
* t~ase Information provided I~ t(,tr.~ A~'chlteci:5
~ Contractor shall Ioccr~ and verif!j all utilities ~at mc~ affect ~his ~ork.
One Call, 454.0002 '
~opher 5to~
Contractor shall coordinate his ~orl¢ ~1~ o~ers at slt~ and campier4,- his ~orl¢ per
o~ner's schedule.
contractor .shall verlf.~I c. jrades prior to commencing ~or~
* Contractor shall notif~j o~ner one ~eelr, prior to antlcipateal completion and ~uarant~e
Inspect;Ions.
Plant mat~rlals shall be ~uarant;eed one (I) full ~ear upon totol completion an~t
All plant material shall compl~ ~1~ ~e current edition of ~e "American Standard F:or
~rser~ ~k'. Trees shall ~ from ~e~Ifle~ nurse~ s~k as ~eflne~ ~ ~on~olle~ ~
Hlnnesoto ~to~s sections I~.~ ~hrou~h 1~.61, ~e Pes~ ~'.
All mass shru~ plan~ln~s shall ~ e~e~ from la~n are~ ~1~ ~ommer~lal ~ade Vln~l
E~gln~. ~l~s shall ~ pla~e~ 4 per 20' sea,lan ~ e~ln~.
' Trees not in rock beds, nor in shrub beds, shall receive rin~s of mulch 4" deep. Mulch
shall not be place dlrectl~ a~aln~t ~e trunk of ~e
~ato~roof crepe ~ee ~r~. ~pl~ prl~ ~ ~v. ~O an~ remov~ no la,er ~an ~rll
~1~ mitre ln~lca~ on plan. ~o~lan blan~ ~111 ~ u~ ~here ~lope~ are ~rea~er
approve~ con~a~r. Coordlna~ ~leeve Ioca~lon~ and In~tolla~lan~ a~ ~Irec~
OVERSTORY TREES - B.B.
SYMB, I QTY'i
ASPA 4
MAAU 8 I
VARIETY SPECIES
Ash, Pntmore Fraxinus pennsy[vanica 'Patmore'
Maple, Autumn Blaze Acer x Freemanii 'JeF?ersred'
SIZE
2.5'
2~5'
COMMENTS
DRNAMENTAL TREES - B.B.
SYMB' I QTY'/
"CRRE I 3
VARIETY
SPECIES
Crab, Red Splendor Malus 'Red Splendor'
EVERGREEN TREES - B.B,
SIZE t COMMENTS
1.75' /Potted
,,SYMB' / QTY,
'PIPO06 / 6
VARIETY
Pine, Ponderosa Pinus ponderosa 16' b.b.
Spruce, B[ackhiUs Pice:
DECIDIOUS SHRUBS
CDMMENTS
C YMB. I QTY.
MACD I 32
SPAN / 7
VARIETY
Map[e, Compact Amur
SPECIES / SIZE 1 COMMENTS
Acer ginnaLa 'Bailey CoMpact' / 24' / ComMents
Spiraea x bum:Ida 'Anthony Waterer, /18, / COMMentS
Spirea, Anthony Waterer
EVERGREEN SHRUBS
SYMB. I QTY,
JUSE / 6
VARIETY
Arborvitae, Techny
Juniper, Hughes
Juniper, Se:green
SPECIES
Thuja occident:lis 'Techny'
Juniperus horlzontalis 'Hughes'
duniperus chinensis 'Sea Green'
PERENNIALS, VINES
SIZE
4' b.b.
COMMENTS
DAAS
PEPU
PERU
QTY.
7
VARIETY
DayU[y, Assorted SDD.
Purple Cone?lower
Black Eyed Susan
Grass, Feather Reed
'L SPEC IE______~S ~
HeMeroca[iis spp.
Echinacea purpurea I ~I ~
Rudbeckia ?uLgida 'GoldsturM' I #1 ~
Calamagrostis :curl?lama 'K~r[ Foester'~
COMMENTS
....................................... ...'..__.._~ ....... -L._...~ ........ ZL.':._'''''~'~"~ ....... o,o_.~.o.,.~:??.o o.o o.o ~.o o.o *o.o ~.o ~.o ~.o '0.o 'o.o ~~i8.~*-1'~-~ ..... 1-~ ......
.... ; ........... ~ ---",~'~ --- L~~~;~J~ ~- - o ........ ~"*
. .... ,. ~-,.~ , .... ~..~-:..-,,- ~ .................. o.,...or.o,.,,.._.~___,,,.,,, ,,o., ._-~,o o
, ~ ~ . . o.~ ~.~ ~,2 ~.l ~.~ ~.o ,o.o o.o ~.oj~.o/
~ ~ ...... ~.~ ~,s ~ ..~.0 ~.o ~,~ ~.s ~.~ ~.~ ~.o ~ ~., ~.~ ~ ~.~
" ~.. b~.-~ ~ .......... ':t~' · -~' · · ~ ......o,~ ].~ oF o.~
,,~ .......... ~.~(..., '?6 ~.~x 2.0 / ~.~ ~.s 1.6 ~.9 ~.s *) *.2
;~.o* ~'~"~n--'o:z--~3.--~--~.~-.~:~ '~-~-~"~"~-~'~-~-~s-'~' ~4 ~ ~4"~8 ~ .... ~ -[ ·
/ ....... x~' *~ ' ~' c ~.6 2,8 i.s 0.~ p.n 09 b.I
t oo oo ~0 oo 0 0 ~2 ~3 o~ ~4 04 ~ 06 ~s os
/ ' " ' ' " " ' · ' . '. · ' ' ~S ~4 ~4 ~4 ~3 ~2 ~3 ~ ~6'~4 ~g Mil'tS / ~8 ~4 ~ ~ ~ '~ *
~ ", ,. /' / !
~ ~. ". I // / /
~.~...~ ~ ', I ..... ~ ,-./ ," /
:~,~ ........ :~----t~,----~-..-r~~-~.~ ~ f.... ~._ . ./~ C Carlson ~ddlt]O.
:~~~~ ~e0~"~ = "~ / - ~'~ .............. ~.~-'~ ~"~ -/' ~/ ---
....... ' ..... ~ -,~ ~ t~;._. ~-'* =~:' ' '
~.. ~ ............... ] / S~te L~ght~ng Proposnl
~ ............... New Hope, ~mnesotn
DOUGLAS J. DEBNERz
GORDON L. JENSEN~
GLEN A. NORTON
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
STACY A. WOODS
OF COUNSEL
LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD
~Real Property Law
Specialist Certified By
The Minnesota State
Bar Association
2Admitted in Iowa
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A.
Attorneys At Law
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201
BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1968
TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 ~ TELEFAX (763) 493-5193
e-mail law~j ensen-sondrall.com
Aphll, 2004
Kirk McDonald
Community Development Director
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
AC Carlson Addition
Our File No.: 99.15059
Dear Kirk:
I have examined the proposed preliminary plat for AC Carlson Addition and have the following
comments:
The plat indicates AC Carlson is the owner of the involved real estate. To show
ownership, title evidence will be required, and all owners must be signatories on the final
plat. The owner must provide the City with a current attorney's title opinion or current
commitment for title insurance in connection with the property. In addition, all mortgage
holders, if any, must either be signatories on the plat, or sign a recordable consent to the
plat.
The plat indicates it was prepared without the benefit of title work. Title work must be
provided to determine if there are any existing public streets or easements on the property.
If public streets or easements do exist, they must be vacated in accordance with the
procedures set forth in City Ordinance §6-9 This procedure involves a petition by the
property owners, and a hearing before the Council after published and mailed notice.
3. When the plat is filed, the entire real estate taxes, due and payable for the year in which
the filing takes place, must be paid in advance.
Be sure to contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
Jensen & Sondrall, PA
sas(&Iensen-Sondrall.corn
direct dial 763-201-0211
C:~Documents and SettingsXsas. JENSEN-SONDRALL~Local Settings\Temporary lnternet Filea\OLK4A~preliminary plat ltr. doc
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 95,2.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM:
Michael Darrow / Alan Brixius
DATE:
March 31, 2004
RE:
New Hope - AC Carlson-Preliminary Plat; Site Plan
NAC FILE: 131.01 -04.05
BACKGROUND
AC Carlson has submitted an application for preliminary plat and site plan approval for
the property located at 8901 Bass Lake Road. The area is zoned I-Industrial District.
The company is proposing to provide a retail, showroom, and warehousing space for
their facility. As part of the proposal, the applicant is seeking plat approval to combine
Lots 1 and Lot 2 into one lot. The combination will result in a total site area of 128,520
square feet or approximately 2.9 acres. In order to proceed with the request the
applicant will be required to receive preliminary plat and site plan approval.
Analysis
Lot Layout and Platting. The proposed Industrial use is consistent with the City's
Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan for the area. The area to the north is zoned
R-3, Medium Density Residential, to the east is zoned Industrial, to the south is zoned
R-4 High Density Residential and Open Space, and the area to the west is zoned
Industrial. According to City Code, Section 4.20, the purpose of the I-Industrial District
is to provide for the establishment of heavy industrial development uses which, because
of the nature of the product or character of activity, requires isolation from residential or
non-compatible commercial uses.
The current site includes two lots. The proposed plan will create 9,600 square feet of
retail and 7,530 square feet of warehouse space. The proposed lot layout meets the
required setbacks for the Industrial District.
Impervious Surface. Impervious surface shall not exceed 80 percent of the lot area
within the Industrial District. The proposed plan shows a building area of 13.5% and the
green area of 50.5%, thus compliant with I-1 District Standards.
Parking. According to Section 4-3-e of the Zoning Ordinance, the gross floor area of
each use shall be calculated and a ten percent reduction shall be made for
nonproductive space. Based upon the submitted plans 51 parking stalls are required
based upon the following calculation:
Retail
Warehouse
Total
Required
9,600*.9=8,40/200=43
7,530*. 9/1,500=5+3=8
spaces.
51
Proposed
51
The applicant will be required to identify and post "No Parking Fire Lane" signage and
dedicate an area for fire emergency purposes. Staff would recommend that that posting
be placed on the southern end of the retail building.
The applicant has identified future expansion to the south and east of the proposed
retail and warehouse building. Based on the proposed size of the expansion, an
additional 36 stalls would be required. Future business expansion will be limited by the
number of parking spaces that can be provided on the site. The ponding areas will limit
future expansion of parking within the site as well. Furthermore, the expansion would
jeopardize the overall traffic flow of the site and eliminate the truck traffic circulation
plan.
Access and Traffic Circulation. The existing access to the site is off of International
Parkway. The patrons to the retail area will gain access to the site from International
Parkway. The access onto Bass Lake Road will require a driveway permit from
Hennepin County. The applicant is proposing a 28 foot curb cut onto Bass Lake Road
to accommodate truck traffic. Staff recommends expanding the egress more than 28.
feet to accommodate truck turning radius at Bass Lake Road. Additionally, the
applicant will be required to complete the sidewalk along Bass Lake Road as part of plat
approval. ~
The applicant has provided a traffic circulation plan for the proposed truck traffic. Based
on the submitted plans, there appears to be sufficient truck traffic maneuverability to the
site provided that trucks enter the site via International Parkway. Access off of Bass
Lake Road should be identified as a one-way exit and will be limited to truck traffic only.
Screening/Landscaping. According to City Code, where an industrial use abuts
property zoned for residential use, that industry shall provide screening along the
boundary of the property. The applicant has identified additional Black Hills Spruce
plantings on the southern side of the building. The northern property line includes a mix
of shrubs, trees, and perennials. The western side includes a mix of ornamental trees
and shrubs. Additional landscaping will be required within all parking islands. An
irrigation system will be required for the site. Seeding and restoration types and
methods will need to be defined in the areas shown on the plans.
Grading, Utility and Drainage. As part of the plat, the applicant is seeking to vacate
the existing drainage and utility easement which runs north south between Lot 1 and Lot
2. Approval of the preliminary plat and vacation of the utility easement will be
contingent on the verification that the easement is no longer necessary for the site as
recommended by the City Engineer.
The proposed drainage easement is located on the perimeter of the preliminary plat.
With the approval of the site plan, it should be acknowledged that preparation,
improvements, and/or restoration within easement areas will occur at the expense of the
property owner. An easement and maintenance agreement for the ponding area will be
required.
Two drainage ponds are proposed for the site, one on the southern and one on the
western side of the site. The grading, utility, and drainage plans are subject to the
review and approval of the City Engineer. The grading and drainage plan is also
subject to the review and approval of Shingle Creek Watershed District because of the
close proximity to the DNR protected wetland.
The applicant has identified a retaining wall on the southern and eastern portions of the
plan, however wall details are not provided. The retaining walls will be subject to the
review and approval of the City Staff.
Refuse. The applicant has identified a fully enclosed dumpter location at the southern
end of the building. The enclosure meets the requirements regarding design.
Signage. Within an I-Industrial District. one freestanding sign is allowed within an I-
Industrial area. The applicant has identified a pylon sign to front Bass Lake Road.
Below are the requirements for freestanding signs within the I-Industrial District.
I Freestanding Signs
I-Industrial Standards
Proposed Sign
100 square feet max.
IHeight .~
30 foot maximum
22 feet
ISquare Feet
56 square feet.
Two wall signs are also proposed on the north and western sides of the building.
According to the City's Sign Ordinance, not more than two walls signs are permitted per
building. The total area of all wall signs shall not exceed the lesser of 15 percent of the
front face of the principal commercial or industrial building or 250 square feet. The
proposed wall signs are 72 square feet each for a total square footage of 144 square
feet which is in compliance with City Code. A sign permit will be required.
Outdoor Storage. Outdoor storage is proposed at the southern end of the warehouse
building and requires an administrative permit. According to Section 4-20 (8), outdoor
storage may not exceed 20 percent of the gross floor area of the principal structure.
The applicant has identified an area of roughly 1,040 square feet (or 17% of the gross
floor area) for outdoor storage which is below the 20% threshold of the Zoning
Ordinance. Therefore, administrative permit approval will be granted as part of the site
plan.
Photometric Plans. A photometric plan has been submitted. All lighting should be
down cast and meet the requirements of City Code. The photometric plan is subject to
the review and approval of City Staff.
Building Materials and Building Design. The proposed building is to be a mix of
painted concrete, cast stone, integral color rock and face block, glass, and EIFS
(Exterior Insulation Finish System). Staff recommends that the painted concrete be
replaced with colored masonry for long term durability and less upkeep.
The applicant will be required to indicate all of the mechanical areas on the exterior
elevation plans. The applicant will be required to provide a racking plan for the
warehouse and showroom on the floor plan. Additionally, the applicant will be required
to adhere to all fire code conditions.
CONCLUSION
The proposed site plan is generally consistent with the City Code. Approval of the
Preliminary Plat and Site Plan does not constitute approval of the expansion of the
building at this time. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Preliminary Plat and Site Plan, staff would recommend approval be based upon the
following conditions:
1. The City Engineer should determine the appropriateness of the easement vacation
prior to final approval.
2. Additional landscaping will be required within all parking islands.
3. Hennepin County approval shall be required for access onto Bass Lake Road.
4. Grading, utility, and drainage plans are subject to the review and approval of the
City Engineer.
4
5. The plan is subject to the review and approval of the Shingle Creek Watershed
District.
6. The applicant shall indicate the location of all mechanical areas on the exterior
elevations plan.
7. A color rendering of the site shall be provided for staff review. Painted concrete
should be replaced with colored masonry.
8. Details regarding the retaining walls shall be provided and are subject to the review
and approval of the City Engineer.
9. The sidewalk along Bass Lake Road shall be completed.
10. Show all doors at all locations on the floor plan.
11. The photometric plan is subject to the review and approval of City Staff.
12. One fire hydrant shall be required within 100 feet of the fire department connection
to the building.
13. All fire hydrants shall be protected from damage with bollards or another approved
method.
14. As noted on the plan, the building shall be required to be covered by an automatic
sprinkler system.
15. Notification devices (horn & strobes) shall be located throughout structure and shall
activate upon activation of the automatic sprinkler system.
16. A lock box for emergency access shall be required. Fire District Staff shall
determine location of fire department lock box.
17. Fire extinguishers shall be selected according to the hazard covered and placed
every 75' throughout the structure.
18. A sign permit shall be required.
19. Additional comments from City Staff.
zassoc, tes
Engineers &
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal
Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Robert G.
Schunicht, P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. MarkA. Hanson, P.E.
Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. Joseph C. Andedik, P.E. Richard E. Turner,
P.E. Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A.
Associate Principals: Keith A. Gordon, P.E. Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. Richard W. Foster,
P.E. David O. Loskota, P.E. Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. Ted K. Field, P.E. Kenneth P.
Anderson, P.E. Mark R. Rolfs, P.E. DavidA. Bonestroo, MB.A. Sidney P. Williamson, P.E.,
L.S. Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A. Allan RickSchmidt, P.E. ThomasW. Peterson, P.E. James R.
Maland, P.E. Miles B, Jensen, P.E L. Phillip Gravel Ill, P.E. Daniel d. Edgerton, P.E.
Ismaet Martinez, P.E. Thomas A. Syfko, P.E. Sheldon J. Johnson Dale A. Grove, P.E.
Thomas A. Roushar, P.E. Robert J. Devery, P.E.
Offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar, MN Milwaukee, Wl Chicago, IL
Website: www.bonestroo.com
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM:
Vince Vandcr Top
CC:
Mark Hanson, Guy Johnson
DATE: April 1, 2004
SUBJECT: AC Carlson site review - 8901 Bass Lake Road
Our File No. 34-Gen E04-07
We have reviewed the revised plans for the site improvements. Previous comments which were
not addressed should still be considered and may be repeated herein:
A list of all easements to be vacated should be provided. The easement between the
two existing lots is noted for vacation.
Hennepin County has received a copy of the preliminary plat and has deemed it is
incomplete. Additional information was required regarding Bass Lake Road
including the location of the median and the median opening near the east driveway.
The applicant should contact Hennepin County for additional information.
Two significant retaining walls are noted on the property. An engineered design and
detail must be provided and approved by the Building Official and City Engineer.
In lieu of the retaining wall along the south and west property line, the City and
applicant could discuss the potential of grading onto the City property and eliminating
the need for a wall. It does not appear that this would impact the adjacent wetland. A
restoration plan for the City property would need to be further defined.
A wetland delineation report hhs been provided. The City has reviewed this report as
LGU for the wetland conservation act. Some revisions to the delineation were
recommended.
No improvements (including ponding) will be allowed within the wetland. The
ponds, as shown along the south property line, should be reconfigured to avoid the
wetland. Please refer to comments regarding ponding elsewhere in this report.
The entrance drive may also infringe on the delineated wetland. This must be
clarified and mitigated if appropriate. Mitigation could occur on the adjacent City
property if agreed to by the City.
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 65~-636-4600 · Fax: 65~-636-~3~
o
Seeding and restoration types and methods will need to be defined in the areas shown
on the plans. A native seed mix will be needed as areas to remain natural and not
actively mowed and maintained.
Drainage and utility easements will be required over all ponding areas. A pond
maintenance agreement will also be required. This will identify that pond
maintenance is the responsibility of the property owner.
8. Storm sewer is shown to be extended along Intemational Parkway as is required.
Storm water calculations have been provided for review. The City Engineer will
review these calculations in further detail.
Two ponding areas have been provided on site in conjunction with an infiltration
basin. In our opinion, the infiltration basin will not be successful because of the
heavy soils (low infiltration rates) native to the area. It is recommended that the
infiltration area be eliminated. This would enable the ponds to be reconfigured and
eliminate the need for the storm sewer between ponds.
We have reviewed this issue with Single Creek Watershed and it is agreed that
infiltration will not be forced into situations where it is not likely to succeed.
However, it would be recommended that a vegetative filtration strip' be established
between the pond discharges and the edge of the wetland.
10.
The runoff from the parking lot to the north pond should be controlled through a
catch basin and flared end structure. A rip-rapped swale and curb cut will lead to an
on-going maintenance issue.
11.
The plans will need to be submitted to and reviewed by Shingle Creek Watershed
because of the proximity to a DNR protected wetland.
12.
With the modifications to the ponding area, Public Works access to the sanitary
manholes along the south property line must be maintained. Easement must be
maintained over this line.
13.
The eastern driveway should be signed as an egress only. A Hennepin County
driveway permit will be required for this access.
End of memo
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
Winnetka Town Home review notes for revised plans dated 3/12/04 and letter dated
March 26, 2004.
5620 Winnetka Avenue North
March 30, 2004
Fire Department Comments:
1. Item number 35 on the letter discussed hydrant locations and numbers. We would
at least require 4 hydrants per the requirements of the Milmesota Fire Code. The
location of the hydrants can be discussed at the meeting and coordinate with the
Civil Engineer.
2. Item number 38 on the letter states that fire lane signage has been located on the
site plan. The new revised site plan does not show the locations of the fire lane
signs. Provide a plan showing where the site plans will be located.
3. On sheet L1.0 (site plan) the locations of hydrants will need to be discussed. Ifa
hydrant is going to be located near the middle parking area may need to adjust
parking area or move hydrant not to obstruct fire hydrant.
arlson Addition review notes for revised plans 3/11/04. ~
arch 30, 2004
Fire Department Comments:
~ 1. Question on where sprinkler riser will be located in the building?
Science Center Drive (Northland Mechanical) review notes for revised plans dated
3/26/2004.
March 30, 2004
Fire Department Comments:
1. On sheet A1 of the plans the fire hydrant is located on the island near the building
on the southwest side of the building. The hydrant was initially placed there by
the fire inspector, but an error was made. The hydrant needs to be relocated so
that it is not in the collapse zone of the building. Technically it should be either at
a comer of the building or at least 40 feet away from the building, but we would
be ok if the hydrant were located directly across the parking lot from where the
hydrant was originally located. The hydrant should be no more than 100 feet
from the fire department connection.
2. You have a choice you may provide either a direct access with a rated room or a
WPI for the sprinkler riser and controls. If the riser will be located in the
warehouse protection around the riser will be required.
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 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City
cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or ' sent response
number Name received notice limit limit 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
04-04 AC Carlson Appl & Furniture 3/12/04 5/11/04 7/10/04
7550 Bass Lake Road
New Hope 55428
AC and Dave Carlson
763-533-5333
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 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval 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:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
ADDENDUM TO
PLANNING CASE REPORT 01-09
City of New Hope
Meeting Date:
Report Date:
01-09
April 6, 2004
April 2, 2004
Tharp Family Partnership/Mid America Financial Plaza
9220 Bass Lake Road
Discussion of Neighborhood Issues Regarding 9220 Bass Lake Road
I. Request
The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission review Planning Case 01-09 in response
to some neighborhood concerns that were raised at a recent City Council meeting during the open
forum session. The Council is requesting that the Planning Commission consider the issues and make
recommendations back to the Council. Neighborhood residents have been invited to express their
viewpoints at the meeting and the property owner and/or his representatives will attend the meeting.
II. Background
Please refer to the original planning case report that was prepared for this application in 2001 for
specific background information. Tharp Family Partnership was granted a conditional use permit in July
2001 to allow the conversion of the office/warehouse building at 9220 Bass Lake Road to a multi-tenant
office building, subject to certain conditions. This conversion did not change the footprint of the building.
The only exterior changes were the addition of three new parking lots, the installation of windows along
the north and west sides of the building, and a new entrance on the southeastern side of the building.
Extensive renovation on the interior of the former Prudential building has taken place to create offices
for five or six tenants.
Several residents in this neighborhood have been complaining to the city since last spring about several
issues related to the property: loss of privacy with the installation of windows on the north side of the
building, late night lights from the windows, lack of buffering/screening between the residential and
office use, etc. Staff coordinated a meeting including the property owner and the residents in August
2003, and the property owner agreed to take some measures to address resident concerns, such as
installation of blinds, light timer, etc., and staff thought that the matter had been resolved. In February
2004, staff received additional correspondence from adjacent property owners about light glare from the
windows. Staff has worked with all parties to try and get the issues resolved on a staff level, but have
not been successful. Staff advised the neighbors that they may want to take their concerns to the City
Council and advised that the City Council refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for review
and recommendations. Residents have been invited to attend the April 6 Planning Commission meeting
to express their opinions on this matter. The recommendations from the Planning Commission on this
matter will be forwarded on to the City Council.
III. Notification
Adjacent and surrounding property owners have been invited to attend the meeting (see attached
correspondence).
Planning Case Report 01-09 Page I 4~2/04
IV. Design and Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee met and discussed the concerns with the property owner
representatives on March 24. The property owner submitted the attached information regarding
completion of the blinds installation and submitted information regarding light levels.
VIII. Summary
Please take time to review the correspondence and photos submitted by the neighbors, review the
recent and past minutes related to this matter, and it would also be a good idea to drive to the site and
observe the conditions. I am sure that any of the adjacent property owners or the building owner would
let you visit their property. Staff would like to get this matter resolved. This is an excellent re-use of an
office building, but there are compatibility problems with the adjacent single-family residential
neighborhood.
Attachments:
· March 12 and 24 correspondence from Tharp contractors
· March correspondence from city to residents and property owner
· March 8 City Council minutes
· Photos and correspondence submitted by neighbors
· February 27, 2004, letter from city to resident
· February 10, 17 and 26, 2004, letters from neighbor to property owner and city
· November 12, 2003, email re: status
· October 16, 2003, city letter to property owner
· September 4, 2003, property owner correspondence to city
· August 8, 2003, city correspondence to residents
· Meeting held at site with property owner, neighbors, staff, planning consultant on August 4, 2003
· August 1, 2003, neighbor correspondence
· July 15, 2003, NAC memo re: screening
· June 18, 2003, letter from city to residents
· June 14, 2003, letter and petition received from residents
· July 23, 2001, City Council minutes, RFA and resolution
· July 10, 2001, City Council minutes
· Planning Case report
· Design and Review Committee notes
· Public hearing notice, mailing list, affidavit of public notice, map
· Enlarged plans
Planning Case Report 01-09 Page 2 4/2/04
03/24/04
M ENGINEERING,
Consulting Engineers
1300 Corporate Center Curve. Suite 101 Off~ce: ~.~1.405..0912
G-man: en;i~erin~M~nd~-inc.com
Memo
To:
CC:
Corem #:
Re:
Shawn Thar
Ron Mefl~on
File
March 24, 2OO4
Therpe Femily Pertnwship, 9220 Bess L_~ke Road
· Commcnm
Shawn,
We went W measm'e the light levels e~the rem' oflhe above mentioned building on lhe evening of 1V~w,h 23, 2004,
The light meter used was a Goss~n Panlux El~xro~ic 2 vt at the low~ scale of 2 footemadle~ ~ The rtmd/n~
were tabm ~pr~,~ely 30' (me~ured along the gromff) fr~n the ~mior of the build~ng mw~h ti~ adjae~=t
residential properties end et multiple points alang thc propcrty lin~. Th~ ~'ior md ~ ~ were ell on
with no blinds on the windows when the readings were t~n. The hrEest h~! (li_aht melm. ~in~ swaight
up) ree~ling was ~ foo~endl~s. The hrg~st V~tical 0igl~ ~ aimed at sorer, e) r~ding wes .4 footcendles. The
readings directly et the windows themselves were ~ footcendles horizontal (feeding on window sill) end 14
footcendles vertical (reading on window). Ifyou have eny fur/~ qucstiom cr c~,,~mts about the method ~'
results, please feel free to ceil
loll
INVOICE'
DATE:
March 12, 2004
TO:
Lance Tharp
Mid America Construction
9220 Bass Lake Road, 3100
New Hope, MN 55428
763-442-8242
TREATMENT SUMMARY:
Window tmab'nent~ for office suites -
Lafayette 820 mini blinds with valanCe in Bronze x 13.
Installation, tax and Ihipping included,
$1,361.31
Deposit due
BalanCe owing on previous order of 25 blinds
Amount due '-'
680.66
$1,371,45
03/12/2004, FR]: 09:15 ['Z'Z/]:~,Z NO 7204] ~002
NUMBER OF PAGES (tNrJ (JDIIV~ '/1 tl~ P.e'-~) .9 DATE: 03/12104
ORGANIZATION: Mid America Corlt,~uctJon FAX; 7e3'~.°-6. s4~
FRC~I: Del3ra Pierce "
~L,~.AY- CALl 9.5 2.9 / 4.Zq~1 IF Yi31/ I. fAVr ANt/~E..O..~.L. LM$ I'~.CI:~/ING,
HI Lance,
Here i:~ Ihs invoice for the new set of 13 blind& If you can ~rrange the check be sent asap, I will
pleca the order no I~ter than Monday. That will put the deliver, for March 25th, and Mi ask Kellh to
contact you to an'ange the best time let Inslallsllon on either the altemoon of March 2fith, or some
time Friday March 26~.
Thanksl
Deb
6411 Wt's[ 168i. h ^wnuc. Eden Prairie, HN. b53~16 · T: 952.974.2821 - F: 952.9'~/,:)t108 · F.~ m.~ekpier¢~'~V2Kwr, c(~m
03112/2004 ~'~! 09:15 [/3:/1~ NO 7204] I~00!
March 19, 2004
Mr. Steve Tharp
Mr. Shawn Tharp
9220 Bass Lake Road
New Hope, MN 55428
Subject: Correspondence to Residents
Gentlemen:
For your information, enclosed please find the correspondence sent to neighborhood
residents regarding the upcoming discussion with the Planning Commission on April 6
regarding your property.
Kirk McDonald
Director of Community Development
Enclosure: As Stated
Cc
Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager
Planning Case File 01-09
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 Xylon Avenue North * New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 * www. ci.new-hope:mn.us
City Hall: 763-531-5100 · Police (non-emergency): 763-531-5170 * Public Works: 763-592-6777 · TDD: 763-531-5109
City Hall Fax: 763-531-5136 · Police Fax: 763-531-5174 · Public Works Fax: 763-592-6776
March 10, 2004
Mr. Steve Tharp
Tharp Family Partnership
7089 Birchview Road
Maple Grove, MN 55369
Subject: Mid America Financial Plaza
Dear Mr. Tharp:
At the March 8 New Hope City Council meeting, several residents to the north of the property at 9220
Bass Lake Road addressed the Council at the open forum regarding the ongoing concerns regarding
screening and light/window issues on the north side of the building. The Council referred this matter back
to the Planning Commission for review and recommendations. I will contact you in the near future to
schedule a meeting on this matter and to discuss the process for review before the Planning
Commission. I am anticipating that the Commission will discuss this matter at the April 6 Planning
Commission meeting and that comments will be forwarded to the City Council for the April 12 Council
meeting.
If you have any questions prior to that time, please contact me at 763-531-5119.
,,~,...~erely,
Kirk McDonald
Director of Community Development
Cc:
Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager
Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant
Roger Axel, Building Official
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Planning Case File 01-09
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 Xylon Avenue North * New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 * www. ci.new-hope.rnn, us
City Hall: 763-531-5100 · Police (non-emergency): 763-531-5170 * Public Works: 763-592-6777 · TDD: 763-531-5109
City Hall Fax: 763-531-5136 * Police Fax: 763-531-5174 * Public Works Fax: 763-592-6776
March 18, 2004
Ms. Lynn Bradway
9233 59th Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Subject: 9220 Bass Lake Road
Dear Ms. Bradway:
In July 2001, the New Hope City Council approved an application for the property at 9220
Bass Lake Road to convert the existing warehouse building to a multi-tenant office building.
At the March 8 City Council meeting, several residents who live to the north of the Mid
America Financial Plaza appeared at the open forum of the Council meeting and expressed
concerns about screening, buffers, lighting issues, and so on. The City Council directed that
the New Hope Planning Commission review this matter. The Planning Commission will be
discussing this matter at its April 6 meeting, which begins at 7 p.m. in the New Hope Council
Chambers. You are invited to attend and express your concerns at that meeting.
you have any questions prior to that time, please contact me at 763-531-5119.
~ncer~ly,
\
Kirk McDonald
Director of Community Development
Cc;
Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant
Roger Axel, Building Official
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 Xylon Avenue North * New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 * www. fi.new-hope.mn.us
City Hall: 763-531-5100 · Police (non-emergency): 763-531-5170 · Public Works: 763-592-6777 · TDD: 763-531-5109
City Hall Fax: 763-531-5136 · Police Fax: 763-531-5174 ,, Public Works Fax: 763-592-6776
McDonald Kirk
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
gabrys@att.net
Tuesday, March 09, 2004 8:03 AM
McDonald Kirk
Council Mtg 03-08-04
Kirk: We thank you for guiding us to the open forum. We realize that
it is the proper way to deal with issues that can arise from the
daunting task that is bestowed upon the council members. With the time
limits imposed we spoke our main piece but wanted to bring out a couple
of additional points that we'd like addressed. The first pertains to
the screening of the parking lot area at the northeast corner of the
building. Mr. Tharp had mentioned that he was planning to screen this
area with fencing. I didn't see anything in the file that spelled this
out, and we're a little uneasy with his word. The second is to address
the glare that comes off of one of the lights in the parking lot.
Thank you for all of your time and help.
Bill Gabrys and Trish Toro-Gabrys
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
CITY OF NEW HOPE
440] XYLON AVENUE NORTH
N'EW HOPE, MENN'ESOTA 55428
March 8, 200~
Ci~' Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
/ OPEN FORUM
New Hope City Council
Page I
The New Hope City. Council met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice
thereof: Mayor Enck called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
The City Council and all present stood for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Council Present:
StaffPresent:
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
Sharon Cassen, Councilmember
Don Collier, Councilmember
Mary Gwin-Lenth, Councilmember
Steve Sommer, Councilmember
Roger Axel, Building Official
Amy Baldwin, Community Development Intern
Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator
Alan Brixius, Northwest Consultants
Doug Debrief, Assistant City Attorney
Ken Doreslcy, Community Development Specialist
Shari French, Director of Parks & Recreation
Valene Leone, City Clerk
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Daryl Sulander, Director of Finance
Vmce VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer
Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember
Cassen, to approve the regular meeting minutes of February 23, 2004. Voting
m favor: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Abstained: Sommer; Absent: None.
Motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, to approve the work session minutes of February
23, 2004. Voting in favor: Enck, Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Abstained: Collie;.
Sommer; Absent: None. Motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember
Gwin-Lentl~ seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to approve the work session
minutes of March 3, 2004. Voting in favor: Enck, Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sornmer
Abstained: Collier; Absent: None. Motion carried.
Ms. Gunilla Bobb, representing the Regional Human Rights Coalition, explained
that the arts poster contest was established in 1999. She described the contest and
thanked New Hope for supporting the program. The Council acknowledged the 20
winning entries on display m the council chambers and expressed its gratitude to
area schools for parUcipating in the contest.
The following persons individually addressed the Council: Bill and Tnsh Gabrys,
9209 590" Avenue North; Georgia O'Brien, 9241 59~ Avenue North, and Lynn
Bradway, 9233 59~ Avenue North. They requested improved screening of their
residential properties from the north side of th6 commercial building located at
9220 Bass Lake Road. Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission for
additional viewpoints.
March 8, 2004
Verbatim Minutes of March 8, 2004, Council Meeting Open Forum Segment
Bill and Trish Gabrys
9209 59th Avenue North
My name is Bill Gabrys and this is my wife, Trish Tora (sp) Gabrys. I live at
9209 59th Avenue North in New Hope and we're here tonight to express our
concerns about the conditional use permit granted to the Tharp Family
Partnership that owns the MidAmerica Financial Plaza at 9220 Bass Lake Road
in New Hope. We consider ourselves proud homeowners and taxpayers in a
nice neighborhood and we take an interest in community projects as they are
made known to us. That's why we responded to notification when the city
worked through the '99 infrastructure improvement project. I spent a couple of
days looking through the files at city hall regarding the Tharp case. Although I
was shown a mailing list that included my name for notice regarding the
planning commission's public hearing, my wife and I don't believe that it ever
arrived. We were quite surprised when we began seeing the project unfold.
Perusing the file I was able to identify a number of times the Planning
Commission had made the recommendation that additional landscaping be
considered along the north side of the building. Page 5 of the planning report
dated June 29, 01 spells out buffers when abutting a residential district a buffer
area with screening and landscaping in compliance with the zoning code shall
be provided. The findings states that commercial and industrial uses adjacent to
an R district must provide either a fence or a green belt screening. The
applicant's existing landscape plans shows a mixture of trees planted along the
border. It also shows an existing wooden fence that extends from Gettysburg to
the northeast corner of the building. Some intended plans are stated for the
west end of the site, and in additional the applicant's plans to construct an 8'
cedar fence from the end of the existing fence to the western end of the site. It
appears that the Tharps were thinking in compliance with the code. I believe the
landscape plan to be misleading. That's why I provided some real cross level
views of the existing screening. Page 7 of the report states that if only eight
Colorado spruce are planned, the city may want to increase that number along
the north side. Page 10 under Recommendations states the planners
recommend approval subject to some conditions. One of which is to comply
with planning consultant recommendations, including constructing 8' cedar fence
from the west end of the existing fence to the western end of the site. The only
existing fence mentioned throughout the report is our neighbor's to the east of
us, as stated previously. By the time the request for action became finalized for
approval, the 8' cedar fence had shrunk down to being only poured at the
western end of the site, and that the petitioner was to meet with the neighbors to
determine proper screening. Either cedar fence or additional landscaping on the
northwest portion of the property. It appears that our absence at the public
hearing created an assumption that we didn't care what was going on, and that
there was no need to consider our perspective. We feel that there was a
selected implementation of the original recommendation made by the plant, lng
commission. We even learned that the residents at the western end of the site
met with the mayor regarding the project. We received no such consideration or
notification that eXclusionary changes were being made to the original
recommendations. We were basically left out. The file also contains a series of
16 pictures that provide views of the east, south and west side of the building.
No pictures of the north side. No study seems to have been conducted to
identify if there would be devaluation to the residential properties. In the
consultant's report glosses over this point and referenced it briefly as not being
an issue of concern. We've put nearly $2,000 in to our own landscaping in an
attempt to provide what was originally recommended by the planning staff on
page 3 of the report. We feel that the Tharps have not demonstrated
compliance with the criteria performance standards and no depreciation in
value. We're asking only that the Tharps comply with code, and the city
enforces the original recommendations outlined prior to the massive widowing
that excluded many of the residents along the northern border of the building.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Georgia O'Brien
9241 59th Avenue North
Members of the City Council, my name is Georgia O'Brien and I live at 9241 59th
Avenue North, in New Hope, and as a resident and homeowner in the city of
New Hope, my comments and concerns will be made in reference to the Mid
America financial plaza property at 9220 Bass Lake Road. I was notified my
letter that the company that backs my property will go from one tenant to
multiple tenants, which was probably a couple of years ago. The letter did not
mention that changes would be made to the building site that backs my property.
As far as I was concerned, they can have as many tenants as they wanted as
long as it didn't require me to change or make adjustments to my life or
decrease the market value of my home. I trusted that the city council would not
allow anything of that nature to happen to the residents of the city of New Hope.
We are proud of the fact that our neighbors and everyone in our neighborhood
maintains their home and their property which displays the very attractive and
inviting place to live. I did not attend the city council meeting where all the
decisions were made to change to looks of the company that backs my property.
The letter I received did not mention any changes to the building and this is the
first city I had lived in that did not give you the full agenda and intention
especially when it impact or could impact the residents' market value of their
home. As of today there are windows half way down the back of the building
that they have already installed. And originally the owner came to my home and
he told me that windows would be installed and he said that they would be the
same kind of windows that are on the other side of the building which is very
skinny tall windows, but these windows as you see if the pictures that the
neighbor gave you are not like that and they have no screening whatsoever. I
was one who took a tour of the building inside and was shocked on how the
privacy was completed invaded and felt very upset with the fact that there wasn't
any screening whatsoever between the company and the residents affected.
When the company puts the window at the end of the building that backs my
house, the windows will be level to the second story of my split level home.
That's because the company goes up higher and there isn't like a garage
underneath. So they will have full view of the inside of my house. I have trees
but they're very tall cottonwood trees and do not provide branches for screening.
I have mentioned to several people about the windows that will be installed and
their reactions with comments such as there is no way I could live in a house
knowing strangers such as employees of a company and cleaning people have
the ability to watch my children play in the backyard or see inside of my house.
Neighbors is one thing, but a company where everyone is a stranger is another
thing. The way our U.S. of America is today, and I'm sure you know this too, I
would be paranoid and probably calling our wonderful police department
everyday if I think someone is staring in my house that I don't even know who it
is. But just by those comments that someone made, I knew that I would have a
decrease in market value in my home when I decide to sell it. The fact that our
neighbors just put their house on the market which is down the street a few from
me, they have already have the windows facing their house. They have put their
house on the market and the real estate agent told them that the value has
decreased because of the windows in the company that backs their property. I
do not like to think that I live in a city where the city council is not concerned
about the residents. The company had very narrow high windows, as I told you
before, and that was not what was put up. So I am hearing concerns not only
from residents whose property backs the company, but residents across the
street from our house who have talked to me, they're very upset the way this
Lynn Bradway
9233 59th Avenue North
was introduced and feel that other situations will be handled in the same manner
and may affect them as a homeowner. I hope this is not the case, I am not
acquainted with the councilmembers here, I have only lived in the city of New
Hope ten years. I am not a Minnesotan, but I have not experienced this before,
and I hope you will take this into consideration and look into it for the benefit of
the residents. Because we do work very hard to maintain our home and do what
we can to make it attractive for the city of New Hope. I am very proud of the city
of New Hope, I like the city because everyone in the city keeps up their yard and
their house. I like the rules because I like things nice, but I also would like a
councilmembers of a city that would care about the residents as much as they
do the businesses.
Hi, I'm Lynn Bradway and I live at 9233 59th Avenue NoAh, and I'm really just
coming up here to reiterate and reemphasize and back up my neighbors about
what they are saying about the building and what's going on with the company
behind us. And I wanted also to bring an additional element into play and that is
that I received my property tax notification, and my property tax is going up
based on the fact that my property value is going up and I'm concerned that that
is unrealistic as far as how much taxes I'm paying versus how much this
property is worth now that we have these issues with this building behind it, so I
have not gone and figured out if I need to have an assessor come up and see
what needs to be done but I guess I want to mention it because I, too, am
planning on putting my house up for sale this summer, and I would feel much
better knowing this issue had been resolved so I won't have people making
comments similar to what you heard earlier, which would be, you know, I'm
concerned about how my children play in the back yard or whatever, you know,
because people could see them and those kinds of things.
(Mayor EnCk) On your property tax notice there is a date for the Board of
Review which will be done here on May 6, and that's on everybody's tax notice
for the city of New Hope and all other cities will have different days but
everybody's notice got a date on it.
(Bradway) Is it on the notice of valuation and classification or is it on the one
that says how much the bill is cuz the notice of valuation is something different;
it doesn't actually say what my taxes are, it just says what my market value is?
(Enck) The Board of Review will be done here and it's a first come, first served,
we start at 7:00 on May 6.
03/03/04
/
08: 44
NEW HOPE POLICE DEPT
INCIDENT REPORT FOR CASE: CR 04-0000002057
Case Section
Case No : CR 04-0000002057
Orig/Suppl #: 00
Ref Othr:
Pri Cd: 9-9800 Crime: MISC PUBLIC
Sec Cd: Crime:
Oth Cd: Crime:
Oth2 Cd: Crime:
Location:
Addr: 9220 Street: BASS
Apt: RD: 100
Stat: MISC PUBLI
Stat:
Stat:
Stat:
Firm: Desc: Cty: NEW HOPE
Occurrence Date and Time: 030104 MDN 1920
Reported Date: 030104 Time: 1920 How Taken: R RADIO
Reporting Off.: 45 LAMERS, ANDREW
Reviewed By: 320 HILL, BRIDGET Status: C CLOSED
Closed By: Cleared: S AID AND ASSIST
Summary Narrative Section
BUILDING BEHIND RP'S RESIDENCE HAS EXTREMELY BRIGHT LIGHTS ON RP THINKS
THERE' S A CODE OR RATING BETWEEN BUSINESS/RESIDENCE THAT THEY'RE VIOLATING
NO RP CONTACT NEEDED RECEIVED INFORMATION ~
March 7tk,,. 2004
Attn: New Hope City Council Members
It was our understanding that Tharp Family Partnership that controls Mid.4anerica
Financial Plaza, would be installing blinds to cover the windows that face our homes on
59th Avenue. The blinds would be installed to control the light effect from the windows
during the months when the trees do not have foliage. During the summer months the
tree cover is adequate to serve as the green barrier. When the trees are without leaves the
impact of the windows on our house is significant.
We would like to know if the blinds are going to be provided by Tharp. We would also
like to know if the City has reviewed the code compliance of the building during the non-
foliage months.
Sincerely,
Ingrid and Corey Ney
9217 59~ Ave North
New Hope, MN 55428
February 27, 2004
Mr. & Mrs. Bill Gabrys
9209 59t~ Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Subject: Mid-America financial Plaza
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Gabrys:
I am in receipt of your letters dated February 17 and 26 regarding the screening issues at Mid-America
Financial Plaza. I was under the impression that the matter had been resolved after Mr. Tharp had
agreed to install blinds for the windows. I am enclosing a copy of the last correspondence sent to Mr.
Tharp on this matter dated October 16, 2003. Subsequent to the letter, he contacted me by phone and
indicated he had contacted the neighbors and that there was an agreement that blinds would be
installed.
In regards to your request for copies of other correspondence and meeting notes, I would recommend
that you come to the city hall and review the file on this Planning Case and indicate which items you
would like copied. We will be happy to provide you with the documents at our usual copying cost. That
way I am not making a judgment as to which documents you want and which ones are not important to
you. If you would like to set up a date/time to do this when I would be available to review the file with you,
please contact me at 763-531-5119 and I will schedule something that works for all of us.
As far as attending a Council meeting to speak at an open fOrum, this is a way that you could speak
directly to the Council about your issue and they would then provide direction as to how they wanted staff
to proceed. Being that the Planning Commission originally reviewed this request, it was my thinking that
the City Council may refer the matter back to the Commission for review and recommendation. Up to this
point it has just been city staff and consultants that have been involved in trying to resolve this issue, and
I think it might be helpful to get the perspective of the Planning Commission members on this issue.
I hope this information is helpful to you, and I would be glad to discuss this matter further with you at your
convenience.
-..Sincer~ely,
Kirk McDonald
Director of Community Development
Enclosure: 10/16/03 Correspondence to Tharp
Cc: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager
Planning Commission File No. 01-09
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 Xylon Avenue North * New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 * www. ci.new.hope.mn.us
City Hall: 763-531-5100 · PoLice (non-emergency): 763-531-5170 · PubLic Works: 763-592-6777 · TDD: 763-531-5109
City Hall Fax: 763-531-5136 · Police Fax: 763-531-5174 · PubLic Works Fax: 763-592-6776
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Steve Tharp
Mid America Financial Plaza
9220 Bass Lake Road
New Hope, MN 55428
Dear Steve:
We wanted to find out when you believe the blinds will be installed. It has been in the 7-10
week time frame since you mentioned that they had been ordered and we appreciate the
information. We still experience the activity coming from the office building.
The past few weekends have been basically unacceptable relative to your description of the light
treatment. The glare exists well into the 10:00 pm and later time frame in an inconsistent
manner which sometimes occurs during the week. The blinds, we are hoping, will help alleviate
our discontent. -.
Trish Toro-Gabrys & Bill Gabrys
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Dear Kirk:
Please fred enclosed a letter recently sent to Steve Tharp. Trish noticed that a company was
surveying the building to begin cutting some new windows. I don't think Mr. Tharp has acted in
good faith with regard to our understanding of what your office was seeking for a resolution to
the problem that exists between our properties.
I would like you to send us copies of ail letters that your office sent to our neighborhood
pertaining to the Mid America Financial Pla?& as well as how to obtain meeting notes from
· when this was on the docket for discussion at city hall.
Sincerely,
Bill Gabrys
enclosure
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Developmem
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Dear Mr. McDonald:
Please find enclosed copies of a letter sent to you on February 17th and one dated February 10th
to Steve Tharp at Mid America Financial Plaza. In addition to the information requested in our
letter to you, we would like an explanation of how our attending an open forum at a council
meeting could possibly bring aborn any results based upon the obvious violation of the code
pertaining to residential and commercial neighbors.
Sincerely,
Trish Toro-Gabrys & Bill Gabrys
enclosures
cc: Mayor Peter Enck
S~/Ivester Pam
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
McDonald Kirk
Wednesday, November 12, 2003 3:16 PM
Donahue Dan
Axel Roger; Leone Valerie; Sylvester Para
Mid-America Financial Plaza Blinds
Dan:
FYI, received call from Steve Tharp today saying that they have decided to install blinds in all of the north windows of the
office building to address residents concerns about privacy. He said he had talked personally with 2 of the 6 adjacent
residents, including the original complainant, and that both said they would prefer blinds over the additional landscaping
option.
Kirk
Para: Please put copy of this in Plan Case file along with previous update e-mail I sent last week. Thanks.
October 16, 2003
Mr. & Mrs. Bill Gabrys
9209 59th Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Subject: Mid America Financial Plaza
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Gabrys:
Enclosed please find a copy of the letter I sent to Mid America Financial Plaza in regards
to the issues presented by the neighborhood. I have requested a written response to your
concerns no later than November 1. I will keep you informed of any communication
received form the property owner.
Kirk McDonald
Director of Community Development
Enclosure: Tharp Letter
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 Xylon Avenue North * New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 * www. ci.new-hope;mn.us
City Hall: 763-531-5100 * Police (non-emergency): 763-531-5170 * public Works: 763-592-6777 * TDD: 763-531-5109
City Hall Fax: 763-531-5136 * Police Fax: 763-531-5174 * Public Works Fax: 763-592-6776
October 16, 2003
//
Mr. Steve Tharp and
Mr. Shawn Tharp
Mid America Financial Plaza
9220 Bass Lake Road
New Hope, MN 55428
Subject: Neighborhood Screening and Lighting Issues
Dear Steve and Shawn:
As you are aware, the city received a letter and petition from the residential property owners on the north
side of your property on June 14 listing concerns about screening, loss of privacy, lighting issues, etc. in
regards to the rehabilitation being completed on your building. The majority of the concerns seemed to
focus on the installation of windows on the north side of the building.
The city indicated to the residents that we would meet with you as owners of the property, relay their
concerns to you and determine if an acceptable solution could be agreed upon that would satisfy all
parties. We met with you in late June to discuss this matter and agreed to conduct a neighborhood
meeting at your business on August 1 to view the neighbors' concerns first hand. After that meeting, you
indicated that you would consider options to possibly address some of the neighbors' concerns and
would notify the city in writing about what actions you may take. The city communicated to the residents
that when we received information fro_m you we would forward it to the residents.
I received a draft of a short letter from Shawn in September indicating that the timers on the office lights
had been adjusted to reduce the nighttime light levels. I provided my feedback to Shawn on the letter
stating that I did not feel that it adequately addressed all of the neighborhood concerns, such as
additional screening or landscaping, and requested that the letter be revised and expanded.
The neighbors continue to contact city hall to find out what the status on this issue is and what further
actions they can take. I indicated that I would contact you again and request a more detailed written
response to their concerns. I would also be glad to meet with you and/or the neighbors again. I would
request that you submit a written response to the neighborhood issues by November 1, and I will forward
your response to the neighbors.
Ultimately, if you determine to do nothing further, I anticipate that the residents will attend an open forum
at a Council meeting and that the Cour~cil ma~y or may not refer the matter to the Planning Commission
for review. I was hopeful that we could get the matter resolved without going through that process.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 Xylon Avenue North * New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 · www. ci.new-hope.mn.us
Ci~ Hall: 763-531-5100 · Police (non-emergency): 763-531-5170 · Public Works: 763-592-6777 · TDD: 763-531-5109
City Hall Fax: 763-531-5136 · Police Fax: 763-531-5174 * Public Works Fax: 763-592-6776
Mr. Steve Tharp and Mr. Shawn Tharp
Page 2
October 16, 2003
Please contact me at 763-531-5119 if you have any questions, and I hope that you will provide a written
response by November 1. As I stated, I would be glad to meet with you again prior to that time if you
think it would be beneficial.
Sincerely, r.,
Kirk McDonald
Director of Community Development
Cc:
Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager
Roger Axel, Building Official
Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant
Planning Case File 01-09
Tharp Family Limited Partnership
September 4, 2003
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428-4898
ATTN: Kirk McDonald
Dear Mr. McDonald:
In response to our neighbors concerns, we have made the following improvements:
The light sensors for the inside offices have been adjusted. The motion sensors will now
turn off the lights after only 10-15 minutes, instead of our previous setting of 30 minutes.
The office hours of the building are 8:30 - 5:00. Generally, the lights will only be on for
a short period of time after hours to allow the cleaning crew to complete their work. We
have asked the cleaning crew to manually shut off the lights and close doors after they
complete their cleaning. If, however, they do not manually shut offthe lights, the new
settings mentioned above should turn them off after 10-15 minutes.
We hope that by making these changes, the concerns of the neighbors will be diminished.
Sincerely, ~-'
Shawn M. Tharp
9220 Bass Lake Road, Suite 100, New Hope, MN 55428 Pl,us~e: (763) 561-5373 Fax: (763) 560-6549
Title
Mr. & Mrs
Ms
Mr
Ms
Mr. & Mrs
Mr. & Mrs
Mr. & Mrs
Mr. & Mrs
Mr. & Mrs
FirstName
Bill
Ingrid Schmitz and
Steve
Lynn
Delmar
Jim
Tom
Anatoliy
Joe
LastName
Gabrys
Mr. Corey Ney
Lovcik
Bradway
O'Bryan
Rieder
Schreyer
Feldberg
Gerold
Address1
9209 59th Avenue Nodh
9217 59th Avenue Nodh
9225 59th Avenue North
9233 59th Avenue North
9241 59th Avenue North
9301 59th Avenue North
9307 59th Avenue North
9315 59th Avenue North
9201 59th Avenue North
City
New Hope, MN 55428
New Hope, MN 55428
New Hope, MN 55428
New Hope, MN 55428
New Hope, MN 55428
New Hope, MN 55428
New Hope, MN 55428
New Hope, MN 55428
New Hope, MN 55428
August 8, 2003
<<Title>). <<FirstName>> <<LastName>)
<<Address1 ))
<<City))
Subject: Mid America Financial Plaza
Dear <<Title>). <<LastName>>:
If you participated in the neighborhood meeting with city staff and the owners of the Mid America
Financial Plaza property at 9220 Bass Lake Road on Monday, August 4, I want to thank you for
attending the meeting. I think it was very beneficial for the property owner and the city representatives to
listen to your concerns and view the area from both inside and outside the building and to have an
opportunity to discuss city ordinances and the planning approval process.
I communicated with the property owner several days after the meeting and he indicated that he was in
the process of considering options to possibly address neighbors' concerns. He said he had already
adjusted the office light times to reduce the nighttime light levels and was obtaining bids on window
blinds, etc. The owner stated that he would notify the city in writing in the near future about what actions
he may take. When the city receives the information, I will forward it on to you.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Director of Community Development
Cc:
Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager
Roger Axel, Building Official
Al Brixius, Planning Consultant
Steve Tharp
Planning Case File 01-09
August 1, 2003
Kirk .McDonald, Director of Community Development
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Dear Mr. McDonald:
Regarding the meeting with the representatives of MidAmerica Financial Plaza 9220 Bass Lake Road
property, I would like to get my comments and concern~ possibly discussed as I will be unable to attend on
Monday evening August 4~.
One of the things I would like to have addressed is with the lights being on at 10:30-I 1:00 pm each night
when the cleaning crew comes through to pick up trash or dust. Supposedly there is a motion sensor and
timer on the lights that keeps them on for a half hour. This is very annoying, especially when the crew is in
and out of the rooms in under a minute. It would be nice to not have the lights on for that whole half hour.
This leads to another point, the sight lines to my property and the northwest windows is relatively
unobstructed. When the windows were first purposed, I checked the proposal and the language made is
sound like additional screening would be put in order to keep the privacy for the residents to the north of
the 9220 Bass Lake Road property. This has not taken place since the windows have been installed. The
existing screening is not sufficient in screening these windows, especially at night and during the winter
when leaves are not on the existing trees and bushes. There are direct lines of sight into the respective
buildings from the Bass Lake Road property and mine. If options are discussed related to screening, please
take into consideration that the height of the landscaping is quite different at my property line as compared
to some of the other residences and consideration should be made for that if that option is discussed.
One of the other concerns with this property is with the up keep of the area directly behind my property.
Trash has a tendency to collect in this area and is not cleaned up. With the previous tenant of the 9220
property, the area was kept clean but the trees were neglected, the trees have since been cleaned up but the
area continues to be a problem related to trash. Granted it is not a lot of trash, but a plastic bag here and
there makes it look bad for myself and any guests I might have in the backyard.
Please contact me if any concern needs to be addressed or further meetings occur.
Sincerely,
Steve Lovcik
9225 59th Ave. N.
New Hope MN 55428
cc: Bill Gabrys
LANDSCAPING/SCREENING
In a related topic, you also asked me to provide you with an opinion regarding Mid
America Office Building screening from the residential property to the north. Section
4.034(3)(d), Required Screening, states that where any business or industrial use abuts
a residentially zoned use, that the business or industry shall provide screening along the
boundary of the residential property.
In examination of the Mid America Office Building conditional use permit, it was
discovered that extensive landscaping exists along the north property line. Additional
landscaping was required where parking was provided along the west side of the
building, resulting in the construction of a six foot high boundary line fence. In our
opinion, the existing landscaping, with the added fencing around the parking, was
sufficient to provide screening of the ~djoining properties from the commercial use.
The applicant has received approval for the installation of windows along the north.
property line. The property owner indicated that these windows are not able to be
opened and are tinted to diminish glare from office lighting onto the adjoining properties.
The City, in the past, has not required extensive screening where an office or retail
establishment just has windows facing a residential property. In this respect, we
believe that the existing landscaping in this area is sufficient to properly screen the
adjoining properties.
Mr. Tharp has invited staff and the neighbors to tour the office building to experience the
views from within the building and to demonstrate that the building design does
effectively screen or provide privacy to the adjoining residential properties. This being
said, the ordinance also allows for the adjoining residential properties to construct
boundary line fences if they feel that additional screening or additional privacy is
necessary.
pc: Roger Axel
.... :: .... NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
~'~'~[_~ Telephone' 952 595 9636 FaCsimile' 9,52 595 g8;37 lanners~n~c lannin
~;~ ...... P p g.¢or'n
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Alan Brixius
July 16, 2003
New Hope - Mid America Office Building
131.01 - 03.01
BACKGROUND
In a meeting with Mr. Tharp, the owner of Mid America Office Building, he had
'expressed an intention of expanding the parking at his site to facilitate greater flexibility
and tenant mix within the building. The proposed parking expansion would occur east
of the building and reSult in changes in the existing landscaped areas of the site.
On January 31, 2003, we prepared a memo that outlined-our opinion as to what a
change in on-site parking would require related to development applications. We
reiterate that opinion with this memo.
PARKING
The subject site is zoned R-O, Residential Office. The existing office use was approved
by conditional use permit recorded with the property. According to the Zoning
Ordinance, any significant change in activity as determined by the City Administrator
which affects the intensity of use shall not be approved unless the conditional use
permit is amended and approved by the City Council.
In our opinion, any expansion of th~ parking that modifies the approved site plan
associated with the original conditional use permit approval will require a conditional use
amendment and would be processed through public hearing in front of the Planning
Commission and subsequently approved by Council. This is consistent with our memo
of January 31st as well as our previous memo of January 14, 2003 related to inquiries
on a parking ramp.
Title
Mr. & Mrs
Ms
Mr
Ms
Mr. & Mrs
Mr. & Mrs
Mr. & Mrs
Mr. & Mrs
Mr. & Mrs
FirstName
Bill
Ingrid Schmitz and
Steve
Lynn
Delmar
Jim
'Tom
Anatoliy
Joe
LastName
Gabrys
Mr. Corey Ney
Lovcik
Bradway
O'Bryan
Rieder
Schreyer
Feldberg
Gerold
Address1
9209 59th Avenue North
9217 59th Avenue North
9225 59th Avenue North
9233 59th Avenue North
9241 59th Avenue North
9301 59th Avenue North
9307 59th Avenue North
9315 59th Avenue North
9201 59th Avenue North
City
New Hope, MN 55428
New Hope, MN 55428
New Hope, MN 55428
New Hope, MN 55428
New Hope, MN 55428
New Hope, MN 55428
New Hope, MN 55428
New Hope, MN 55428
New Hope, MN 55428
June 18,2003
<<Title,s. <<FirstName>> <<LastName>>
<<Address 1 >>
<<City~>
Subject: Mid-America'Financial Plaza, 9220 Bass Lake Road
Dear <<Title>~. <<FirstName>> <<LastName>>:
The city is in receipt of your letter regarding screening issues at 9220 Bass Lake Road. Thank
you for taking the time to put your concerns in writing. I shared your letter with the New Hope
city manager and building official and the city's planning consultant.
I will be contacting Mr. Tharp in the near future to coordinate a meeting with him, city staff, and
consultants to discuss your concerns and to see if a resolution can be agreed upon. I will keep
you informed as to the status of our meeting and the steps to be taken. My goal will be to try to
find a resolution that will be acceptable to you as residents and to the business.
Please contact me if you have any other questions at 763-531-5119.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Director of Community Development
Cc:
Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager
Roger Axel, Building Official
Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant
Planning Case File 01-09
Any study or findings relative to existing greenery has rendered woefully inadequate conclusions
with respect to the Code. When Prudential owned the building, their gruen belt screen was
sufficient for the design oft{me building. Since the addition of windows has created an entirely
new atmosphere and relationship between these residential and business neighbors, we suggest
that the building be treated as a "new building" relative to the Code. And, that the new
circumstances be taken into account when assessln~ the compliance of the existing green belt
screen. This includes thc realization that for six months out of the year there are no leaves on
the existing deciduous trees, and therefore render them ineffective as a screen as identified in the
Code. This was not a problem when there were no windows.
We therefore believe that some action is necessary to resolve this breach of compliance for thc
existing changes in the building, as well as any future changes, and would be willing to meet for
determinmlon of an action plan.
9217 5_9th Avenue N.
Steve Lovcik
9225 $9th Avenue N.
9/301 $9th Avenue lq.
9315 59th Avenue N.
9201 $9th Avenue N. 9201 59th Avenue N.
9209 59th Avenue N.
~
cc: Mayor Peter Enck; Steve Thmpe - Tharpe Family pannend~
Saturday, June 14, 2003
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Dear Mi'. McDonald:
We are contacting you regarding sections 4-3(d)(3d), 4-3(d)(5), 4-3(d)(Sb), and 4-33(c)(6b) of
the New Hope Code of Ordinances as it relates to the Tharpe Family Partnership (referred to as
"the Partnership~) and the multi-tenant building (referred to as 'the building*) at 9220 Bass Lake
Road. As the building abuts property zoned for residential use, the Code stipulates that the
business or industry shall provide screening along the boundary of the residential property. The
Code further defines the parameters which are acceptable for this screening be it 1) C.n~n belts,
or 2) Screen fencing. Glare lighting and accumulated refuse have become issues as well.
Unfortunately, we have learned that portions of the Code have been ignored by the owners of the
building. Some of us were not in attendance at the council meetings that related to this project
which has probably allowed this issue to be overlooked by the council in its request for action
and approval of the Tharpe Family Partnership plans. As a result, we feel proper consideration
was not given to the affect that the Parmership's plans would have on the entire residential
boundary of the building.
As theTharpe project took form, we learned of the installation of windows to the building on the
adjacent wall to the residential boundary. There was a clear indication that there would be a
substantial loss of privacy to many of the homeowners on the boundary. After obtaining a copy
of Plaaning Case 01=99, Request for Action, we found some carefully worded language that
might indicate that some consideration had been given to the privacy issue for the adjoining
residential properties. After a prolonged pause in activity fi'om the Parmership, I approached the
owners to understand what their intentions were with regard to the understanding we had of the"
plan. It became appamut that no further action was going to be taken by the Partnership with
respect to the provisions of the Code. Also, to om' understanding, there is no req~ent or
encomagement that telmats of the building~use window coverings.
This new knowledge prompted discussions with aH of the homeowners on the residential
boundary. We aH feel the ~ce of the new occupants in the building and believe that our
..m~. Ieeimgs ox discomfort when going about routine o.~--:-:-- ---- - -'- · .7-'
weren~ m existence prior to the ndai+i~,,, ,,~,,,.:_a_ _-_., ,,,,-.,lm:~ .on om'. properties t~at just
...... ~ ,,ususow~ m me commercial braiding.
LIABILITY CLAIMS Acknowledgement of Liabili .ty Claim No. 01-34 (Mohamed Hashim).
Item 6.3
SWIM CLUB
Item 6.4
Approval to Allow New Hope/Crystal,/Plyrnouth Swim Club to Host a Swim Meet
July 26.27, and 28, 2002, at the Milton C. Honsey Pool.
LIONS CORN FEED
Item 6.5
Motion to Approve Waiving the Fees for Sign and Tent Permits for Lions Club
Annual Corn Feed to be Held on August 15, 2001.
IMP. PROJECTS 664,
676, 670, 696
Item 6.6
Motion Approving Final Payment to Kevin Excavating. Inc. in the Amount of
$2,534 for Demolition and Site Restoration at 5406, 5410-12, 5420 and 5532
Winnetka Avenue North (Improvement Projects 664, 676, 670, and 696).
RESOLUTION 01-98
Item 6.7
Resolution Awarding Contract for the Site Clean-up and Development Preparation
at City-Owned Properties in the Winnetka, Bass Lake Road, and Sumter Avenue
Area (Improvement Project No. 705) to Kevitt Excavating for $28,055.
PLANNING CASE
01-09
Items 8.1
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Planning Case No. 01-09, Request
for Conditional Use Permit for Multi-Tenant Building and Comprehensive Sign
Plan, 9220 Bass Lake Road, Tharp Family Partnership, Petitioner.
Mr. Al Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated the petitioner is requesting a
conditional use permit (to convert the existing single tenant building to a multiple
tenant office building) and comprehensive sign plan approval. The Planning
Commission considered this request at its July 10 meeting and recommended
approval subject to several conditions. Mr. Brixius explained that the building was
originally built for The Prudential Insurance Company. It served as the company's
record center and was staffed by a minimal number of workers. When Prudential's
records were digitalized, the company no longer needed this site and subsequently
sold the building. He stated the building is too deep .for typical office building
usage. The petitioner desires to make it conducive by adding two skylit atrium
courtyards centered within the deeper areas of the upper level of the building and
adding new windows on the north and west elevations of the upper level. The
building would be used by five or six tenants. Mr. Brixius stated the site has 69
existing parking stalls. To meet the parking requirements for a professional office
use, the applicant would install 153 additional spaces in three phases for a total of
222 parking spaces. Ponding is proposed on the west side of the property.
Additional landscaping is also proposed. Staff recommends installation of an eight-
foot cedar fence along the north property line.
Mr. Brixius reviewed the seven conditions of approval recommended by the
Planning Commission:
1. Comply with Sign Code requirements for freestanding sign and all wall signs
be placed on the south side of the building.
2. Comply with City Engineer and Traffic Engineer recommendations, including
design of new access onto Genysburg Avenue.
3. Approval by,Shingle Creek Watershed Commission and submission of pond
calculations.
4. Comply with Building Official recommendations.
5. Comply with request from West Metro Fire and coordinate on location of fire
lane.
6. Comply with Planning Consultant recommendations, including:
· Demonstrate that they have sufficient parking for each tenant as the renovation
proceeds.
· Make the following landscape and screening changes:
· Install eight Colorado spruce along the site's west end.
New Hope City Council
Page 2
July 23, 2001
· Construct an eight-foot cedar fence along the north property line from the west
end of the site toward the west end of the building and then south to the
building.
* Install ever~een planting at the north end of the new eastern parking lot to
screen it fi.om Gettysburg Avenue.
· Demonstrate that the site can accommodate its waste disposal needs.
7. Execute Development Agreement with City and provide performance bond for
exterior site improvements (mount to be determined by Building Official and
City Engineer).
Mr. Brixius mentioned an e-mail was received regarding dead trees along the north
property line. It was noted that the applicant will inspect and make necessar3'
cleanup. He stated the Council could make this a condition of approval.
Mayor Enck advised Public Works Director Guy Johnson of a washed out culvert
on the far western end of Independence Avenue~ He also asked Mr. Johnson to
contact Mr. Feldberg, 9315 59'ai Avenue North, regarding the location of properD.'
lines.
Councilmember Collier questioned the location of the sign on the west end and
whether there will be glare into the adbutting residences.
Mr. Brixius stated the Planning Commission recommendation is to place the tenant
signs on the south side of the building so if they are back-lit, there will be no
illumination on the west side of the building.
Counciimember Gwin-Lenth initiated discussion regarding the location of the
fence. Mr. Brixius illustrated the location stating it extends off the comer of the
property line to the western property line, and explained that it does not mn behind
the building.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth questioned whether the irrigation issues have been
resolved. Mr. Brixius stated overall site maintenance was discussed at the Planning
Commission Meeting and the applicant has indicated they will address the
landscaping maintenance.
Mayor Enck opened the floor for comments.
Mr. Jim Reider, 9301 59ta Avenue North, was recognized. He commented on the
enhanced appearance of the property when Prudential developed the property. He
pointed out the neighborhood properly values will be diminished with the changes
proposed by the Tharp Family Parmership. He stated the neighbors will not have
privacy in their back yards if windows are installed on the upper level of the
building. He expressed his gratitude that the new owner willingly met with him
and discussed the plans. He pointed out that he does not wish to prohibit use of the
property but would like the City Council to table the matter to allow further study
and revisions which would be acceptable by the neighbors.
Mr. Paul Strother, Architect fi'om Cluts, O'Brien and Strother Architects, was
recognized. He noted the parking lot location is the same location contemplated by
Prudential. The location is logical due to the absence of mature trees in this area.
He commented that most of the dying trees will be removed with construction of
the pond. Mr. Strother clarified that the Tharp's recognized that the glare from the
signs is an issue for the neighbors and they would like to place un-lit signs on the
west end to spread out the signage.
Mayor Enck questioned whether this was discussed at the Planning Commission
New Hope City Council
Page 3
July 23, 2001
Meeting. Mr. Strother stated this request is being made subsequent to the Planning
Commission Meeting. Mayor Enck pointed out that it would have to be within the
sign code requirements. Mr. Brixius confu-med that it is acceptable.
Mayor Enck asked Mr. Strother to elaborate on the window design for the north
end of the building. Mr. Strother stated windows are necessary for it to work as an
office building. Portions of the building which could not be used as office space
were removed fi-om the floor plan (atria and protected parking). Mature plantings
along the north side will help with screening abutting properties. Shaded glass will
be used to mitigate the privacy issues (reduces views fi.om inside the building as
well as views into the building).
Mr. Anatoly Feldberg, 9315 594 Avenue North, was recognized. He expressed
concern that he wasn't shown the proposed plans. He noted the cottonwood trees
are in poor condition and if removed they will not provide screening. He expressed
displeasure regarding the reduced privacy caused by the new windows. He also
noted the parking lot size appears excessive, the fence will cause more shade and
reduced grass growth, and the pond may create water problems in basements.
Mr. Steve Tharp, General Panner of the Tharp Family Trust, was recognized. He
explained that he spoke with the three property owners most impacted by the
changes regarding the proposed eight-foot cedar fence recommended by the City.
He noted there was only one small area that was not heavily treed and installation
of 4-5 spruce trees on each lot would shield the lot fi-om the pond and the parking
area. Some of the neighbors desired a fence (perhaps a cyclone fence rather than a
cedar fence) and some preferred trees for screening. Next, he provided history of
the parking lot for the west side. He acknowledged that the property owners will
all be exposed to some amount of overlook fi.om the windows but the mature
plantings should minimize it. Also, the use of the building as an office building
generally used Monday through Friday fi.om 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. should minimize the
privacy issues since most people use backyards in the evening and on weekends.
Mr. Tharp stated they have already contracted with a landscaping company to
remove dead branches fi.om the Norway spruce trees. Mr. Tharp also commented
on the lawn condition noting the sprinkler system is now operating. He stated the
landscaping company turned off the irrigation system during the wet spring and
inadvertently forgot to turn it back on.
Mayor Enck remarked that he also wondered whether the property owners were
desirous of an 8-foot cedar fence in their backyards.
Mr. Brixius clarified that the condition of the fence was staff initiated to secure the
yard as well as screen the parking lot, and to protect the neighborhood from
trespass. A preferred option would be increased landscaping with a cyclone fence.
Councilmember Norby supported construction of a cedar fence. She noted she has
a fence in her backyard and it has served them well. She expressed opposition for a
slatted cyclone fence.
Mr. Brixius noted he would only support a cyclone fence (without slats) with
landscaping for screening. He pointed out that the property is very difficult due to
its proximity to Bass Lake Road, Highway 169, and the neighbors to the north.
The R-O zoning district allows for a variety of uses and the re-use of an office is
the best option considering conflicting hours and activities. He noted if the City
can work through elements to satisfy the neighborhood and the applicant, it is a
good re-use of the site.
New Hope City Council
Page 4
July 23,2001
RESOLUTION 01-99
Item 8.1
PLANNING CASE
01-07
Item 8.2
New Hope City Council
Page 5
Mayor Enck commented that this site was discussed during the zoning code update
and the Council determined to leave the site zoned R-O. He stated Prudential has
been a good neighbor and it appears that Tharp Partnership will also be a good
neighbor. He emphasized that the building must be utilized.
Mr. Jim Rieder was again recognized. He questioned whether lighting issues were
addressed.
Mr. Brixius stated the lighting will meet all code requirements. He stated where
lighting abuts residential properly, lighting cannot exceed half a foot candle. All
lighting will be down lit and screened to prevent glare to adjoining properties.
Mr. Rieder asked whether the neighbors can approach the Ci~' if lighting is a
problem after the project is complete. Mayor Enck responded affirmatively.
Mr. Tharp acknowledged that they will try to accommodate and be responsive to
the neighborhood. He stated they will be an occupant of the building and will try to
be a good neighbor.
Mayor Enck requested that condition number 6 regarding landscaping be amended
to include the requirement for the petitioner to tend the dead landscaping at the
site.
Mayor Enck introduced the following resolution "RESOLUTION APPROVING
PLANNING CASE NO. 01-09, REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR MULTI-TENANT BUILDING AND COMPREHENSIVE
SIGN PLAN APPROVAL AT 9220 BASS LAKE ROAD (PID #06-118-21-23-
0078) SUBMITTED BY THARP FAMILY PARTNERSHIP", and moved its
adoption subject to:
the inclusion of another condition under number 6: trim dead branches and
remove and replace dead trees
a revision to condition 6B(2) making the cedar fence optional (the applicant
shall meet with the neighbors to develop a plan regarding screening
preferences, subject to staff approval).
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Norby, and the following voted
against the same: Collier; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was
attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Planning Case No. 01-07, Request
for Zoning Code Text Amendment to Allow Charter Schools in the Industrial
Zoning District by Conditional Use Permit, 5121 Winnetka Avenue North, Grubb
& Ellis Company, Winnetka Properties LLC, and Excell Academy of Higher
Learning, Petitioner.
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, indicated the petitioner has withdrawn the
request for a zoning code text amendment. He read the letter dated July 23 sent by
Eugene Rerat, Winnetka Properties, LLC: "The purpose of this correspondence is
to withdraw our request for the above referenced zoning code text amendment and
the related conditional use permit. We would like to thank City Staff for their time
expended in this effort."
Mayor Enck commented that he had previously asked the Planning Commission to
July 23,2001
COUNCIL
FOR ACTION
REQUEST
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development ~ 7-23-01 . Development
& Plannin~l
Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald By: 8.1
PLANNING CASE 01-09, REQUEST/~FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTI-TENANT BUILDING
AND COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN, 9220 BASS LAKE ROAD, THARP FAMILY PARTNERSHIP,
PETITIONER
REQUESTED ACTION
The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to convert the existing single tenant (former Prudential)
building to a multiple tenant office building and comprehensive sign plan approval, pursuant to Sections
4.015(8), 4.33 and 3.493 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The Planning Commission considered this
request at its July 10 meeting and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. Comply with Sign Code requirements for freestanding sign and all wall signs be placed on the south side
of the building.
2. Comply with City Engineer and Traffic Engineer recommendations, including design of new access onto
Gettysburg Avenue.
3. Approval by Shingle Creek Watershed Commission and submission of pond calculations.
4. Comply with Building Official recommendations.
5. Comply with request from West Metro Fire and coordinate on location of fire lane.
6. Comply with Planning Consultant recommendations, including:
A. Demonstrate that they have sufficient parking for each tenant as the renovation proceeds.
B. Make the following landscape and screening changes:
1) Install eight Colorado spruce along the site's west end.
2) Construct an eight-foot cedar fence along the north property line from the west end of the site
toward the west end of the building and then south to the building.
3) Install evergreen planting at the north end of the new eastern parking lot to screen it frorr
Gettysburg Avenue.
C. Demonstrate that the site can accommodate its waste disposal needs.
7. Execute Development Agreement with City and provide performance bond for exterior site improvements
(amount to be determined by Building Official and City Engineer).
(cont'd.)
___
Request for Action Page 2 7~23-0,~--
The enclosed resolution approves the request subject to those conditions and staff recommends approval of
the resolution.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
The City Council has approved conditional use permits and Comprehensive sign plans in the past if they
comply with the requirements of the Zoning Code.
BACKGROUND
Please refer to the attached staff report for a detailed description of the request.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the property owner at 9225 59th Avenue North (north of the
site) e-mailed City Hall requesting:
· Clean up of trees along north property line
· Details on fence location, height, length and details
Staff has communicated these requests to the architect for the property owner. The property owner has
agreed to clean up the trees along the north property line and has submitted the attached fence details, which
have been sent to the adjacent property owner. Staff recommends that the City Council add the tree clean up
along the north property line to the resolution as a condition of approval.
ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution
· Correspondence from Resident and Architect
· Staff Report
CITY OF NEW HOPE
RESOLUTION NO. 01-99
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 01-09
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTI-TENANT
BUILDING AND COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN APPROVAL
AT 9220 BASS LAKE ROAD
(PID #06-118-21-23-0078)
SUBMITTED BY THARP FAMILY PARTNERSHIP
WHEREAS,
the applicant, Tharp Family Partnership, has submitted a request identified as
Planning Case No. 01-09 for a conditional use permit for multi-tenant building and
comprehensive sign plan approval, pursuant to Sections 4.015(8), 4.33, and 3.493
of the New Hope Code; and
WHEREAS,
the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Planning Case No. 01-09 on
July 10, 2001, found that all conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code for
conditional use permit and comprehensive sign plan have been satisfied by the
applicant, and recommended approval of the planning case request subject to all
conditions as set forth in the City Staff Report dated June 29, 2001; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council on July 23, 2001, considered the report of the City staff, findings
and recommendations of the Planning Commission, and the comments of persons
attending the City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council hereby finds and concludes that the applicant has satisfied all
conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code for issuance of the requested
conditional use permit and comprehensive sign plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of New Hope that the
request for a conditional use permit for multi-tenant building and comprehensive
sign plan approval, as submitted in Planning Case No. 01-09, is approved, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Comply with Sign Code requirements for freestanding sign and all wall signs
be placed on the south side of the building.
2. Comply with City Engineer and Traffic Engineer recommendations, including
design of new access onto Gettysburg Avenue. '
3. Approval by Shingle Creek Watershed Commission and submission of pond
calculations.
4. Comply with Building Official recommendations.
5. Comply with request from West Metro Fire and coordinate on location of fire
lane.
6. Comply with Planning Consultant recommendations, including:
A. Demonstrate that they have sufficient parking for each tenant as the
renovation proceeds.
B. Make the following landscape and screening changes:
1) Install eight Colorado spruce along the site's west end.
2). Petitioner to meet with neighbors to determine proper screening,
either cedar fence or additional landscaping, on the northwest portion
of the property.
3) Petitioner to trim dead branches and remove and replace dead trees.
4) Install evergreen planting at the north end of the new eastern parking
lot to screen it from Gettysburg Avenue.
C. Demonstrate that the site can accommodate its waste disposal needs.
7. Execute Development Agreement with City and provide performance bond for
exterior site improvements (amount to be determined by Building Official and
City Engineer). ' ........
Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 23~ day
of July, 2001.
Attest:
City Clerk
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH'
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 10, 2001
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present
Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Svendsen
None
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Shelly Johnson, BOnestroo & Associates, Ken Doresky,
Community Development Specialist, Erin Seeman,
Community Development Intem, Pamela Sylvester,
Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC01-09
Item 4.1
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Conditional
Use Permit for Multi-Tenant Building and Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval,
9220 Bass Lake Road, Tharp Family Partnership, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, stated that the
petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit to convert the existing
single tenant (former Prudential) building to a multiple tenant office building
and comprehensive sign plan approval. The property is located at 9220 Bass
Lake Road and is zoned R-O, Residential Office. The property is located at
the northwest comer of Bass Lake Road and Gettysburg Avenue, with access
to the property from Gettysburg. There are single family residential uses north
and east of the site, industrial uses south of the site and the city of Plymouth is
located to the west across Highway 169. The site contains approximately
seven acres. The existing building contains approximately 83,000 square feet,
or 27 percent of the site. The green area occupies approximately 42 percent
of the site and the current paved area occupies approximately 31 percent of
the site area. McDonald reminded the Commission that this site generated
some discussion during the update of the Zoning Code and the Council
determined to leave the site zoned R-O until renovation, reuse or
redevelopment of the site.
McDonald stated that the applicant, Tharp Family Partnership, recently
purchased the former Prudential building and was requesting conversion of
the single tenant building to a multi tenant building. The conversion would not
change the footprint of the building. The only exterior changes would be the
addition of new parking lots, installation of windows on the north and west
sides of the building, and a new entrance on the southeast side of the building.
Upon completion of the renovation, the building would house five to six
tenants. The applicant stated in a narrative that the existing building offered
challenges for use as a conventional office building: not enough parking, too
deep for office use, and no windows on north and west sides. They would
address these challenges by adding parking and reducing the office area
within the building by adding intedor atriums. The work would be done in
phases as the building area was leased. The storm drainage system would be
upgraded and a pond added du® to the fact that they would be increasing the
impervious surfaces to the site. The office area would be reduced by
constructing two skylit atrium courtyards which would be centered within the
upper level of the bL, ilding and providir, G parking in the lower level. The
proposal includes the addition of new windows on the north and west
elevations of the upper level. The existing landscaping was well kept and
would remake, except for the addition of new decorative plantings by the new
office entry, and new plantings on the west to replace those removed for
ponding. The building would be a sound buffer between the busy roads and
the adjacent residential properties. The proposed use would be iow impact
with most activity during the week when residents are generally at work. The
improvements would make this property an asset to the community.
Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and staff received
several calls and several neighbors came in to view the plans. The City of
Plymouth was also notified.
McDonald reported that the proposed office use was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The site was zoned R-O and
professional offices are a conditionally permitted use within that district. The
purpose of the R-O District is to provide for high density residential uses and
the transition in land use from medium density residential to Iow intensity
business allowing for the intermixing of these uses. The reasons that a multi-
tenant building would be appropriate for this site include: the use would
operate during typical business hours with little or no evening or weekend
activity, the site contains significant landscaping along the northem border to
screen it from the adjacent residential uses, and most activity would take
place on the south side of the site away from the adjacent residential uses.
Staff recommends additional landscaping and an eight-foot cedar fence along
the north properly line as a condition of approval.
McDonald stated that the purpose of a conditional use permit was to provide
the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in
determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare,
public health, and safety. The criteria to consider include the nature of
adjoining land or buildings, whether similar uses are already in existence, the
effect upon I~'affic into and from the premises, and any other appropriate
factors. In determining whether to approve or deny a CUP, the City Council
and Planning Commission shall make a finding that the CUP complies with
specific criteria, including whether the request would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, whether the proposed use was compatible with
adjacent land uses, whether it conformed with all applicable performance
standards in the Code, and that the proposed use would not depreciate the
area in which it was proposed. There are also district specific cdteda to be
considered for a CUP to allow a multi-tenant professional office building in an
R-O District, including street access/parking, traffic flow, and buffers. The site
and related parking and service areas shall create a minimum of conflict with
through traffic movements. The applicant proposes to phase in three
additional off-street parking areas around the building: one area on the west,
one on the east, and one on the south. These lots appeared to be consistent
with the original .design of the site and would not create traffic conflicts through
the site. The site has 69 existing parking stalls. To meet the parking
requirements for a professional office use, the applicant would install 153
additional spaces in three phases, for a total of 222 parking stalls. This would
be 11 more than the code required. Vehicle entrances to parking or service
areas shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement. All
traffic would enter and exit the site from the existing Gettysburg access, which
would not change. The Traffic Engineer conducted a traffic study to determine
whether the access should be moved closer to Bass Lake Road. According to
the Traffic Engineer, any traffic generated by the multi tenant building would
not cause any need for improvements to the signalized intersection at Bass
Lake Road and Gettysburg Avenue. The traffic would be a minor change and
Planning Commission Meeting 2 July 10, 2001
no cause for conCe~= Access to and from the site should remain at its current
Iocatic~ to maintain s~cient stacking distance, from the stoplight at Bass
L~ke Road to Gettysburg. City staff recommended that the site access
driveway be reconstructed and signed to allow outbound right tums only onto
Gettysburg Avenue to help mitigate the impact to Gettysburg and the
residential neighborhood to the north. When abutting any residential district, a
buffer with screening and landscaping should be provided. The applicant must
provide either green belt screening or a fence along the north side of the
property. 'rhe existing landscape plan shows a mixture of coniferous and
deciduous trees planted along its border with the residential uses. It also
shows an existing wooden .fence that extends from Gettysburg to the
northeastern comer of the building. The applicant plans to remove six existing
juniper trees and one pine tree to facilitate the construction of the storm water
pond. These trees would be replaced with_ eight Colorado spruce along the
site's west end. The applicant also plans to .construct an eight-foot cedar fence
from the end of the existing fence to the westem end of the site.
McDonald explained that the applicant was also requesting approval of a
comprehensive sign plan, which was required when a single principal building
housed two or more businesses.-Per the Sign Code, it is the intent of the City
to establish general requirements for the overall building so the signs would
match, however, provided some flexibility for the owner to work with the
individual tenants. The site would have one freestanding monument sign
proposed to be 119 square feet, which exceeds the 100 square foot code
requirement. There would be two wall-signs on the west side of the building
and four wall signs on the south side of the building. Each wall sign would be
internally lit, 100 square feet in size and complied with code requirements.
The Development Review Team and Design & Review Committee discussed
the proposed request, including grading and drainage, ponding, Watershed
standards, location of driveway, signage, landscaping/buffers, trash storage,
parking, and the need for a pond maintenance agreement and site
improvement agreement. Revised plans were submitted.
McDonald explained that the expansion would take place in three phases.
Phase 1 would be the west expansion that would include an accessible entry
on the west side of the building~ thr~ee handiCapped parking spaces in the
expanded west parking lot, snow storage areas on the northeast and
southwest sides of the parking area, an eight-foot cedar fence along the north
property line. The Phase I east expansion would include parking lot on the
east side of building expanded by 41 spaces, snow storage on the east side of
the parking area, new traffic island entrance which would be signed for right
tums only, divider island with B612 CUrb between the existing and new parking
areas. The Phase 2 expansion would be on the south side of the building with
61 new parking stalls constructed on the north and south sides of the existing
drive, B612 curb around the parking areas with surmountable curb along the
drive, new walkway and stairs as needed from south parking area to building,
new retaining walls around the parking area, and the condensing unit and
cooling tower would be enclosed. The applicant submitted a photometric plan
that was consistent with code requirements. There would be no changes to
the lighting in the east parking lot. The south lot would have a new double light
post at the southeast comer of the building. There was an existing wall
mounted light on the building. The main level floor plan included a new
elevator, new fixed windows on the north and west sides, five office spaces in
the upper level of the building, mechanical room, loading docks, new
restrooms, and new interior courtyards with skylights. The lower level would
contain office space for Prudential, parking for 30 cars including two ADA
spaces, an overhead door to the parking area, and an exhaust system for
lower level perking, which would be vented to the south side of the building.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 July 10, 2001
The applicant's plans showed one trash storage location inside [he east end of
the building. Staff was concerned 'that this location would not be large or
centralized enough to serve the entire building. The applicant must
demonstrate that the site can accommodate trash storage inside the building
or within an exterior trash enclosure that would be constructed of materials
that would be complementary to the building. McDonald added that there
would be a new entry at the southwest interior comer of the building and the
existing rooftop units would be painted. McDonald explained that the Building
Official recommended that entry driveway should be widened for panel truck
delivery and the east parking lot should have 90-degree parking with 24-foot
two-way driveways. The site plan boundaries should be corrected to match
the lot survey. The City Engineer reviewed the plans and a traffic analysis was
completed. The Shingle Creek Watershed Commission must review the storm
water pond on the site; and the application has been submitted. The City
Engineer felt the pond was adequate, although storm water pond calculations
need to be submitted. McDonald noted that the site plan showed a mixture of
B612 and surmountable curbing. This issue should be discussed by the
Planning Commission. Staff would recommend B612 unless the area needed
to be accessible for snow storage. The Fire Department requested that
hydrants and connections be identified and that the applicant coordinate on
the fire lanes. Fire alarm system information must also be provided, as well as
documentation on the current sprinkler system.
McDonald stated that staff was recommending approval of the request and
felt it was a good reuse and renovation of the site, subject to the conditions in
the report. The applicant, architect, and Traffic Engineer were all in the
audience to answer questions.
Mr. Paul Strother, architect from Cluts, O'Bden and Strother Architects in
Eden Prairie, came to the podium.
Commissioner Svendsen asked for clarification on the location of the cedar
fence on the north property line. Strother responded that the fence would be
from the northwest building comer west to the property line to prOvide
additional screening due to the fact that some trees would be taken out for the
pond and parking. It was confirmed that B612 curbing would be utilized on the
site except for the snow storage areas where surmountable would be used.
Strother agreed that the eastern parking lot would be restriped to 90-degree in
parking.
Mr. Shelly Johnson, Traffic Engineer from Bonestroo & Associates, came
forward to answer questions. Svendsen asked for clarification on the service
levels. Mr. Johnson stated that the service levels on Bass Lake Road and
Gettysburg were studied during morning and afternoon peak hours. Levels of
service range from A to F, with service level F being the heaviest. Level D or
better would be acceptable in a metropolitan area. Johnson stated that there
were no problems with this intersection or projected traffic levels. The
intersection would still be C or better;, however, one approach may get to D in
the p.m. peak hour.
Svendsen questioned whether the entrance configuration as proposed by the
City Engineer was acceptable and whether the site plan would be corrected.
Signage was discussed and the applicant agreed that the monument sign
could be made smaller to comply with code requirements. Commissioner
Oelkers questioned whether the wall signs would be illuminated and why there
would be signs on the west side of the building when these would not be easily
seen. The applicant responded that two signs were placed on the west to
spread out the signs and so one side of the building didn't have all of the
signage. This would also provide some identity for the tenants located at that
end of the building. The applicant would be agreeable to moving the signs to
Planning Commission Meeting 4 July 10, 2001
MOTION
Item 4.1
the south side of ~th~ ~uiiding. There was some discussion regarding a
monument sign along Highway 169. Mr. Strothers commented that the
monument sign would be placed at the entrance, to the property so any visitors
would know they had arrived at the right building.
Discussion was initiated on the trash enclosure. The applicant stated that
there was space available at the west dock and trash storage could be
provided at both the east and west ends of the building. Svendsen
commented that the existing landscaping at this site was mature. It was
suggested Rat additional Colorado spruce be added at the north end of the
eastern parking lot to screen the site from Gettysburg Avenue.
Chairman Landy asked whether anyone in the audience wished to address
the Commission.
Ms. Jan Rieder, 9301 59th Avenue, came forward. She stated they had two
concerns about the property: the sprinkler system did not appear to be
operating and the grass and some of the trees were dead, and there was
concern whether there would be adequate parking so no on-street parking
would occur as had happened in the past. There was some discussion
whether the illuminated signs on the west would shine in the homeowner's
windows at night. Rieder added that there had been a good relationship
among the residents and Prudential and she hoped that would continue.
Mr. Steve 'l'harp, general partner of the Tharp Family Trust came forward and
stated that the same lawn care company would be under contract with them to
maintain the lawn. Tharp stated he was not aware that the sprinkler system
was not working and suggested that the higher temperatures may be the
reason for the brown grass. He stated they would discuss the matter with the
lawn care company.
Motion by Commissioner Kramer, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. AJI in favor. Motion carded.
Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the illuminated signs on the
west elevation. Mr. AJan Bdxius, Planning Consultant, added that the signs on
the west elevation would be above the treeline and fence. It was the
consensus of the Planning Commission to have the applicant move the signs
from the west elevation and place them on the south elevation of the building.
Commissioner Hemken questioned whether the garage door on the lower
level was quiet so there would not be a noise concern for the residents to the
north. The response was that the garage door would be the same as a
residential garage door. Another concem was the exhaust fan needed for the
lower level parking, which would be directed toward the freeway side of the
building away from the residential neighborhood. The existing air conditioning
units are located on the south side of the building. Hemken wondered how the
trash would be picked up. Tharp responded that trash would be contained in
the Ioacling dock area and the garbage trucks would pull up to the docks.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Green, to
approve Planning Case 01-09, Request for Conditional Use Permit for
Multi-Tenant Building and Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval, 9220
Bass Lake Road, Tharp Family Partnership, Petitioner, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Comply with Sign Code requirements for freestanding sign and all
walls signs be placed on the south side of the building.
2. Comply with City Engineer and Traffic Engineer recommendations,
Planning Commission Meeting 5 July 10, 2001
PC01-07
Item 4.2
including design of new access onto Gettysburg Avenue.
3. Approval by Shingle Creek Watershed, Commission' and
submission of pond calculations.
4. Comply with Building Official recommendations.
5. Comply with request from West Metro Fire and coordinate on
location of fire lane.
6. Comply with Planning Consultant recommendations, including:
A. Demonstrate that they have sufficient parking for each tenant
as the renovation proceeds.
B. Make the following landscape and screening changes:
1) Install eight Colorado spruce along the site's west end.
2) Construct an eight-foot cedar fence along the north
property line from the west end of the site toward the west
end of the building and then south to the building.
3) Install evergreen planting at the north end of the new
eastern parking lot to screen it from Gettysburg Avenue.
C. Demonstrate that the site can accommodate its waste disposal
needs.
7. Execute Development Agreement with City and provide
performance bond for exterior site improvements (amount to be
determined by Building Official and City Engineer).
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch, Green,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carded. '_- '
Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Chairman Landy informed the petitioner that this planning case would be
considered by the City Council on July 23 and he should be in attendance at
that meeting.
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Zoning Code
Text Amendment to Allow Charter Schools in an Industrial District by
Conditional Use Permit, 5121 Winnetka Avenue North, Grubb & Ellis
Company, Winnetka Properties LLC, and Excell Academy for Higher
Learning, Petitioners.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that the petitioners were
requesting a zoning text change. Initially, the application was submitted for a
change to the zoning text as well as a conditional use permit to allow for an
educational institution within an industrial district. Subsequent to meeting with
staff and the Design & Review Committee, the petitioner split the application
and was only pursuing the zoning text amendment at this meeting. The
property is located at 5121 Winnetka Avenue and is zoned I, Industrial. "The
request was to expand the range of uses within the I District to include
educational facilities, specifically to allow for a charter school. Staff indicated
to the applicant that this was not a permitted or conditional use within that
district and the only way it might be allowed would be through a zoning text
amendment_ The applicant provided several reasons why the City should
consider changing the zoning ordinance including the need for additional
charter schools throughout Minnesota and most charter schools are moving
into industrial buildings due to a lack of existing school facilities. Brixius stated
the petitioner indicated in correspondence that New Hope had a high vacancy
rate and the industrial parks were older and not offedng the same amenities to
industries that the newer industrial parks offered. Therefore, there would be a
need for more adaptive reuse of New Hope's buildings to provide continual
occupancy and greater vitality within these areas.
Planning Commission Meeting 6 July 10, 2001
Planning Case:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: July 10, 2001
Report Date: June 29, 2001
01-09
Tharp Family Partnership
9220 Bass Lake Road
Conditional Use Permit for Multi-Tenant Building and Comprehensive Sign Plan
Approval
II.
III.
Request
The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to convert the existing single tenant (former
Prudential) building to a multiple tenant office building and comprehensive sign plan approval, pursuant
to Sections 4.105(8), 4.33, and 3.493 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
Zoning Code References
Section 4.105(8) Conditional Uses R-O - Medical; Professional and Commercial Offices
Section 4.33 Administration - Conditional Use Permit
Section 3.493 Signs Accessory to Multiple Occupancy Business and Industrial Uses,
Including Shopping Centers
Property Specifications
Zoning:
Location:
Adjacent Land Uses:
Site Area:
Building Area:
Lot Area Ratios:
Planning District:
R-O, Residential Office
Located at the northwest corner of Bass Lake Road and Gettysburg Avenue.
Access to the property is from Gettysburg Avenue.
North and east of the site are R-l, Single Family Residential uses; Industrial
uses are south of the site; City of Plymouth is located to the west across
Highway 169
6.966 acres
82,877 square feet
Existing Building:
Green Area:
Paved Area: ~
82,877 square feet or 27%
127,380 square feet or 42%
94,531 square feet or .. 31%
304,788 square feet 100%
No. 1; The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically identify this site for
redevelopment, however, the City routinely promotes business expansion in
the City. This site generated some discussion during the update of the Zoning
Code and the Council determined to leave the site zoned R-O until
renovation, reuse or redevelopment plans were submitted.
Planning Case Report 01-09 Page I 6/29/01
IV. Background
The applicant, the Tharp Family Partnership, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the
conversion of the existing office/warehouse building at 9200 Bass Lake Road to a multi-tenant office
building. This conversion will not change the footprint of the building. The only extedor changes will be
the addition of three new parking lots, the installation of windows along the north and west sides of the
building, and a new entrance on the southeastem side of the building. Upon completion of the
renovation, the building will house five or six tenants.
This building is the former Prudential warehouse building. Originally, it served as the company's record
center and was staffed by a minimal number of workers. When Prudentiars recorders were digitalized,
the company no longer needed this site and the building was sold.
V. Petitioner's Comments
The petitioner submitted a narrative with the application that included the following comments:
"The property is a 109,000 square foot building on a seven-acre site, originally built for The Prudential
Insurance Company. It was built in two phases. The easterly single story portion was built in the early
1970s and the westerly two-story portion was built in the late 1970s or early 1980s. The site is zoned
Residential-Office, a unique zoning intended for office use to serve as a buffer between single family
residences and other uses, in this case a noisy freeway intersection. The building originally served to
house paper insurance records in the pre-digital era; it was full of filing cabinets and served by a
minimal staff. Accordingly, very little parking was provided. When the records were digitized, Prudential
had no need for this use and the building was sold.
The current owner wished to use the building as a multi-tenant office building. The existing building
offers three challenges for use as a conventional office building. First, it does not have enough parking.
The zoning ordinance requires three parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space, or 326
spaces as is, versus 69 provided currently. Secondly, it is too deep for office use. There is simply too
much interior space too far from the windows to be attractive to tenants. Thirdly, the north and west
sides are windowless.
We propose to answer these challenges by adding parking and reducing the office area within the
building. We have added parking in the site areas depicted on the original construction drawings as
"Future Parking." The grading there is prepared for this layout, as is the existing landscape. We
propose to do the work in phases, as the building spaces are leased. 191 spaces will be provided on
the site. Because we will be adding impervious surface to the site, we will upgrade the storm drainage
system by adding additional storm drains and the appropriate pond.
We have reduced the office area by proposing two skylit atrium courtyards centered within the deeper
areas of the upper level of the building. We have further reduced the office area by providing parking
within the building on the lower level. With this interior parking we provide an additional 30 parking
spaces. By adding parking and reducing the office area, the ordinance requires 211 spaces versus 221
total provided.
The proposal indicates the addition of new,windows on the north and west elevations of the upper level,
essential for office use. There is significant existing landscape screening north of the building. The
existing landscape is mature, well kept, and an asset to the community. We intend to keep it as is
except to provide some decorative plantings at the new office entry.
The proposal is compatible with the zoning and the intent of the zoning. It maintains the building as a
sound buffer between the busy roads and the adjacent single-family residences. It is a Iow impact use
with activity primarily during the week when the residents are generally at work, and quiet in the
evenings and weekends when the residents are likely to be home. The improvements that are part of
this work will make this property an asset to the community."
Planning Case Report 01-09 Page 2 6/29/01
VI. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments as of
the time this report was prepared.
VII. Development Analysis
A. Zonin.q Code Cdteda
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
The proposed office use is consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
According to the Proposed Land Use map, the subject property is guided for commercial use.
Similarly, this site is zoned R-O, Residential Office, and professional offices are a conditionally
permitted use within this district.
R-O, Residential-Office District
The purpose of the R-O, Residential-Office District is to provide for high density residential uses and
for the transition in land use from mid-density residential to Iow-intensity business allowing for the
intermixing of such uses. There are several reasons why a multi-tenant building is an appropriate
use for this site. First, this use will operate during typical business hours with little or no evening or
weekend activity. This schedule is complementary to the adjacent residential uses. Second, this site
has significant landscaping along its northern border to screen it from the adjacent residential uses.
In addition, staff is recommending that a condition of approval require the applicant to install
additional landscaping and an eight foot cedar fence to intensify its screening. Finally, most activity
from this use will take place on the south side of the site, away from the adjacent residential uses.
Conditional Use Permit
The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible
degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare,
public health, and safety. In making this determination, to allow a conditional use permit application,
the City may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings, similar uses already in existence and
located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the
premises, or on any adjoining roads, and any other factors bearing on the general welfare, public
health, and safety from the approval of the conditional use permit.
Criteria for Decision. The Planning Commission and City Council shall consider possible adverse effect
of the proposed conditional use. In determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit,
the City CoUncil and Planning Commission shall find that the conditional use permit complies with the
following criteria. The burden of proof demonstrating compliance with the following criteria shall be the
responsibility of the applicant.
1. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies
and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official Comprehensive Municipal
Plan of the City. ..
2. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent present and future anticipated land
uses. ,
3. Performance Standard~J The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards
contained in the Code.
4. No Depreciation in ValueJ The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in
which it is proposed.
5. Zoninc~ District Criteria,. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed use meets the
criteria specified for the various zoning districts:
Planning Case Report 01-09 Page 3 6/29/01
In Residential Districts~ R-l, R-2, R-3~ R-4~ R-5~ R-Bi R-O
Per the Zoning Code, there are three cdteria to weigh when considering a conditional use
permit for a multi-tenant professional office building in the R-O District. These criteria and
staff's finding for each are outlined below.
1. Street Access/Parking. The site and related parking and service areas shall create a
minimum of conflict with through traffic movement.
Finding. The applicant proposes to phase in three additional off-street parking areas. The
applicant intends to construct these parking areas as the building fills with tenants. The
location, number of stalls and timeline for their construction is illustrated in the chart below.
These lots appear consistent with the original design of the site and should not cause traffic
conflicts through the site. However, staff recommends that a condition of approval require
the applicant to demonstrate that they have sufficient parking for each tenant as the
renovation goes on.
Currently, this site has 69 existing parking stalls. To meet the parking requirements for
professional office uses, the applicant will install 153 additional spaces in three phases,
giving the site a total of 222 (see the following table) stalls. These additions will give this
site 11 more stalls than required by the Ordinance.
Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant install evergreen plantings
at the northern end of the new eastem parking lot to screen from adjacent residential uses
and the Gettysburg dght-ofoway.
Parking Plan
Phase Location Number of Stalls Scheduled Date
for Completion
Existing East Side 69 Existing
I East Side 41 2001
I West Side 21 2001
II South 61 2002
III Indoor 30 2003
Total Inside/Outside 222 2003
Traffic Flow. Vehicle entrances to parking or service areas shall create a minimum of
conflict with through traffic movement.
Finding. All traffic will enter and exit the site from the existing Gettysburg Avenue access.
While Gettysburg is also an access for the neighborhood to the north, there should be only
minimal traffic conflicts since the neighborhood traffic should be going in the opposite
direction dudng business hours.
The City Engineer conducted a traffic study to determine how this new use will affect traffic
in this area. Its findings are summarized below.
a. Traffic generated by the proposed 71,581 square foot office building will not cause the
need for improvements to the signalized intersection of Bass Lake Road and
Gettysburg Avenue.
b. With the change in use of this building, the traffic at the intersection of Bass Lake Road
and Gettysburg Avenue will remain at service level B dudng the a.m. peak hours and
will drop to service level C for the p.m. hours. This is a minor change and is not a cause
for concern.
Planning Case Report 01-09 Page 4 6/29/01
c. Access to and from the site should remain at its current location to maintain sufficient
stacking distance.
d. The site access ddveway along Gettysburg should be reconstructed and signed to
allow outbound right tums only onto Gettysburg Avenue. This will help to mitigate the
impact to Gettysburg Avenue and the residential neighborhood to the north.
3. Buffers. When abutting an R-l, R-2, R-3 or R-4 District, a buffer area with screening and
landscaping in compliance with the Zoning Code shall be provided.
Finding. The properties directly north of this site are zoned R-l, Single Family. Commercial
and industrial uses adjacent to an "R" District must provide either a fence or green belt
screening. The applicant's existing landscape plan shows a mixture of coniferous and
deciduous trees planted along its border with the residential uses. It also shows an existing
wooden fence that extends from Gettysburg to the northeastern comer of the building.
The applicant plans to remove six existing juniper trees and one pine tree to facilitate the
expansion of the on-site storm water pond. These trees will be replaced with eight
Colorado spruce along the site's west end. In addition, the applicant plans to construct an
eight-foot cedar fence from the end of the existing fence to the western end of the site.
Comprehensive Si.qn Plan
When a single principal building is devoted to two or more businesses or industrial uses, a
,/ comprehensive sign plan for the entire building or shopping center shall be submitted and shall include
the information required to permit a determination as to whether or not the plan is consistent with the
Sign Code. No permit shall be issued for an individual use except upon a determination that it is
consistent with a previously or concurrently approved comprehensive sign plan. The effect of said
comprehensive sign plan is to allow and require the owner of multiple occupancy structures to
determine the specific individual sign requirements for the tenants of his building. As sign locations,
size and other sign details may be of some significant importance in lease arrangements between
owner and tenant, it is the City's intention to establish general requirements for the overall
building only, thus providing a building owner with both the flexibility and responsibility to
deal with his individual tenants on their specific sign needs.
Si.qns
According to the building elevations, the site will have one freestanding monument sign, two wall signs
on the west side of the building and four wall signs on the south side of the building. The monument
sign will be approximately 119 square feet while the six wall signs will total 600 square feet. The
freestanding sign exceeds the square footage standards outlined in the ordinance, which is limited to
100 square feet.
B. Development Review Team
The Development Review Team met on June 13 to consider the plans for CUP and Comprehensive
Sign Plan. Issues discussed included: grading, drainage, and ponding designs to be coordinated
with City Engineer and utility inspections to be made by Public Works staff; Watershed standards
must be met; a pond maintenance agreement would be required; site improvement agreement and
performance bond would be required; relocation of driveway and signage; landscaping/buffers; trash
storage; parking lot and ADA access.
C. Desiqn & Review Committe~,
The Design & Review Team met with the applicant on June 14 and was supportive of the request
and reviewed the comments from the Development Review Team with the applicant.
Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting, which include the following details:
Planning Case Report 01-09 Page 5 6/29/01
Planning Case Report 01-09
1. Phase I West Expansion · Accessible entry provided on west side of building
· Three handicapped parking spaces provided near entry
· Parking lot expanded to 21 spaces
· Surmountable curb
· Snow storage areas on northeast and southwest sides of parking area
· New eight-foot cedar fence along north property line
2. Phase I East Expansion · Parking lot on east side of building expanded; 41 parking spaces added
· Surmountable curb around new parking area
· Snow storage on east side of parking area
· New traffic island at entrance with "Right Turn Only" sign installed
· Divider island with B612 curb to separate existing/new parking areas
3. Phase II South Expansion · 61 new parking stalls constructed on north and south sides of existing ddve
· B612 curb around parking areas; surmountable curb along drive
· New walkway with stairs, as needed, from south parking area to building
· New retaining walls constructed
· Condensing unit and cooling tower to be enclosed
4. Li.qhtinq. According to City Code, any lights which cast light on residential property shall not
exceed one foot-candle as measured at or on the adjoining property line. The applicant's
photometric plan is consistent with this standard. Existing and new light standards and building
lights are identified as follows:
East
· East parking area - two existing 20' double light poles
· East side of building - two existing 10' single light poles
· Existing wall mounted light over east entry
South
· New double light post at southeast interior building comer and existing wall mounted light
· Existing wall mounted light at southwest interior building comer
5. Main Level Floor Plan
· New elevator installed
· New fixed windows installed along north and west walls
· Five office spaces each at: 12,553 square feet
12,370 square feet
16,816 square feet "
14,536 square feet
6,359 square feet
Mechanical i ,491 square feet
Loading/Mechanical 5,119 square feet
New Restrooms
New interior courtyards with skylights
6. Lower Level Floor Plan
· Prudential office space 7,947 square feet
· Parking for 30 cars, cut opening in wall on west side for new 12' by 8' overhead door
· Exhaust air to south side of building
· Two of the parking spaces are ADA
Page 6 6/29/01
7. Siqnage
Monument Siqn
· Monument sign shown at east corner of property
· 25' by 5' = 125 square foot illuminated sign to state "MIDAMERICA FINANCIAL PLAZA 9220
BASS LAKE ROAD" mounted on brick base (brick to match building)
Wall Siqn
· Four sign areas shown for internally lit 100 square foot tenant signs on south elevation
· No wall signs on north or east building elevations
· Two sign areas shown for internally lit 100 square foot tenant signs on west elevation
8. Trash. The applicant's plans show one trash storage located inside the east end of the building.
Staff is concerned that this location is not large or centralized enough to serve the entire
building. The applicant must demonstrate that the site can accommodate its waste disposal
needs by providing sufficient trash storage either inside the principal building or within an
exterior trash enclosure made of materials that are complementary to the principal building.
9. Landscaping. A listing of the existing landscaping on the property was prepared by staff and is
included in the attachments. The site has a number of mature trees.
10. Other Site Plan Notes · Three handicapped parking spaces and one van accessible space in existing east parking
area
· New entry at southwest interior corner of building
· Existing rooftop units to be painted
· New skylights installed on roof of building
· Total of six tenants
Planninq Considerations
Excerpts from the Planning Consultant's report have been incorporated into this report.
Buildin,q Considerations
The Building Official reviewed the revised plans and provided the following
recommendations:
Site Plan
·
comments/
Revise entry driveway to widen both lanes for panel truck and occasional semi-truck swing
room.
,,/· Restripe east parking lots and all new in a 90-degree layout with 24-foot two-way driveways, so
that traffic design is clear and consistent throughout the site; no reduction in spaces will occur,
using 8'-9" stall width and no curb changes are required. Remnant triangles can be hash-
marked out. Two-way drives will eliminate the wrong way driver circling to park.
,/" Revise curbs and create large radius swing room for trucking access to the east dock; suggest
24-foot radius on both sides, with "East Truck Dock" entry sign at northeast corner of building.
· Clarify exact location, construction design and length of new cedar fence.
· Site plan boundaries do not match lot survey and must be corrected before Council review.
Landscape Plan
· No plant schedule is provided with numbers, species (common and Latin names) and totals. If
only eight new Colorado spruce (6-foot tall) are planned, the City may want to increase that
number along the north side.
· Clarify "reconfigured decorative plantings" at new entry door. Provide details in plant schedule.
Planning Case Report 01-09 Page 7 6/29/01
Architectural Plan
,/- · Cladfy that new north Windows are fixed and not operable near the residential area.
...,-Submit an alternate plan for reduced office square footage or on-grade parking, if garage is not
built within 36 months, or parking demand exceeds capacity.
Gradinq and Drainaqe Plan
Revise grading plan, as well as site plan, to match lot survey, leaving no confusion as to
boundaries.
Legal Considerations
CUP Agreement, easement and pond maintenance agreement to be coordinated with City Attorney.
En.qineerinq Considerations
The City Engineer and Traffic Engineer reviewed these plans and provided a Traffic Analysis and
other comments (full reports attached).
Traffic Analysis
The conclusions/recommendations from the traffic impact analysis are as follows:
· Traffic generated by the proposed office, utilizing 71,581 square feet of leasable area, will not
cause the need for improvements to the signalized intersection of Bass Lake Road and
Gettysburg Avenue.
· The signalized intersection of Gettysburg Avenue and Bass Lake Road will remain at a level of
service B dudng the a.m. peak hour with the projected volumes. The p.m. peak hour will drop
from a level of service B under existing conditions to a level of service C with the projected
volumes, a minor drop in service that is not a cause for concern.
Access to and from the building should remain at its current location. Shifting the access to the
south would create potential traffic problems, such as reduced queuing space for southbound
vehicles on Gettysburg Avenue at Bass Lake Road and turning movement conflicts with
movements to and from Gettysburg Circle.
· The strong majority of the site-generated traffic will utilize the Bass Lake Road and Gettysburg
Avenue intersection. There will be a desire for some traffic to approach/depart the site to the
north along Gettysburg Avenue. It is desirable to minimize the added volumes along Gettysburg
Avenue since it is residential and has a park adjacent to it.
The site access driveway along Gettysburg Avenue should be reconstructed and signed to allow
outbound dqht tums only to Gettysburg Avenue. This will help to mitigate the impact to
Gettysburg Avenue to the north of the site.
Other Enqineednq Comment.~
Comments provided by the City Engineer are as follows:
(.June 22 memo)
We have prepared a sketch of how the driveway might be configured. The layout can be' finalized
after review with the applicant.
This configuration requires expansion of the driveway to the east. The curb radius on the west side
of the driveway would stay as it exists today. This serves two purposes:
· The current distance from the driveway to the residential property immediately west will not be
altered
· Trucks will not be able to enter the site from the west because of the existing short turning
radius. This will discourage truck traffic through the residential neighborhood.
Planning Case Report 01-09 Page 8 6/29/01
The curb radii on the center island andthe east side of the driveway are compatible with a WB-50
design vehicle (50 feet from front axle to rear axle). Longer delivery vehicles would require further
modifications.
(June 25 memo)
Transportation
· The plans include widening the driveway and constructing an island to facilitate "right out only"
movements. The curb radii should be reviewed to make sure anticipated delivery vehicles can
enter and exit.
· The traffic patterns through the parking lots could be confusing. The two existing lots are
unidirectional while the new lot will receive traffic in two directions. It is recommended that the
patterns be discussed. At a minimum, directional arrows and signage could be used to clarify the
patterns.
Storm Water
.· A pond is shown on the west side of the property. The pond must be sized according to NURP
/ standards for all hard surfaces (existing and new) except the roof area. Calculations must be
submitted.
,, · Water quality improvements must be reviewed and approved by Shingle Creek Watershed.
,,. Identify the 100-year HWL in the area of the pond. Upstream drainage areas from residential
properties were forwarded previously. The applicant must make sure that the FFE is 3' higher
than the FFE.
· The proposed storm sewer configuration is acceptable. The pond only received water from the
site. The public storm sewer is routed around the pond.
./· Move STMH-9 approximately 10 to 20 feet southeast. This will improve the merger of flows in
the existing 24' pipe.
,,,. It appears that FES-1 will be 1' below the NWL of the pond. Typically, all FESs are required to
be set at the NWL. It is evident that FESol is set Iow because of the requirements of the
upstream storm sewer. It is recommended that this be reviewed and modified, if feasible.
Storm sewer calculations must be submitted.
The existing storm sewer for the west parking lot will be extended. It is recommended that a
second catch basin be added in this line to serve the middle parking area.
A drainage and utility easement must be dedicated over the storm pond area. A pond
maintenance agreement must be completed by the applicant.
Curbinq
· Although not noted in the City Engineer's memo, new curbing should be B612, not
surmountable.
Police Consideration~
The Police Department reviewed these plans in conjunction with other Departments. "
Fire Considerations
The plans do not address the issues presented by West Metro Fire and any approvals are subject to
the following requests made at the Design & Review meeting.
· Plans must identify where hydrants and Fire Department connections are located on property.
· After hydrants and Fire Department connections are identified, coordinate with West Metro on
fire lanes.
· Provide requested fire alarm system information to West Metro.
· Licensed sprinkler company to provide documentation on current sprinkler risers and provide
sprinkler plans for entire building.
Planning Case Report 01-09 Page 9 6/29/01
VIII. Summary
Staff supports the conversion of this building for multi-tenant office use.
IX. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and comprehensive sign plan for 9220 Bass
Lake Road, subject to the following conditions:
1. Comply with City Engineer and Traffic Engineer recommendations, including design of new access
onto Gettysburg Avenue.
Approval by Shingle Creek Watershed Commission and submission of pond calculations.
Comply with Building Official recommendations.
Comply with request from West Metro Fire and coordinate on location of fire lane.
Comply with Planning Consultant recommendations, including:
A. Demonstrate that they have sufficient parking for each tenant as the renovation proceeds.
B. Make the following landscape and screening changes:
1) Install eight Colorado spruce along the site's west end.
2) Construct an eight-foot cedar fence from the west end of the existing fence to the western
end of the site.
3.
4.
5.
3) Install evergreen planting at the north end of the new eastern parking lot to screen it from
Gettysburg Avenue.
C. Demonstrate that the site can accommodate its waste disposal needs.
6. Execute Development Agreement with City and provide performance bond for exterior site
improvements (amount to be determined by Building Official and City Engineer).
Attachments: Address/'ropo/Zoning Maps
Petitioner Narrative
Revised Plans:
Site Plan/Phases
Parking Summary
Exterior Lot Ratios
Curb Detail
Existing Landscaping/List
Phase 3 Lower Level Parking
Main Level Floor Plan
Building Elevations
Ground Sign
Light Contours
Site Lighting Calculations '
Light Fixture Details
Title Survey
Grading Plan
Pond Details
Utility Plan
Planner's Report
Building Official Comments 6~20 City Engineer Traffic Analysis
6/22 City Engineer Comments West Metro Fire Comments
6/25 City Engineer Comments Application Log
Planning Case Report 01-09 Page 10 6/29/01
R-3
R-O
HOSTERMAN l
JR HIGH
SCHOOL WINh-:-
ELE~,~E~
Renovation and Remodeling of:
9220 Bass Lake Road
Midamerica Financial Plaza
New Hope Minnesota
Project Narrative
History:
The property is a 109,000 SF building on a seven-acre site. originally built for The
Prudential Insurance Company. It was built in two phases. The Easterly single
story portion was built the early 1970's The Westerly two story portion was built
in the late 1970's, or early 1980%. The site is zoned "Residential Office," a unique
zoning intended for office use to serve as a buffer between single family
residences and other uses, in this case a noisy freeway intersection. The building
originally served to house paper insurance records in the pre-digital era, it was full
of filing cabinets and served by a minimal staff. Accordingly, veo' little par-k/ng
was provided. When the records were digitized, Prudential had no need for this
use and the building was sold.
Proposal:
The current owner wishes to use the building as a multi tenant office building.
The existing building offers three challenges for use as a conventional office
building. First, it does not have enough par'king. The zoning ordinance requires 3
parking spaces per 1000 SF of office space, or 326 spaces as is, versus 69
provided currently. Secondly, it is too deep for office use. There is simply too
much interior space too far from the windows to be attractive to tenants. Thirdly,
the North and West are windowless.
We propose to answer these challenges by adding parking and reducing the office
area within the building. We have added par'king in the site areas depicted on the
original construction drawings as "Future Parking." The Fading there is prepared
for this layout, as is the existing landscape. We propose to do the work in phases
as the building spaces are leased. 191 spaces will be provided on the site.
Because we will be adding impervious surface to the site, we will up~ade the
storm drainage system by adding additional storm drains and the appropriate
pond.
We have reduced the Office area by proposing two skylit atrium courtyards
centered within the deeper areas of the upper level of the building. We have
further reduced the Office area by providing parking within the building on the
lower level. With this interior parking we provide an additional 30 parking
spaces. By adding parking and reducing the Office area the ordinance requires
211 spaces and versus 221 total provided.
The proposal indicates the addition of new windows on the North and West
elevations of the Upper level, essential for office use. There is significant
existing landscape screening North of the building. The existing landscape is
mature, well kept and an asset to the community,. We intend to keep it as is
except to provide some decorative plantings at the new Office entry.
The proposal is compatible with the zoning and the intent of the zoning. It
maintains the building as a sound buffer between the busy roads and the adjacent
single family residences. It is a low impact use with activit?' primarily during the
week when the residents are generally at work, and quiet in the evenings and
weekends when the residents are likely to be home. The improvements that are
part of this work will make this property an asset to the communit?'.
PII'JtM~H)
1
o~ll?o0 fV ~t
gluts
O'Brien
Strother
ARCHITF. CTS
, '~.....--~?~....,---~.
NEW
HOPE
OFFICE
BUILDING
REMODEL!
A! .I
PMI~Ct~ ~ PNIIQ PNIC;IQ
I
I
SURMOUNTABLE
,
I
%
%
tIUTY
' ) m ' m m ' ' m m '' HANDICAPPED
'"""" sPACE --VAN
ACCESSABLE
/ EXISTING 10'
SINGLE LIGHT
)UBLE POLE
~OST
~ B612
CURB /
STAIR ~
SURMOUNTABLE
CURB
NEW ~C
ISLAND
REMOI/E
CURB
NEW BOI2
CURB
NEW SIGN
'RIGHT TURN ONLY'
SNON
B612
CURB
N~
41 CARS
B612
CURB
SNOW
STORAG
I
SURMOUNTABLE
CURB
/_._ _ PHASE
EAST
SURMOUNTABLE
CURB
MONUMEN'
SIGN
~LE
NEW PARKII~
2t ~
DETAIL
NEW
PARKING
B612 CURB ~
SEE DETAIL
PROPERLY' LINE
CURB
PHA;
NEW
PARKING
x,
B612 CURB
SEE DE-T/dL
SURUOUNTABLI
CURB
PROPERrii' LINE
CONDENSING UNIT
ENCLOSED
NEW 8612
NEVI ENTRY
WALL
:'E:X!SEI
SPACE -VAN
ACCESSASL/
- P,~P,K I~.'.'.' '.'. '-'.'.
.... ~. ~ HARDt~B
SPACES
WALL
L.ICHT
NEW [XbUBLE
UGHT POST
NL-W WALK
WITH STAIRS
AS NEEDED
[XIS11H~ 10'
SINGLE LIGHT
POLE
B612
CURB /
ST/dR J
1'
I
PHASE 2
B612
CURB
PARKING SUMMARY
PARKING PARKING
PARKING SUMMARY AREA
RATIO REQUIRED
PRUDENTIAL OFFICE AREA 7,947 8F (1/300 8F) (90Z) 20
PUBLIC CIRCULATION 15,420 SF 0 .... 0
!MECHANICAL 1,491 SF 0 0
DOCK !,584 SF 0 '- 0
LOAD!NG./MECHANICAL 5,119 SI= 1/1500 SF 3
INDOOR PARKING 15,230 SF 0
NET OFFICE AREA 62,634 SE (1/300 SF) (9OX) 188
TOTAL 109,425 SE 211
PARKING PROVIDED
EXISTING PARKING 69
PHASE I - EAST(NET ADD) 41
PHASE 2 61
PHASE I - WEST 21
TOTAL OUTDOOR 191
TOTAL INDOOR (PHASE 3) ;30
TOTAL
PARKING 222
EXTERIOR AREA
BUILDING AREA 82.877 SF 27Z
GREEN AREA 127,380 SF 4_2~
ASPHALT 94,531 SF 31X
TOTAL AREA , 304,788 SF lOOZ
SURMOUNTABLE
NOTE'
B618 CURB TO BE USED AT RADIIJS.
SEE CITY PLATE NO. STRT-5
/ o o t .s/4"
- SLO,PE 1/4"iPER FT.,, I I
1/2"R-
· , 6": 3" RAD.
"~,~ SLOPE _3_/4"
PER I'1, !
-.. 8" 12"
1/2" RAD
B612
(~) CURB DETAIL
SCALE: 1-1/2":1'-0"
AT ALL TRENCHES 2#4 REINFORCING RODS
SHALL BE PLACED IN THE LOWER PORTION
OF THE CURB 20 FEET IN LENGTH.
2#4 REINFORCING RODS AT CATCH BASINS
NO LESS THEN 10 FEET IN LENGTH.
CONTROL ,JOINTS SHALL CONFORM WITH
MNDOT SPEC. 2531.3C.
/ / I I
Club
O'Brien
Strother
ARCHITECTS
NEW
HOPE
OF'PICE
BUILDING
REMODEL
I I
I I I
To Be Removed
1-25" Pine
3-20" Juniper
1-8" Ash
Totals
2-8" Maple
2-12" Ash
2-12" Maple
1-6" Ash
3-20' Juniper
3-15' Norway
8-20' Norway
9-12" Flowering Crab
2-10" Oak
1-24" Maple
2-18"Oak
1-30' Oak
1-24' Oak
5-10" Ash
1-24" Oak
8-20' Norway
9-12" Flowering Crab
10-10' Buckthorn
2-16" Ash
5-8" Flowering Crab
4-8" Ash
8-30' Spruce
5-16" Oak
3-16" Ash
1-8" Ash
4-12" Ash
3 Juniper Bed
Decorative Planting Reconfiguration
Existing Sod on East Side
NEW 8-6' Colorado Spruce
North
8-20' Norway
9-12" Flowering Crab
South
10-10' Buckthorn
2-16" Ash
5-8" Flowering Crab
Juniper Bed
Decorative Planting Relocation
East
8-30' Spruce
5-16" Oak
3-16" Ash
1-8" Ash
4-12" Ash
2 Juniper Bed
2-10" Oak
1-24" MaPle
2-18" Oak
1-30' Oak
1-24' Oak
5-10" Ash
1-24" Oak
Existing Sod
West
NEW 8-6' Colorado Spruce
4-8" Ash
2-8" Maple
2-12" Ash
2-12" Maple
1-6" Ash
3-20' Juniper '
3-15' Norway
2-30' Pine
I I
Ciuts
O'Brien
StroLher
ARCHITECTS
NEW
HOPE
OFFICE
BUILDINOl
REMODEL i
h PARKING
/ 30 CARS
NEW W.KJ.
(D
NEW (X)OR ~NEW CUR
I HR SEPARATION
[XISTIf~
i ~q [L~ATOR
PRUD£NT~ '
7,g47 SF ',
~ - . . ~ DOCK
..PHASE 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
t I I I I I
Ii
Cluts
O'Brien
Strother
ARCHITECTS
NEW
HOPE
OFFICE
BUILDING
REMODEL!
I I
i " MIDAMER{CA ..4. ~/~ -- ~
gluts
O'Brien
Strother
ARCHITECTS
NEW
HOPE
OFFICE
BUILDING
REMODEL
LDIHG
I~AIlON$
~ EXISIING
EXISTING
FACE BRICK
PiP
PIER riP
,~" '~ ' ~ ii
EXISTING
2'x2' FACE BRICK
r,'--,.-- £XISIING.
DOWNLIC~IT
TYP
EXISTING
t, OADING AREA
FtO0~ LIGHT
TYP
Ti~NANT 4
EXISTING
DOWNLIGNT
EXISTING
WINDOW
EXISTING
~ETAL FASCIA
EXIStiNG
8'xl2'
OH. DOOR
EXISTING
UECH LO4JVER
[XISI1NG
AND )RANSO~
QSOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16"=i'-0" '
EXISTING DOOR
EXISTING
BUMPER
EXISTING DOCK
PADS EXISTING DOCK
LEVELER
RAILING
EXISTING
RETAINING WALL
~ EXISTING ~ EX STING
/ /x"~ -- 2'x2' FACE BRICK / WlNn..q. r,o ~ NEW UEIAL FASCIA /
Pi ........ EXISTING
,m~mL~PlER rfp / ..... ~ .,¢ 25'-0 / / / ~ M.AL FASCIA
AND ENTRY
UETAL
FASCIA
OBLIQUE
N~ DOOR
AND ENTRY
EXISTING
UETAL
FASCIA
EXISTING
WINDOw
rfp THIS SIDE
EXISTING
FACE BRICK
EXISTING
2'x2' FACE BRICK
PIER rfP
IO'x12' STEEL
ROLL UP DOOR
EXISTING
DOWNLIGHT
IYP
(~) EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0"
NEW WINDOW
TYp [HIS SIDE
NEW 12'~8'
O.H. DOOR
SIGN AREA
I00 SF/IENANT
[YPICAL
REMOVE FACE BRICK AND CMU
AS REQUIRED FOR NEW O.H. DOORS
ID ALIGN WITH EDGE OF PIERS
()WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" -
EXISIING
W~NDOW$
EXISTING
DGOR AND IRANSOM
£XISDNG
METAL
FASCIA
EXISTING
2'x2' FACE BRICK
PIER TiP
EXISTING
FACE BRICK
TYP
T~NANT $
EXISTING '
DOWN LIGHT
l'fP
EXISDNG
MECH LOUVER
BEYOND
EXISTING
CONC CURB
EXISTING RAILING
EXISTING
RETAINING
WALL
MIDAMERICA 2s.-_~
FINANCIAL PLAZA
9220 BASS LAKE ROAD
........ ~-~ qT~F~-,:"~"i':;' ~ ~' ,~ r~ ~ ':,:', ', ':,.~ ~' ~' ~
ILUMINATED
MONUMENT
SIGN
BRICK TO
WATCH
BUILDING
,b ,b ,,k ,,b ~b ,b ~b ,b ,.b do ,is eb ,b ,,b ~b .I. ,,b d, d, d, ~k ~, d, ,b ,b ,k ~k ,A, ,b do ,b ,b d, d, ,b ,k ~b ,b ,,b ~b ,b ,b do ,b ob
,8, .I, d,, ,k
,b ,b ob ,I. ,L, ,b ,~, J- ,I. ,L, ,A, al,, ,b ,L, ,b ,I, ,lo ,b ,G, d, ,b d,) ,b d, 4, ,b ,L ,k ,b do .I. ,b flo ,b & ~ ,i, d, ,b ,b d,
__ do ,b ,b do ,b d, ,b ~, ,& .b ,L, ,b ~l. d., ,h ,b ob ,b ol, ,b .b eb ,b
do ,8, ,b ,b ,k eb ,b ob eh ,b ,b ,b ob do ,b ,I, ob ,b Gb ,b ,b ,b ,b
~ d° 'b Ib ~b 'k eb d, ob ,h ,b do ,& ,lb do ,& ,k ,k ,b eb .A. ,b lb ,b
'b 'h d' ,h ,b d. ,b d. ,l* ,k ,b ,b ~b ~b .b ob ,b ,b ~b ,b
lb ,b ,Jo ob oL. do ,b Ib ~lJ ,b G
k G .:. ,b d,, ,b ,b ,,h ob ,k ,b ,b G d,b .L ,k ,k
. ob eb ii- ,L, ,h el. do ii.. ob ih, eb sb ob do & ob ct,
· L. ,b ~ ,b el, ,k ,b do & 4, ,b ,k ,k ,k .b & ob ,h
~ ,b ~b ob ,b d, ,b ,k ,b ,k ,k ~b ,b ,b ,k ,h
~ lb 'b 'b ib ~b ,b ,b ,b d, ,b ,b d, ,b ob d,
,b ,b d, ,b ob ,b ,k
,b ,k
· A. ~u 05= ,b d
& ,b ,b ,l. d,, ,I. ,L,,
,h eL. ,L, ob ,b el, ~
lillli]
llllliJ
i,,'rl I I I I
iiilll!
Cluts '
. O*Brien
Strother
(]SITE LIGHTING
SCALE: i"=40'-0'
CALCULATIONg
06/08/01 10:52 FAX 651 405 0929
Sm~m Fe
SANTA FE
Square_ formed, two piece
atuminum housing. 5tandan:l
re~eal accentuated with col~' viny~
trim ~17ip. Glow ring hoLesim:J has
translucent band of white acryfic,
internally DlumtnatecL
Extruded aluminum door w~th
dear, fiat tempered gia.~ ler~.
fully gasketed to housing. Tool-
les~ acce~ to lamp provic~ed with
four spring loaded Latch/hin~eL
Sl~CUlar. anodized aluminum
refk, t-to~ for horu~ontal lamp,
provide type IlL IV, or V ~3uare
ligkrt patt~ Mourned wil3~ hinges
and tooHe~ fa~enets for acce~ to
bal[a~ Ol~tional POD tamp ofte~
Metal Halide am:l High Pressur~
S~dium lama ;~e~ up to 17Sw in
small, 400w i~ medium, and 1000w
in large l'~usir~
E~l~uded aluminum arm Orovided
for pole side mount SDider mount
has four aluminum tube arms
a13aching hot~ing to pole top
firter. Yoke mount has twa square
aluminum arms secunng hou~ng
to Pole 1o0 fitte~. Both SM and YM
fit~r~ bolt to po~e top pad. C. act
S~iDfiTter adapts to 5M and YM
arms for 2' (2'~' OD) tenon. Waft
mount bracket is ca~ aluminum.
~ocket is enclosed mogul porcelain,
pube raled, with 14~ring loaded.
nickel pi,Tted center contact and
reinforced lamp grip screw shell.
[Medium base for MIO0)
Ballas~ L~ CWA ty13e, HPF, ~arting
rated at .20'F.
Polyester paint finish with choice
of 10 standard colo~.
UL li~ted for wet Iocatior~ and
CSA certified,
Type:
Aesthet~cw#y sty/eeL cutoff
lurnina~re for extra appeal
par~ing areas, autD MI~ iot~
and or, her glere-f~ee al;~Dl~caporm
Submittal Catalog #:
Catalog Descrir)tion:
Order No.
Example SFI! -
O
S;I . UD~O 175w
Sell . 2~3w.40Ow
Selll . ~-I~w
~ Noml~
~ - ~ard rMal
~ - ~m ~t
~d- 10' afro ~ SRil
~ - wall
~ie
or
· ~t~ mourn w~
sJip~
0 0 0
STD-SM-S~-M400- IV - 120-
0 Lamp TypeMat~
$70
$100
StSO
e~SO [E-lB1 M2S0 ¢£.281
u4oo (PAW)4)
SI:Ill
S~O0 11:- 18) M400
SllX]0 (E-2S] MII])O (BT.S0)
O O
RBP - WTR
. photo receptacle (tess cell}
- photoelectric bcrtlon cell
120.277v. up to 44X)w
- sJngle fu~e (120~,272v.347v)
DF - Clouble I~se
(D.C bayc~ ba~ tamp
SMH - udper metal halide ~3cket
( 1
C$ - house title cu~ff shield
DBZ - dark b~oftze FGR . ~
~ · b~ ~ - ~alblue
~- ~lte ~ - r~al blue
B~ -~ige ~B. burgu~y
R~~r~ ~G -gr~
~R- ~1~
BER - b~
O~ · ~h~
Dimensions:
Page 1 of 2
htzp ://www.spauldi nglighting.com/new_page_8.htm
6/8/01
06/08/01 10:52 F~ 651 405 0929 ~l&~; I~zli~HlucrJlil~ ~ C0$A
oauJdJng Li ting, Inc.
p3~ight ~ 2000 All Righ~ Reserved
ph (513)541-3486 Fax (513)541-1454
Page 2 of 2
httl:)://w~,-w.spauldinglighting.com/new_page_8.htm
6/8/01
i I
I.
AL TA/AC'SM
L AND T ITL E
r~NillnL NOTESi ',
CERTIFICATION,
~m. Am .mvnI) ~c. i .,m
I
BLK 2
LOT I
CERTIFIC, of
I
ii
GOPHER STATE ONE CAll
I,
,4DDi ~,
~. g2.6,3 $~'oIv
893 0
/ //
I
I
I
/ 9220 ~4S
II s t~K£ Ro, to
I Oe/~N4t 8'
I ~ 9060
I
I
/
i
!
I
,/
NEW HOPE OFFICE BUILDING REMOOEL--[
NEW HOPE MINNESOTA ]
GLUTS. OBRIEN, S1ROTHER ARCH.1
NORTH
GRADING, DRAINAGE &
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
n
7
FENCE
\ \
POND DATA:
,%
\
\
%.
\\
\
TOTAL PAVEMENT AREA = 1.g7 AC.
PERMANENT POOL VOL. REQUIRED = 0.,.31 AF
PERMANENT POOL VOL. PROVIDED = 0.,~4 AF
POND BOTTOM = 881.0
NWL = 886.2
TOP OF BERM -- 889.0:1:
POND HWL = 8S8.4 (lO0 YF~)
\\
\
,.,
1
,/
/,
/ /
/
FIR$~ '4Do
~ ~9~.0
/,/
NORTH
0/~S$ L/~K£ eO/~°
Rogcr A. Ande~on ~ Associales, Inc.
NEW HOPE OFFICE BUILDING REM~--------~
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
CLUTS. O'BRIEN. STROTHER ARCH.
UTILITY PLAN
JUN-2?-2001 17:00 NAC 612 595 9~ P.02/12
I .~ ' CONHUNtT~PLANNIN'G --'DESIGN ." HARKE'T RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO: . Kirk McDonald
FROM:· Jason Lindahl/fllan Brixius.
DATE:
RE:
June 27, 2001 ..
New Hop~ -' Midamerican Financial 'Pla~a'
FILE:· 131.0.1 - 01.08
BACKGROUND "
The. applicant; the' Tharp Family Partnership., !s. requesting a C0nditi6nal use permit to
· allow the con. versi0t~ of the existing .°ffice/warehouse'buildingg?~0 Bass Lake. Road to a
multi-tenant office building. This conversion will not cl!ange.the footprint of the building.·
· The only exterior changes will be theaddition of three'new parking 10ts, the installation of
windows along the north and west sides of the ·building, and a new entrance on the
southeastern side ofbuilding.. Upon completion of the renovation, the building will house
r five or six tenants.
This .building is .the'former prudential warehouse building.. Originallyl it served .as the
company's record .center..and was staffed ·by a minimal number of workers. 'When.
Prudentiars recorders were digitalized, the company no longer nccded this site·and the
building was sold. ·*
Atta~,hed for reference:' .. .
· 'Site Location Map
· Site· Plan ' '
Existing Landscape. Plan'dated June 22, 2001
Lower Level FlOOr Plan datbd June 22, ·2001
Upper Level' Floor Plan. dated June· 22, 200.1
.Building Elevations dated June'22, 200t ' ..
· Lighting Plan datdd June 22, 2001 '
Grading, 'Drainage'& Erosion Control' Plan dated'June '8, 2001
.Utility Plan dated June 8,· 2001
Project Narrative. · .. ..
Traffic 'Analysis of Proposed Midamerica Financial Plaza June 20,
.2oo.1
Exhibit A:
'Exhibit B'.
Exhibit C:
'Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H:
Exhibit I:
Exhibit J:
'Exhibit K:-
57~'5
WAYZATA
BOULEVARD. :SUITE
PHONE
BT.'. LO'UIS PARK; MINNESOTA 554 I 6
.FAX G.I ~-5.gB-g~,37 ,.
JUN-27-2881 17:88 NRC 612 595 9837 P.03/12
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan & Zoning. The proposed office use is consistent with both the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. According to the Proposed Land Use map,
the subject property is guided for commercial use. Similarly, this site is zoned R-O,
Residential Office and professional offices are a conditionally permit use within this district.
The purpose of the R-O, Residential-Office District is to provide for high density residential
uses and for the transition in land use from mid density residential to iow intensity business
allowing for the intermixing of such uses. There are several reasons why a multi-tenant
building is an appropriate use for this site. First, this use will operate during typical
business hours with little or no evening or weekend activity. This schedule is
complementary to the adjacent residential uses. Second, this site has significant
landscaping along its norther border to screen it from the adjacent residential uses. in
addition, staff is recommending that a condition of approval require the applicant to install
additional landscaping and an eight (8) foot Cedar fence to intensify its screening. Finally,
most activity from this use will take place on the south side of the site, away from the
adjacent residential uses.
Conditional Use Permit. According to Section 4.105 ('8), there are three criteria to weigh
when considering a conditional use permit for a multi-tenant professional office building
in the R-O District. These criteda and staff's findings for each are outlined below.
Street Access/Paddng. The site and related parking and service areas shall create
a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement.
Finding: The applicant proposes to phase in three additional Off-street parking
areas. The applicant intends to construct these parking areas as the building fills
with tenants. The location, number of stalls and time line for their construction is
illustrated in the chart below. These lots appear consistent with the original design
of the site and should not cause traffic conflicts through the site. However, staff
recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to demonstrate that
they have sufficient parking for each tenant as the renovation go on.
Currently, this site has 69 existing parking stalls. To meet the parking requirements
for professional office uses, the applicant will install 153 additional spaces in three
phases, giving the site a total of 222 (see the following table) stalls. These
additions will give this site 11 more stalls than required by the Ordinance. Staff
recommends as a condition of approval require the applicant install evergreen
plantings at the northern end of. the neweastern parking lot to screen from adjacent
residential uses and the Gettysburg right-of-way.
JL~-~:x~-288! ~: 84 IRC 612 595 983? P.
Pmrking Piton
Phmm I.o~afion Number of ~ ~duled
for ~mp~on
~no ~ ~0 6g ~ng
I ~ Side 41
" 2~1
I ~ ~i~ 21
II ~ 61 20~
Ill I~r 30 20D3
T~I l~O~e ~ 2003
Traffic Flow. Vehicle entranoee to parking or service areas shall create a minimum
of conflict with through traffic movement
Finding: All traffic will enter and exit the site from ~ existing Gettysburg Avenue
access. While Gettysburg is also an access for the neighborhood to the north,
them should be only minimal traffic conflicts since the neighborhood traffic should
be going in the opposite direction during business hours.
The City Engineer conducted a traffic study to determine how this new use will
affect fl'affio in this area. This report is attached as Exh~it K. Its findings are
s~nmadzed below:.
Traffic generated by the proposed 71,581 square foot office building will not
cause the need for improvements to the signalized intersection of Bass Lake
Road end Gettysburg Avenue.
be
W'~t the change in use of this building, the traffic atthe intersection of Bass
Lake Road and Gettysburg Avenue will remain at service level B during the
A.M. peak hours and will drop to service level C for the P.M. hours. This is
a minor change and is not a cause for con(em.
Access to and from the site should remain at its cun'ent location to maintain
sufficient stacking distance.
The site access driveway along Gettysburg should be recortstnJcted and
signed to allow outbound right turns only onto Gettysburg Avenue. This will
help to mitigate the impact to Gettysburg Avenue and the residential
Buffers. When abutting an R-l, R-2, R-3, or R-4 District, a buffer area with
screening and landscaping in compliance with Section 4.034(3) shall be provided.
TOTRL P. 82
J-UN-27-2~01 17:01 ~ 612 595 983'? P.05/12
Finding: The properties directly north of this site are zoned R-l, Single Family.
Commercial and industrial uses adjacent to an "R" District must provide either a
fence or green belt screening. The applicant's existing landscape plan shows a
mixture of coniferous and deciduous trees planted along its border with the
residential uses. It also shows an existing wooden fence that extends from
Geffysburg to the northeastern corner of the building.
The applicant plans to remove six existing juniper trees and one pine tree to
facilitate the expansion of the on-site storm water pond. These trees will be
replac~d by 8 Colorado Spruce along the site's west end. In addition, the applicant
plans to construct an 8-foot Cedar fence from the end of the existing fence to the
western end of the site.
Trash. The applicant's plans show one trash storage located inside the east end of the
building. Staff is concerned that this location is not large or centralized enough to serve
the enter building. The applicant must demonstrate that the site can accommodate its
waste disposal needs by providing sufficient trash storage either inside the principal
building or within an extedor trash enclosure made of materials that are complimentary to
the principal building.
Ughting. According to Section 4.034(5), any lights which cast light on residential property
shall not exceed one (1) foot-candle as measured at oron the adjoining property line. The
applicant's photometric plan is consistent with this standard.
Signs. According to the building elevations, the site will have one freestanding monument
sign, two wall signs on the west side of the building and four wall signs on the south side
of the building. The monument sign will be approximately 119 square feet while the six
wall signs will total 600 square feet. The freestanding sign exceeds the square footage
standards outlined in the ordinance. The freestanding sign is limited to 100 square feet.
The applicant should submit a comprehensive sign plan to the City for formal approval.
Grading and Drainage. The three new parking areas will significantly increase the
amount of impervious surface on this site. The City Engineer should review all plans to
insure that this site can accommodate its storm water storage and treatment needs.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow the conversion of the
building locate at 9220 Bass Lake Road from an office/warehouse use to a multi-tenant
office use. This recommendation is based on the findings contained in this report and the
following plan submittals: Site Plan dated June 22, 2001, Existing Landscape Plan dated
June 22, 2001, Lower Level Floor Plan dated June 22, 2001, Upper Level Floor Plan dated
June 22, 2001, Building Elevations dated June 22, 2001, Lighting Plan dated June 22,
2001, Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan dated June 8, 2001, Utility Plan dated
June 8, 2001, Project Narrative, and Traffic Analysis of Proposed Midamerica Financial
Plaza
pc:
June 20, 2001. 'l-I~is recommendation is subject to the conditions listed below.
Demonstrate that they I~ave sufficient parking for each tenant as the renovation go
on.
Reconstructed the acc, ess driveway along Gettysburg and sign it to allow outbound
right tums only onto Gettysburg Avenue.
Make the following landscape and screening changes:
a. Install 8 Colorado Spruce along the site's west end.
b. Construct an 8-foot Cedar fence from the west end of the existing fence to
the western end of the site.
c. Install evergreen planting at the north end of the new eastern parking lot to
screen it from Gettysburg Avenue.
Demonstrate that the site can accommodate its waste disposal needs
All grading and draina~te plans are subject to the review and approval of the City
Engineer.
Doug Sandstad
Steve Sondrall
The Tharp Family Partnership
CTTY OF NEW HOPE
IVlemo
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Doug Sandstad
DATE: .]une 27, 2001
RE: 9220 Bass Lake Rd. CUP, School In I Zone Text Amendment & PPL Memo
I have reviewed your two packets and have the following suggestions for inclusion in
your Plan Case Reports:
A. CUP for expanded office in R-O Zone [ Steve Tharp ]
SITE PLAN:
1. Revise entry driveway to widen both lanes for panel truck and occasional semi-truck
swing room.
2. Comply with Traffic Engineer's recommendations.
3. Restripe east parking lots and all new in a 90 degree layout with 24 foot two-way
driveways, so that traffic design is clear and consistent throughout the site; NO
reduction in spaces will occur, using 8'9" stall width and no curb changes are
required.- remnant triangles can be hash-marked out. Two way drives will eliminate
the wrong-way driver circling to park.
4. Revise curbs and create large radius swing room for trucking access to the east
dock- suggest 24 foot radius on both sides, with "EAST TRUCK DOCK" entry sign at
NE corner of building.
5. Clarify exact location, construction design and length of new cedar fence.
6. NOTE: Site plan boundaries do NOT match lot survey and must be corrected before
Council review.
LANDSCAPE PLAN:
1. No plant schedule is provided with numbers, species [ common and latin names] and
totals. ];f only 8 new Colorado Spruce [ 6 foot tall ] are planned, we may want to
increase that number along the north side.
2. Clarify "reconfigured decorative plantings" at new entry door. Provide details in
plant schedule.
ARCHITECTURAL PLAN:
1. Clarify that new north windows are fixed and not operable near the residential area.
2. Submit an alternate plan for reduced office square footage or on-grade parking, if
garage is not built within 36 months, or parking demand exceeds capacity.
GRAD]~NG & DRAINAGE PLAN:
1. Revise grading plan [ as well as site plan ] to match lot survey, leaving no confusion
as to boundaries.
BONESTRO0 ROSENE ANDERL.II,~
Bonestroo
Rosene
Ander. lik &
Associates
Engineers & ,architects
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
CC:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Kirk McDonald, Doug Sandstad
Vince Vander Top
Mark Han~n
Shelly Johnso~ffBryant Ficek
Guy lohnson
June 22, 200!
Midamcrica Financial Plaza Driveway, 9220 Bass Lake Road
Our File No. 34-C_~n E01-12
Wc have prepared a sketch of how the driveway might be configured. The layout can be
afl:r review with the applicant.
This configuration would only allow vehicles to leave the site towards Bass Lake Road.
cOuld enter the site from both directions.
This configuration requires expansion of the driveway to the east. The curb radius on the
of thc driveway would stay as it exists today. This serves two purposes:
· the current distance from the driveway to the residential property immediately west wi
altered, and
· Trucks will not be able to enter the site from the west because of the existing short tun
radius. This will discourage truck traffic through the residential neighborhood.
The curb radii on the center island and the east side of the driveway are compatible with a
design vehicle (50 feet from front axle m rear axle). Longer delivery vehicles would rcqui
modifications.
55113 * 651-63&.4500 · Fax: 651-635
End of memo
2335 West Highway 36 · Bt. Paul, MN
15:00~'02/03 N0:386
fi nalized
:hicles
vest side
I not be
iing
re further
.1311
BONESTRO0 ROSENE ANDERL[K3 ~6516361311 06/22/01 15:00[~]:03/03 N0:386
~O'R
~)
2.$'R
Figure 5 , , j/]j
, , ,, ,,, un Ri)sene
preliminary Driveway Layout ~Al~leflik &
City of New Hop~ ~~~ ;:~
...~;..
Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderli~ and Assoctates. inc. ts an Affin.nat~ve Acttor~'Eoual Ol~l~ortun~y ErnoIo.ver
and Ernoloyee Ow~e¢~
PnnCl~als: Otto Bonestroo. P.E. - Marvin L. Sorvala. P.E. · Glenn R. Cook. P .E. o
Robert G; Schumcht. P.E. · 3ern/A. Bourdon. P.E.
Sentor Consultants: Robert W. Rosene. P.E. · Joseph C. Anderfik. P.E. · R~c~ard E. Turner.
Susan M. EPerhn. C.P.A.
Assoctate Pnnctpals: Howard A. Sanford. P.E. · Kedh A. Go,on. P.E. · Roberl R Pfeflerte. P.E. ·
R~chard W. Foster. P.E. · David O. Loskota. P.E. · Robert C. Russek. A.I.A · Mark A Hanson. P.E.
M~chael T. Rautmann. P.E. · Ted K. F~eld. P.E. · Kenneth P. Anderson. P.E · Mark R. Rolls. P.E.
David A. Bonestroo. M.B.A. · S~dney P. Willmmson. P.E_ L.S. · Agnes M Ring. M.B.A. ·
Allan R~ck Schmidt. P.E.
Ofhces: SI. Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St. Cloud. MN · Milwaukee. Wi
WeDstte: www.bonest roo.com
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
CC:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Kirk McDonald, Doug Sandstad
Vince Vander Top
Mark Hanson
Guy Johnson
June 25, 2001
Midamerica Financial Plaza, 9220 Bass Lake Road
Our File No. 34-Gen E01-12
We have received the revised site and grading plans for the proposed improvements at 9220 Bass
Lake Road. The following comments are provided for your consideration.
Transportation
The plans including widening the driveway and constructing an island to facilitate "right out
only" movements. The curb radii should be reviewed to make sure anticipated delivery
vehicles can enter and exit.
The traffic patterns through the parking lots could be confusing. The two existing lots are
unidirectional while the new lot will receive traffic in two directions. It is recommended that
the patterns be discussed. At a minimum, directional arrows and signage could be used to
clarify the patterns.
Storm Water
A pond is shown on the west side of the property. The pond must be sized according to
NURP standards for all hard surfaces (existing and new) except the roof area. Calculations
must be submitted.
4. Water quality improvements must be reviewed and approved by Shingle Creek Watershed.
Identify the 100-yr HWL in the area of the pond. Upstream drainage areas from residential
properties were forwarded previously. The applicant must make sure that the FFE is 3'
higher than the FFE.
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
The proposed storm sewer configuration is acceptable. The pond onlv receives water front
the site. The Public storm sewer is routed around the pond.
Move STMH-9 approximately 10 to 20 feet SE. This will improve the merger of flows in the
existing 24" pipe.
It appears that FES-1 will be l' below the NWL of the pond. Typically. all FESs are
required to be set at the NWL. It is evident that FES-1 is set low because of the requirements
of the upstream storm sewer. It is recommended that this be reviewed and modified if
feasible.
9. Storm sewer calculations must be submitted.
10.
The existing storm sewer for the west parking lot will be extended. It is recommended that a
second catch basin be added in this line to serve the middle parking area.
11.
A drainage and utility easement must be dedicated over the storm pond area. A pond
maintenance agreement must be completed by the applicant.
End of comments
2335 West Highway 36 ~ St. Paul, MN 55113 ]-[ 651-636.4600 ~ Fax: 651-636-1311
Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is .ltl Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity
Employer and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E · M~rvin L. Sorv~lla. RE, · Glenn R Cook~ PE ·
RoOert G. Schunlcht. RE. · Jerry A. BourOon. P.E
Senior Consultants: RoDert ~. Rosene. RE · Josep~ C. An~erhk. PE · E~cnar~ E Turner. PE. ·
Susan M. Eoerlm, C.~A
Associate Principals: HowarO A Sanfor~, RE. · Keffh A Goraon. RE · Robert R Pfefferle, PE ·
R~c~ar~ ~ Foster, RE · Demo O. Loskota. RE. - Rooert C Russek, A.I.A · Mark A Hanson. PE ·
M~cnaef T. Rautmann. PE · Te~ K.F~eI~. PE. · Kennet~ P Anaerson. PE · Mark R Rolts. PE ·
DawO A Bonestroo. M.~.A * Sioney P ~ffilamson. RE.. L.S * Agnes M Ring. MBA · Allan R~ck Sc~m~t
Offices: St. Paul. St Clou~. Rochester an~ ~illmar. MN * M~lwau~ee ~1
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
cC:
DATE:
RE:
Kirk McDonald
Doug Sandstad
Shelly Johnson
Bryant Ficek
Guy Johnson
Mark Hanson
Vince Vander Top
June 20,2001
Traffic Analysis of Proposed Midamerica Financial Plaza
Our File No. 34-01-000
This memorandum report presents the results of the traffic analysis of the proposed Midamerica
Financial Plaza located at 9220 Bass Lake Road. This building, known as the Prudential
Building in the past, is being proposed for remodeling to provide a general office building.
Existing Conditions
The location of the facility, with respect to the area roadway system, is shown on Figure 1. The
access to the site is located along Gettysburg Avenue, which is classified as a neighborhood
collector on the city functional classification system. The project site is adjacent to Bass Lake
Road on the south with single family residential to the north of the site.
Gettysburg Avenue provides for one lane of travel in each direction and is signalized at its
intersection with Bass Lake Road. The signalized intersection contains the following approach
lanes:
An exclusive left turn lane, two through lanes, and an exclusive right turn lane on Bass Lake
Road's eastbound approach.
An exclusive left turn lane, one through lane, and one through/right mm lane on Bass Lake
Road's westbound approach.
a An exclusive left turn lane and one through/right turn lane on Gettysburg Avenue's
southbound approach.
a One lane for all movements on Gettysburg Avenue's northbound approach, although
sufficient width is available for vehicles to form two'lanes of traffic.
2335 ~Vest Highway 36 a St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
NO SCALE
RESEARCM CENTER RC w
SA~KW$v
Z
Z
Figure 1
Roadway Sytem/Site Location
City of New Hope
05/01 1:~34~3401000~,3401000Fig 1 .dwg
JBonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
As$ociafes
Memorandum
Page 3 of 9
June 20. 2001
Exi.sting traffic volume information at the signalized intersection of Bass Lake. Road and
Gettysburg Avenue was collected on Thursday, June 14. 2001. Morning and afternoon peak
period traffic turning movement counts were collected from 7 to 9 A.M. and from 4 to 6 P.M.,
respectively. The resultant peak hour volumes are illustrated on Figure 2. The traffic count
summary sheets are attached to the end of this memorandum.
During 1998, traffic counts were conducted in the neighborhood area north of the project site.
These 24-hour counts were conducted at three locations along Gettysburg Avenue and one
location on 59th Avenue, west of Gettysburg Avenue. The 24-hour volumes and resultant peak
hour volumes are shown on Figure 3. It can be expected that these volumes are slightly reduced
today, since Prudential no longer utilizes the project facility as the3' did in 1998.
Based on the peak period traffic counts at the Bass Lake Road and Gettysburg Avenue, a
capacity analysis was performed on the signalized intersection. The capacity analysis uses the
methodology presented in the Highway Capacity Manual to determine how well or poorly an
intersection is operating. The results are presented in terms of level of service. Level of service
A represents the best operation with little or no delay for vehicles traveling through the
intersection. Level of service F represents the worst operation with major delays and congestion
in the intersection. The results of the analysis are shown below.
Intersection Approach
Eastbound Bass Lake Road
Westbound Bass Lake Road
Northbound Gettysburg Avenue
Southbound Gettysburg Avenue
Level of Service
A.M. Peak Hour
B
B
C
C
P.M. Peak Hour
B
B
C
C
The total intersection level of service, ,reflecting a weighted average from each approach, is B for
both the A.M. peak hour and the P.M.'peak hour. Level of service D is usually considered
acceptable by most agencies in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. This suggests that this
intersection is operating at a very acceptable level under the existing conditions during the peak
hours.
Z
27 (41)
970 (1,019)
156 (28)
3 (25)
699 (1,125)
39 (9)
LEGEND
XXX - AM PEAK HOUR
(XXX) - PM PEAK HOUR
COUNTS TAKEN ON THURSDAY, JUNE 14. 2001
BASS lAKE ROAD
N
NO SCALE
Figure 2
Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik
Associates
City of New Hope
06/01 1:~34~3401000~3401000Fig 2.d wg
N
NO SCALE
142
(439)!
Z
(249)
TRAFFIC COUNT
O0 - PEAK HOURS (PM)
(00) - 24 HOUR TOTALS
COUNTS TAKEN OCTOBER 1998
Figure 5
JjBonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Residentiol Areo Volumes
City of New Hope
06/01 1:~34~3401000~3401000Fig3.dwg
Memorandum
Page 6 of 9
dune 20. 2001
Praiected Volume Conditions
The proposed remodeling of the Midamerica Financial Plaza will provide approximately 70,581
square feet of goss leasable floor area. The vehicular trips generated by an office facility of this
type and size are estimated using average trip rates contained in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) report titled Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. The estimated traffic generated
by the development is shown on the following table.
Land Use
General Office
Size
70,581 SF
Estimated Traffic Volumes
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
In I Out
100 [ 10
In Out
25 90
(2-way)
The trips generated by the project facility have been assig'ned to the area roadway systems using
existing volume tendencies and the roadway system available for trip making. These volumes
are then added to the recent traffic counts and reflect peak hour estimates for the Gettysburg
Avenue intersection with Bass Lake Road and along Gettysburg Avenue. The volume estimates
assume a fully occupied Midamerica Financial Plaza. An annual average percentage of regional
traffic growth has not been added to the volume projections. While Bass Lake Road traffic may
experience some increase, Gettysburg Avenue volumes will remain relatively stable. The future
volume estimates (existing plus office generated volumes) are shown on Figure 4. The Bass
Lake Road/Gettysburg intersection level of service has been re-calculated using the projected
volumes. The results are shown below:
Level of Service
Intersection Approach
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Eastbound Bass Lake Road B B
Westbound Bass Lake Road B B
Northbound Gettysburg Avenue
Southbound Gettysburg Avenue
C D
C
C
The total intersection level of service is B for the A.M. peak hour and C for the P.M. peak hour.
As with the existing conditions, the intersection is operating at an acceptable level of service
with the projected volumes during both peak hours.
82 (55)
970 (1,019)
135
LEGEND
XXX - AM PEAK HOUR
(XXX) - PM PEAK HOUR
20 (29)
699 (1,125)
-" (9)
- OFFICE GENERATED VOLUMES ONLY
BASS LAKE ROAD
NO SCALE
Figure 4
Existing Plus Office Generoted Volumes
City of New Hope
06/01 1:~54~401000~3401000Fig4.dwg
Bonestroo
Rosene
Ander~ &
Associates
Memorandum
Page 8 of 9
dune 20. 2001
Site Access Location
For access into the site's parking lot, two options have been proposed. The first option would
leave the existing drive at its current location. After expansion of the parking lot, the main
entrance and exit driveway would be located in about the center of the lot. The second option
would shift the main drive south, to be located at the south end of the expanded parking lot.
From a traffic standpoint, this access drive should remain at its existing location. Shifting the
drive to the south would bring the access closer to Gettysburg Circle, creating potential turning
movement conflicts. In addition, the available space for the queuing of southbound vehicles at
Bass Lake Road would be reduced, creating the potential for the access drive to be blocked by a
queue of vehicles on Gettysburg Avenue and preventing turning movements to and from the
access drive.
Memorandum
Page 9 of 9
June 2U. 2UUJ
Conclusions/Recommendations
The key findings and conclusions reached as a result of the traffic impact analysis of the
proposed general office are as follows:
c~ Traffic generated by the proposed office, utilizing 70,581 SF of leasable area, will not cause
the need for improvements to the signalized intersection of Bass Lake Road and Gettysburg
Avenue.
The signalized intersection of Gettysburg Avenue and Bass Lake Road will remain at a level
of service B during the A.M. peak hour with the projected volumes. The P.M. peak hour will
drop from a level of service B under existing conditions to a level of service C with the
projected volumes, a minor drop in service that is not a cause for concern.
Access to and from the building should remain at its current location. Shifting the access to
the south would create potential traffic problems, such as reduced queuing space for
southbound vehicles on Gettysburg Avenue at Bass Lake Road and turning movement
conflicts with movements to and from Gettysburg Circle.
The strong majority of the site-generated traffic will utilize the Bass Lake Road and
Gettysburg Avenue intersection. There will be a desire for some traffic to approach/depart
the site to the north along Gettysburg Avenue. It is desirable to minimize the added volumes
along Gettysburg Avenue since it is residential and has a park adjacent to it
The site access driveway along Gettysburg Avenue should be reconstructed and signed to
allow outbound right tums only to Gettysburg Avenue. This will help to mitigate the impact
to Gettysburg Avenue to the north of the site.
AM PEAK PERIOD COUNT AT TitE INTERSECTION OF BASS LAKE ROAD
AND GETTYSBURG AVENUE N
N-S Street: Gettysburg Avenue N
E-W Street: Bass Lake Road
City: New Hope
Time
NB on Gettysburg Avenue N
Left Through Right
SB on Gettysburg Avenue N
Left Through Right
EB on Bass Lake Road
Left Through Right
Project #: 34-01-000
Date: 14 June, 2001
City #: E01- i 2
WB on Bass Lake Road
Left Through Right
7:00 -,7:15 AM 13 0 4 9 6 20 2 226 24 4 156 0
7-:15 - 7:30 AM 12 I · 3 3 4 9 2 258 34 7 162 0
7:30 - 7:45 AM 3 0 2 3 10 16 9 228 27 10 182 0
7:45 - 8:00 AM 6 3 5 5 6 14 14 258 51 18 199 3
8:00 - 8:!5 AM 8 I 3 4 0 6 7 215 38 ! 1 120 i
8:i5 - 8:30 AM 6 I 3 4 3 5 5 187 42 8 134 3
8:30 - 8:45 AM 10 I 2 4 2 8 4 129 25 i 109 0
8:45 - 9:00 AM 6 0 3 3 2 6 5 106 19 i 108 3
Grand Total 64 7 25
35 33 84
20 26 59
48 1,607 260
PeakHour
7:00-8:00AM 34 4 14
27 970 136
60 i,170 l0
Appr % 2.6%
Dir % 1.7% 0.2%
0.7%
39 699 3
5.2% 55.8% 36.5%
! .0% i .3% 2.9% 1.3% 47.8% 6.7% 1.9% 34.4% O. !%
Total
464~
495
490
582
414
40t
295
262
3,403
2,031
Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik and Associates, Inc.
6/20/2001
PM PEAK PERIOD COUNT AT THE INTERSECTION OF BASS LAKE ROAD
AND GETTYSBURG AVENUE N
N-S Street: Gettysburg Avenue N
E-W Street: Bass Lake Road
City: New Hope
Time
NB on Gettysburg Avenue N
Left Through Right
SB on Gettysburg Avenue N
Left Through Right
EB on Bass Lake Road
Left Through Right
Project #: 34-GEN E01-12
Date: 14 June, 2001
City #: E01-12
WB on Bass Lake Road
Left Through Right
Total
4:00 -4:15 PM 30 I 30 4 0 3 9 209 7 3 266 2 564
4:15 -4:30 PM 34 I 34 2 0 3 14 217 13 ! 258 8 585
4:30 - 4:45 PM 46 5 46 2 2 6 12 252 10 2 278 6 667
4:45 - 5:00 PM 17 2 17 2 0 11 12 249 9 5 282 6 612
5:00 - 5:15 PM 43 6 43 3 0 9 9 256 5 2 255 8 639
5:15 - 5:30 PM 25 3 25 4 0 2 8 262 4 0 310 5 648'
5:30 - 5:45 PM 16 5 16 3 0 2 13 226 3 ! 231 4 520
5:45 - 6:00 PM 7 2 7 5 0 5 5 208 6 5 217 11 478
Grand Total 2 i 8 25 218 25 2 41 82 1,879 57 19 2,097 50 4,7 ! 3
Peak Hour
4:30-5:30 PM 131 16 131
9 i 125 25 2,566
11 2 28 41 1019 28
Appr % I 0.8% 1.6% 42.4% 45.2%
Dir% 5.1% 0.6% 5.1% 0.4% 0.1% 1.1% 1.6% 39.7% 1.1% 0.4% 43.8% 1.0%
Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik and Associates, Inc.
~001
From: Randy Kurtz
To: Doug Sandstad
Date: 6/13/01 6:48AM
Subject: 9200 Bass Lake Rd~
After reviewing the plans for this building the following items have come up.
1) The plans are not sowing any hydrants for the property or were the fire department connection is
located.
2)Area's not being made into parking will be required to remain as a fire lane.
3)they are not giving any information about the existing fire alarm system, will it stay or are they going to
have all items replaced. ?
4)Have a licensed sprinkler company provide documentation showing what condition the sprinkler risers
are in. Provide new sprinkler plans for entire building.
5)Is this building only going to have one tenant ?
CC:
Kirk Mcdonald; Randy Kurtz
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 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City
cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response
number Name received notice limit limit 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
01-09 Tharp Family Partnership 6/8/01 8/7/01 10/6/01
7089 Birchview Road
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763-443-9500
763-560-6549 fax
Steve Tharp
B.
C.
D.
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.
Assign each application a number.
List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
List the date the City received the application.
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.
To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
'i'o calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
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.)
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.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITrEE
June 14, 2001
The Development-Review Team met on June 13,-2001 to consider the plans for a CUP
to convert an existing single tenant building into a multi-tenant office building in the R-O
Zone, and a Comprehensive Sign Plan.
Staff present included: Doresky, French, Johnson, Korth, McDonald, Sandstad, Schuster
Consultants A1 Brixius and Vince Vander Top attended, also.
PROJECT: CUP for multi-tenant office building in R-O Zone and Comp. Sign
Plan Approval
SITE: 9220 Bass Lake Road
ZONING: R-O, Residential- Office
PROPERTY OWNER: THARP Family Partnership
PROPONENT: Steve Tharp
DESCRIPTION Proposal to convert the single use 109,000 square foot office building
into a multi-tenant office building. Plans include increasing parking on site and required
ponding to accommodate runoff, creating up to 6 separate tenant spaces, reducing "leasable"
office space inside with addition of two 4,000 sq. ft. interior atriums in a common use
corridor, adding windows to the building and a new entry, etc. Work would be completed in'
phases, including 30 interior parking spaces in lower level of building. Significant issues for
neighborhood will be increased traffic and effective screening. Staff feels this is an excenent
re-use of the building.
COMMENTS: The Team was supportive of the request, noting:
All grading, drainage, utility & ponding designs must be coordinated with City
Engineer. Utility inspections will be made by Public Works Dept.
Shingle Creek Watershed Commission and New Hope Surface Water Mgmt. Plan
standards must be met.
A Pond maintenance agreement will be required.
Site Improvement Agreement and performance bond will be required.
See Traffic Engineer's Memo [ attached ]
See City Engineer Memo [ attached ].
Relocate driveway opposite Gettysburg Circle cul-de-sac, with "Right Turn Only"
outbound land separated from entering traffic by island and signs prohibiting
northbound business traffic through residential area..
Improve north landscaping / buffer to residential area. Consider 8 foot cedar fence
in addition to new trees west of the building.
All Trash is stored inside the building.
West parking lot and entry must be in Phase I in order to comply with MN
Disability Access Code for newly created basement tenant.
See Fire Dept. Memo [ attached ].
REVISED PLANS DUE BY [une 22nd
Planning Commission, July 10, 7:00 p.m.
City Council, July 23, 7:00 p.m.
Attachments:
p.2-3 Petitioners Narrative
p.4-5 Consuliing Engineer's Memo
p.6 Consulting Traffic Engineer's Memo
p.7-8 Consulting Planner's Memo
p.9 Fire Dept. Memo
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
newspapers
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
Frank Chilinski, being duly sworn on an oath states or affirms, that he is the publisher of the
newspaper known as Sun-Post , or the president's designated agent,
and has full knowledge of the facts stated below:
(A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualifiCation as a
qualified newspaper, as provided, by Minn. Stat. §331A.02, §331A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
(B) The printed public notice that is attached was published in the newspaper once each week,
for one successive weeks; it was first published on Wednesday, the 20 day of
June ,2001, and was thereafter printed and published on eveq/Wednesday to and
including Wednesday, the day of ,2001; and printed below is a copy of
the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being
the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice:
abcdefgh/jklmnopqrstuvwxyz~"''~ ~ ~ - ~ _~
/ ' Pu~'lishe~: ....
City of New Hope
(Offi,r...~ ~bi'[~atio*,,)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEABING
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE P~ ANI
COMIP~:' ~:~SIVE SIGN PLAN APPROVAL
PLANNING CASE 01-09
crrY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
Notice is hereby given that the New Hope p1R.n;n~ Corn
mission will meet at City Hall, 4401Xylen Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota, on Tuesday, July 10, 2001, at 7:0(
p.m. to hold a public hearing on a request for a condition
al use .~xmit to convert the existing single tenant Pru
den*Aal building ~o a multiple tenant office building am
corapreheusive sign plan approval (Sections 4.105(8) an~
4.33 ;nd 3.493 - New Hope Code of Ordinances), at 922,
Bass Lake Road, legally described as follows:
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, also Outlots A ond B, also Lot 1
Block 3, all in Sharon's Addition
PID #06-118-21-23-0078
Such persons as desire to be ~heard with reference to th~
proposal will b~ h~ear~l at this meeting. This notice is giv~
pursuant to th~ Zoning Ordinance of the City of New Hope
on the petitiou, of Thorp Fanu~l~; Partnership. Exhibit and
further h~formatien can be reviewed at the Information
Counter in City Hall, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a~m. tc
4:30 p.m.
The New Hope City Council will consider the recommen-
dation of the Planning Commission on this proposal for the
purpose oft~_~ action at i~ meeting on Monday, July 23,
2001, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereaf~r as may be heard in
the Council Chambers, 4401 Xylen Avenue North, New
Hope, Minnesote~
Accommodatlous such as a sign language interpreter ~r
large printed materials are available upon request at ]east
5 working days in advanc~ Please contact the City Clerk
to m;ke arrangements (telephone 763-531-5117, TDI)
number 763-531-5109).
Dated: June 14, 2001
Valerle Leone
City Clerk -
(J~une 20~ 2~001)P2/Case 01-09
f
Subscribed and swor~T~/or affirmed"before me
on this ~'.'. day of ~'~,~-~, 20,01.
Not; ¥~)'O~li~v'cc¢c"f'/~'¢¢¢~.¢¢¢,¢ '¢v'CV'~.'V'¢~ I~ '\,
!~ MERIDEL M. HEDBLOM { "'
; ~ ~ ~ NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA ~
'~' ,.,~ COMM;SS,ON EXPIRES 1.31-2~5 ~
RATE INFORMATION
(1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users
for comparable space
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law
(3) Rate actually charged
2.85 Der line
6.20 per line
1.40 per line
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING CASE NO. 01-09
VARIANCE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
Valerie J. Leone, first being duly sworn, on oath deposes and says that she is and was on
June 19, 2001, the duly qualified City Clerk of the City of New Hope, Minnesota; that on
said date she mailed a copy of the attached notice of hearing on a request for conditional
use permit and comprehensive sign plan approval at 9220 Bass Lake Road to the owner
of each parcel within 350' of the request by enclosing a copy of said public hearing notice
in each envelope addressed to each such owner, and depositing such envelope in the
United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of
such owners were those appearing as such on the records of the County Treasurer of
Hennepin as of the 30 days prior to adoption of the resolution providing for said hearing,
except that the names and addresses of owners of parcels not appearing on such
records were determined by reference to maps, plats, and other documents on file in the
City Hall of said City, and, to the extent found to be necessary, by reference to the
records of the City Assessor and the United States Post Office, the Minneapolis
Suburban Directory and the published listing of telephone service subscribers in the City.
Valerie J. Leor~ -
City Clerk
Sdbscribed and swom t
this 19t~
day of June, 2001
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN APPROVAL
PLANNING CASE 01-09
Notice is hereby given that the New Hope Planning Commission will meet at City Hall, 4401 Xylon
Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota, on Tuesday, July 10, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. to hold a public
hearing on a request for a conditional use permit to convert the existing single tenant Prudential
building to a multiple tenant office building and comprehensive sign plan approval (Sections
4.105(8) and 4.33 and 3.493 - New Hope Code of Ordinances), at 9220 Bass Lake Road, legally
described as follows:
Lots I and 2, Block 1, also Outlots A and B, also Lot 1, Block 3, all in Sharon's Addition
PID #06-118-21-23-0078
Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposal will be heard at this meeting.
This notice is given pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of New Hope on the petition of
Tharp Family Partnership. Exhibit and further information can be reviewed at the Information
Counter in City Hall, Monday through Fdday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The New Hope City Council will consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission on this
proposal for the purpose of taking action at its meeting on Monday, July 23, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. or
as soon thereafter as may be heard in the Council Chambers, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New
Hope, Minnesota.
Accommodations such as a sign language interpreter or large pdnted materials are available upon
request at least 5 working days in advance. Please contact the City Clerk to make arrangements
(telephone 763-531-5117, TDD number 763-531-5109).
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
6/19/01
06-118-21-23-0078
Prudential Ins. Co. of America
P.O. Box 1079, Lease Dept.
Newark, NJ 07101
.~-118-21-32-0007
Tarnanen & Palanisami
5661 International Parkway
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-24-0053
J. Jenson
5808 Ensign Ave N
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-24-0082
Nancy Jane Walker
5809 Ensign Ave N
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-24-0079
T. Weber & J Hagen
5833 Ensign Ave N
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-24-0120
Robert & Paige Riewe
5816 Gettysburg Circle
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-24-0117
David & Judith Hanson
5828 Gettysburg Cimle
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0047
Dieu Bao Diec & Lien Tran
5900 Gettysburg Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0044
Gerald Gfroerer
5924 Gettysburg Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0038
Erwin & Cynthia Ekhoff
5917 Gettysburg Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0078
Tharp Family Partnership
7089 Birchview Road
Maple Grove, MN 55369
City of Plymouth
06-118-21-24-0054
Alvin Grosenheider
5816 Ensign Ave N
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-24-0081
John & Stacie Brandenburg
5817 Ensign Ave N
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-24-0122
T & L Buehring
5808 Gettysburg Circle
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-24-0119
Greg Smith
5820 Gettysburg Circle
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-24-0116
Katherine Vetsch
5832 Gettysburg Circle
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0046
Warner & Helen Bellm
5908 Gettysburg Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-28-0040
Richard Sherrard
5901 Gettysburg Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0048
Joseph & Janna Gerold
9201 59th Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-32-0006
Duke Realty Investments Inc.
1550 Utica AveS., #120
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
06-118-21-24-0052
Fanta Xiong & Soua Yang
5800 Ensign Ave N
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-24-0124
Ross Taormina
2941 Brookdale Drive
Brooklyn Park, MN 55444
06-118-21-24-0080
Gust & Ruth Warn
5825 Ensign Ave N
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-24-0121
Nancy Mendez
5812 Gettysburg Circle
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-24-0118
Dale & Heidi Nordstrom
5824 Gettysburg Circle
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-24-0115
Y Solomon & M Takele
5836 Gettysburg Circle
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0045
Gordon Pearson
5916 Gettysburg Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428,
06-118-21-23-0039
Mirth Loi Tran & Tuong Nygyen
5909 Gettysburg Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0049
Wm Gabrys & Patricia Toro
9209 59th Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0050
Ingrid Schmitz
9217 59m Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0051
Steven Lovcik
9225 59~ Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0052
David & Lynn Bradway
9233 59~ Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0053
Delmar O'Bryan
9241 59t~ Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0031
James Reider
9301 59th Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0032
Thomas & Christine Schreyer
9307 59~ Avenue N
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0033
Anatoliy & Asya Feldberg
9315 59~ Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0041
Ernest & Jennifer Lanthier
9216 59m Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0042
Vincent Grimaldi
9224 59m Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0043
Kenneth & Suzanne Link
9232 59th Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0029
Howard Dahl
5901 Hillsboro Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0023
Douglas & Sharon Swigert
5900 Hillsboro Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23~0028
Dwight & Suzanne Lindquist
5905 Hillsboro Avenue N
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0022
A & L Schoenborn
5904 Hillsboro Circle
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0030
Perry & Laura Vandal
5900 Independence Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0076
Scott & Janet Ripczinski
5906 Independence Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0004
Charles Roush
5849 Independence Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0079
Jerome & Bonnie Theisen
5901 Independence Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
06-118-21-23-0063
Roger & June Harman
5905 Independence Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428
'3' B
wi
RESEARCH
CTR RD WEST
61ST CIE.
922O
__ z 61ST AVE N
601 AVE N
60TH AVE N
LIBERTY
PARK
~16 ~t7
5000 6a, O~
50OO 5001
5840 5~41
5701
5741
B~01
8731
8701
PKWY
PARK
CENTER EAST
~,~ PUBLIC
WORKS
GARAGE
SCHOOL
&: PARK
6Ol
56TH AVE
NORTH /
RIDGE
APART-
MENTS Q~
I
I 9NI
I ON
;1×3
H ELEVATION
i/~6-=~._o- -
Planning Case:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date:
Report Date:
04-06
April 6, 2004
April 2, 2004
Armory Development/Master Development Group
5620 Winnetka Avenue North
Platting of property, rezoning, Comprehensive Plan amendment,
development stage planned unit development approval
and concept/
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting rezoning of property from CB, Community Business, to PUD, Planned Unit
Development, preliminary plat approval, Comprehensive Plan amendment, and concept/development
stage planned unit development, to allow construction of 40 rowhouses, two-story rowhouses, and two-
story townhome units in six buildings, pursuant to Sections 4-24, 4-30, 4-34 and Chapter 13 of the New
Hope Code of Ordinances.
To accommodate the proposal, the following approvals are necessary:
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the land use of the
property from commercial to high density residential is necessary to make it consistent with New
Hope's Comprehensive Plan.
2. Rezoning. A rezoning of the property from CB, Community Business, to PUD, Planned Unit
Development District. Planned unit development is necessary to accommodate the change of land
use and to allow for flexibilities above and beyond the standard zoning district to accommodate the
density and the setbacks that are being requested within the development. The city will have to
make a determination as to the range of flexibility that would be permitted in allowing for this
redevelopment to occur.
3. Approval of a concept and development stage planned unit development. This part of the PUD
rezoning is necessary. Flexibilities are necessary within this redevelopment related to setbacks,
density traffic circulation, use of private streets, and several other items.
4. Subdivision. To create individual townhome lots or condominium ownership of the townhomes, a
subdivision must be processed. A replat of the property or condominium plat is required.
Ii. Zoning Code References
Section 4-24
Section 4-30
Section 4-32
Section 4-34
Chapter 13
PUD, Planned Unit DeVelopment District
Administration - General
Rezoning
Administration - PUD, Planned Unit Development
Subdivision and Platting
III. Property Specifications
Zoning:
CB, Community Business
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 1 4/2/04
Location:
Adjacent L~nd Uses:
Site Area:
Building Area:
Lot Area Ratios:
Planning District:
Specific Information:
East side of Winnetka Avenue approximately 400 feet north of Bass Lake
Road
CB, Community Business to the south, R-4, High Density Residential to the
north, CB and R-5, Senior/Disabled Residential (St. Therese Home) across
Winnetka Avenue to the west, and city of Crystal single family homes to the
east
137,976 square feet - 3.17 acres
Proposed: ' '44,146 square feet = 32% lot coverage
Proposed green space: 39,667 square feet - 29%
Proposed impervious surface: 54,153 square feet = 39%
No. 6; The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically identify this site,
however, one of the priority goals outlined in the City Plan emphasizes the
maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties
throughout the city.
This site was included in the Livable Communities-Task Force study area and
Armory Development was selected as the preferred developer of the site by
the City Council.
The city has been coordinating with the developer for over a year on this site
and the developer has a purchase agreement on the property. The City
Council has reviewed the concept plans and approved a preliminary financial
agreement with the creation of a new tax increment district. The original
financial agreement was based on 44 units, with no storm water pond on the
site, and the developer making a cash contribution for ponding. When the city
engineer completed a storm water analysis of the redevelopment areas, it
was determined that the best scenario would be for a pond to be located on
the site. The developer revised and submitted plans showing 40 units on the
site with a pond, but requested additional financial assistance for the loss of
four units. The city and developer have been unable to reach an agreement
on additional assistance.
In an effort to keep this project moving forward, staff requested that the city
engineer revisit the storm water issue to determine if off-site ponding
improvements could be reconsidered so that the original agreement and
terms for 44 units with no pond could remain intact. The city engineer has
prepared several options and staff is now suggesting that an alternative plan
would be to use the developer's ponding contribution, along with other
resources, to make improvements to the Wincrest Apartments pond. This
idea is being considered by the city and developer, and the city may
coordinate a meeting with the Wincrest property owner to determine if they
would be cooperative. If this alternative is pursued, the developer would need
to submit revised plans showing 44 units on the site without a pond.
This may necessitate that the current application be tabled while revised plans'
are submitted and, due to the developer's timetable, staff may request that a
special Planning Commission meeting be held in mid-April so that the
necessary approvals could be received by the end of April. The Planning
Commission chair stated that he would not have a problem conducting a
special meeting to consider revised plans for this development.
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 2 4/2/04
IV.
Background
Armory Development II LLC, in partnership with Master Development Group, is requesting a
redevelopment opportunity for the Franks Nursery site located at 5620 Winnetka Avenue North in New
Hope. The site consists of 3.167 acres and is currently occupied by a stand-alone commercial building.
The applicant is proposing to remove all existing buildings and parking areas to accommodate
redevelopment of the site with urban-style townhomes. The staff development team and the Design and
Review Committee have reviewed the proposed development. The applicant had revised the plans to
address issues identified during such review process. In review of revised development plans, the
following comments and recommendations are offered for consideration of the Planning Commission
and City Council.
Petitioner's Comments
March 12 correspondence from the petitioner stated "Armory Development II LLC, in partnership with
Master Development Group, is proposing to redevelop the former Franks Nursery & Craft site as 40
units of homeownership housing in an attractive combination of rowhouses, two story rowhouses, and
two story townhomes. This development is the result of a partnership with the city of New Hope, who
has named our development team the preferred developer for the site and is providing a TIF financing
package to make this development a reality.
"We are requesting approval of our development plan from the Planning Commission, including
rezoning, planned unit development (PUD), and subdivision/platting approvals. The development as
envisioned meets city of New Hope goals of creating life cycle housing and conforms to the master plan
in effect for the Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake Road area.
"The development team and architect, Tushie Montgomery Architects, have been working closely with
city of New Hope staff to review the design, access, and green space in light of city goals and
· guidelines. The resulting final design achieves the city's vision of creating a vibrant mix of housing
options in a layout that promotes safety and livability while contributing to the natural environment.
"The housing units will be divided into six buildings, a design which allows for flexibility in the
construction process and creates green space around each unit. The plan presented for approval
provides a large pond as both an amenity and a method of attaining watershed goals. Overall, the plan
creates higher density housing in a layout that will maintain a sense of Spaciousness and openness.
"Two of the buildings will front Winnetka Avenue and consist of 12 rowhomes approximately 1,500 -
1,800 square feet each, with main entries on Winnetka and parking at the rear of each unit. These units
are expected to be priced between $180,000 and $220,000. Four of the buildings will be set in the
center of the site and will be phased in during the sales cycle. These homes will consist of two-story
units at approximately 1,700 - 1,900 square feet and will be priced ranging from $190,000 - $230,000.
"The exterior of the units will be a mixture of brick or stone material, cedar trim, clad windows, hardi-
plank, vinyl or comparable material siding. There will be professionally designed, installed, and
maintained landscaping throughout the site. The interior of the units will be professionally designed
interiors with upgraded standard finishes. Some of the finishes include: pre-engineered hardwood
flooring, designer selected lighting package, designer selected paint pallet, European custom designed
wood cabinets, energy efficient stainless steel appliances, and natural hardwood millwork.
"The development team is excited about bringing this high quality development to the city of New Hope..
We hope to break ground in summer 2004, with the first units ready for occupancy in spring 2005."
Additional information provided in their March 26 narrative includes:
Condominium Association Information - "The development will be maintained over the long term by a
condominium association that will govern the entire parcel and the 40 townhomes. Because of the
layout of the site and the many development features that are shared among all homeowners (e.g.,
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 3 4/2/04
pond, common streets, visitor parking stalls, landscaping), the development is best defined and
governed by one condominium association. Each townhome unit will be individually owned and
maintainedr but condominium association rules and regulations will establish guidelines for
maintenance and upkeep of each building's exterior, of the landscaping, exterior parking stalls, and
private streets. The association will charge monthly dues to each homeowner to cover the costs of
shared maintenance and improvement expenses. A few other issues unique to this development will be
addressed in the condominium' association documents. Specifically, the condominium association will
be responsible for maintenance of the storm water retention pond. The condominium association will
also provide that snow loading will be accommodated where reflected in the site plan submitted to the
city of New Hope, and will provide that if snow loading needs exceed that capacity, then the snow will
be hauled off-site. Establishing a Common Interest Community (CIC) condominium association is the
most appropriate legal definition of the proposed project, and will best achieve the goals of long-term
care and maintenance of the property."
VI. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property, including the city of Crystal, were notified. Staff has
received some calls, including the owners of Continental Apartments at 8100 Bass Lake Road, and some
Crystal residents came to city hall to review the plans. A full set of large-scale plans was delivered to
Crystal City Hall for its staff to review.
VII. Development Analysis
A. Zoning Code Criteria
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The development proposal will require a change of the city's land use plan. The 1998 New Hope
Comprehensive Plan land use plan suggests commercial uses at the corner of Bass Lake Road and
Winnetka Avenue. The Livable Communities Task Force has identified the Franks Nursery site as a
redevelopment target site.
Through the task force review, it was suggested that a redevelopment with a medium to high-
density residential land use was appropriate for this site. The concept that was presented by Master
Development Group was seen as preferred which included the redevelopment of the site for
townhomes. In this respect, the past review of the potential land uses for this site would suggest
that the proposed land use is appropriate and the land use change should be pursued.
Rezoninq
The applicant has requested a planned unit development zoning designation to provide design and
density flexibility. In evaluating the PUD, it will be compared to the city's R-4, High Density
Residential District, to show where the flexibilities are being requested and the differences between
the standard R-4 and the higher density PUD district that is being proposed. Section 4-32 of the
New Hope Zoning Ordinance outlines the criteria for considering a change in zoning as follows:
(1) The zoning amendment is necessary to correct a past zoning mistake.
(2) The character of the area has chan~]ed to warrant consideration of an amendment.
(3) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of
and has been found to be consistent with the official city Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to provide for grouping of buildings in an
integrated and coordinated design. The PUD is intended to introduce flexibility from typical site
design requirements and architectural controls for the conservation of land and to encourage
creative environments that might not otherwise be accommodated through the strict application of
New Hope's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 4 4/2/04
The proposed development is of an urban character that does not fit with New Hope's standard
high-density residential zoning district. The PUD zoning district allows the Planning Commission and
City Council to evaluate the requested zoning based on the merit of the proposed development.
It is apparent that through the Comprehensive Plan and the city's redevelopment efforts that the
character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of Comprehensive Plan amendment
and change in zoning. The proposed redevelopment is consistent with the land use objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan related to the city's housing needs and redevelopment goals and policies. The
Planning Commission and City Council will, however, need to evaluate the details of the submitted
plan and determine whether the densities and the flexibilities being requested are consistent with
the city's objectives and the spirit of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance.
The past zoning was appropriate for the prior land uses, however, the character of the area has
changed and redevelopment has been recommended for this project site by the Comprehensive
Plan. As a mature fully developed community, New Hope has targeted a number of areas for
residential redevelopment as a means of promoting reinvestment into the community and offering
new housing options within the city. The 1997 Life Cycle Housing Study for year 2010 identified the
following housing needs for New Hope:
1. Higher Value, Move Up Housinq. Due to the lack of vacant land supply in New Hope, this
housing need must be met through continued maintenance upgrading and modernization of
existing single family housing stock. The city may also look to satisfy the housing need through
redevelopment of blighted sites which may have amenities that would be attractive to higher
value medium or high density housing options.
2. Owner Occupied or Rental Attached Housing. The Life Cycle Housing Study identified the need
for attached housing (townhomes, twinhomes, cooperative apartments) that offer Iow
maintenance, independent housing opportunities. These types of housing opportunities are
attractive to empty nesters or older residents wishing to live in New Hope.
3. Affordable Rental. The Life Cycle Housing Study identified a need for additional affordable rental
units before year 2010. Due to the city's extensive rental housing supply, these units can be
provided through rental assistance certificates for use within existing rental units.
4. Special Needs Housing. New Hope has made special efforts to provide housing for people with
special needs, such as the elderly and disabled. New Hope will continue to expand its special
needs housing stock as opportunities present themselves.
The proposed Winnetka Townhomes housing project will provide upscale urban-style townhomes
that fit the description of categories 1 and 2 above. The change in zoning is also consistent with the
New Hope residential goals and policies as follows:
Residential Goals
Goal 1: Provide a variety of housing types, styles and choices to meet the needs of New
Hope's changing demographics.
Policies: ~
A. Through infill development and redevelopment efforts, increase life cycle housing opportunities
not currently available within the city (i.e., high value housing, townhomes).
B. Promote medium density attached housing to address the needs of an expanding empty neste~
or independently living elderly population.
Goal 3: Promote multiple family housing alternatives as an attractive life cycle housing option.
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 5 4/2/04
Policies:
B. Adhere to the highest community design and construction standards for new construction and
redevelopment projects.
C. Accompany medium and high-density development with adequate accessory amenities such as
garages, parking, open space, landscaping, and recreational facilities to insure a safe,
functional, and desirable living environment.
Development Review Team
The Development Review Team reviewed the plans on March 17 and was supportive of the project,
however, the following concerns were discussed: site circulation and access points, building
separation, signage, tandem garages and general garage size, snow storage, sidewalks,
landscaping, irrigation, building materials, lighting, homeowners association documents, retaining
wall and grading, storm water, pond, sanitary sewer and water mains, fire hydrants, and fire
department connection.
Design and Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner on March 18 and discussed the same
issues as listed above. The Committee was supportive of the project.
Plan Description
Revised plans and comments were submitted as a result of the Design and Review Committee
meeting and comments from the planning consultant and developer on the submitted plans are as
follows:
Developer:
The following is a summary of the concerns raised by the city. We have addressed each item as it
pertains to the drawings or discussion and have shown our responses in italics.
Design Review Committee comments March 18, 2004
1. 10-foot separation between the two see-thru buildings fronting Winnetka. We have mOved
these buildings as recommended by staff.
2. Poor circulation pattern. We have added two entrances off Sumter as recommended by staff.
3. Concerns of large vehicular movement through the site. We have changed the radii on all
curves within the site to 20 feet radii.
4. Enlarge radius at Winnetka. We have enlarged the radius from Winnetka to the site to 20 feet.
-5. Concern with through traffic through the funeral home parking lot. We have added "No
Through Traffic" signs at the funeral home entrance.
6. Storm water calculations will be forwarded to your staff by the owner.
7. Concern of vehicular headlight irt{pact to the neighbors across Sumter. We have added a Site
Section drawing to study the headlight impact upon the neighbors across Sumter.
8. Concern with adequacy of tandem garages. The tandem garages are designed to house two
vehicles: one behind the other. The management of these vehicles will be placed upon the
resident of the home. We believe that this arrangement provides the best parking
accommodations for the width of the unit. This will be a market choice for the home buyer as
these people will be encouraged to park in the garage.
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 6 4/2/04
9. Size of snow storage areas. We have calculated snow storage areas throughout the site.
These areas are calculated to meet the ordinance for snow storage, but ff these areas prove to
be-inadequate, the excess snow will be stored in the pond.
10. Sidewalks throughout the project. We have added two sidewalks for residents to access
Winnetka from the interior of the site.
11. Trees along Sumter are located within the right-of-way. We have relocated the trees to be
within our property.
12. Ornamental shade trees sized at 1.5 inches. We have increased the size of the ornamental
shade trees to be two inches as recommended by staff.
13. Foundation shrub plant sizes have been included in the Plant List.
14. All areas of the site to be landscaped shall be irrigated. A note has been added to the
Landscape drawing.
15. Concern about landscaping around the air conditioning condensers and gas meters. We have
provided an enlarged plan showing the landscaping in these areas.
16. Concern was raised about the design of the monument sign. The sign has been redesigned to
use more durable materials and is included in the set of drawings.
17. Concern regarding the monument sign location due to traffic vision triangle. The monument
sign has been relocated to ensure proper vision onto Winnetka.
18. Concern over size of the 19' by 20'-3" garage. We understand that this size garage is
acceptable to the city.
19. Exterior doors at end units. These doors are design to have a patio attached to the home.
20. Clarify building materials at all units. We have incorporated cultured stone into the corners of
the buildings to tie all of the building on the site together. In addition, the buildings have
varying protrusions throughout to provide visual interest. We have differentiated the buildings
by providing similar, yet different colors schemes to pairs of buildings as will be evident by the
colored elevations which will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting.
21. Concern was raised about the adequacy of the tandem garages. The tandem garages are
designed to house two vehicles; one behind the other. The management of these vehicles will
be placed upon the resident of the home. We believe that this arrangement provides the best
parking accommodations for the width of the unit. This will be a market choice for the home
buyer as these people will be encouraged to park in the garage.
22. Concern regarding the 21-foot width of the unit. We understand that the width of the unit is
acceptable to the city.
23. Consider alternative materials to break up the long building appearance of the see-thru
building fronting Winnetka (Buildi~ng C). We have incorporated cultured stone into the corners
of the buildings to tie all of the b~ildings on the site together. In addition, all of the buildings
(including Building C fronting Winnetka) have varying protrusions throughout to provide visual
interest. We have differentiated the siding by using vertical and horizontal patterns of siding. In
addition, the siding will also be differentiated by complementary colors as will be evident by the
colored elevations which will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting.
24. Consider stone or brick at the entries of the units fronting Winnetka. We would discourage the
use of these expensive materials at locations which will be hidden by shade and shadow as
well as areas which will be covered by air conditioning condensers, gas meters and lawn
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 7 4/2/04
furniture. We have provided more visual interest to the Winnetka elevation by varying the
colors of the siding as described in the statement above.
25. Photometric plan was submitted and has not changed.
26. Provide detail of street signs, address signs, and mailboxes. These items have been located
on the Site Plan.
27. The owner shall forward the homeowners documents to the city attorney.
28. city engineer to determine storm water overflow to apartments to north. The storm water
calculations shall be forwarded by the civil.
29. North retaining wall to be removed. Civil to forward more information as to the extent of
retaining wall removal.
30. Grading Plan will be resubmitted by civil.
31. Retaining waII at pond shall be rock boulder as shown on revised drawings,
32. Easement and maintenance agreement shall be forwarded to the city by the owner.
33. Sanitary sewer and water service shown as one point of service to each building. These
buildings will be organized as per condominium plat. It is our understanding that one sanitary
sewer and water service is a/lowed under the condominium plat. The buildings are organized
to have a water room located at one end of the building with an electric room located at the
other end of the building.
34. Water connections at Sumter and Winnetka. Civil to forward most current set of Utility Plans
to the city.
35. Fire hydrant locations shall be coordinated with fire marshal and civil engineer.
36. Ail fire hydrants shall have marker flags and be posted with fire lane signage.
37. One building address has been located per building. The units shall have a letter assigned to
each unit and these shall be posted at the front doors of the units.
38. "No Parking Fire Lane" signage has been located on the site plan.
39. All buildings shall be sprinkled. A note has been placed on the p/ans.
Planner/Staff:
1. Site Data Summary
Current Zoning CB - Community Business
Proposed Zoning PUD - Planned Unit Development
Site Area 137,976 sq. ft.; 3.17 acres
Total Units 40 units (12.6 per acre; 3,450 sq. ft. per unit)
(Sq. Ft.) (%)
Building " 44,146 32
Impervious Surface 54,153 39
Green Space 39,677 29
Surrounding Land Use
The subject site is surrounded by the following land uses:
· To the north, high density residential (Wincrest Apartments);
· To the south, commercial uses including automotive repair and a funeral home;
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 8 4/2/04
· To the east, single family residential development east of Sumter Avenue. This area lies
within the city of Crystal; and
· 'I:o the west, St. Therese elderly housing complex west of Winnetka Avenue.
The proposed introduction of townhomes to this area is seen as being appropriate based on the
adjoining densities and the land use relationships.
3. General Site Layout
The proposed redevelopment project creates a high-density urban townhome neighborhood
bounded by Winnetka Avenue and Sumter Avenue. The development plan incorporates six
buildings that will house 40 townhome units. The plan also includes a large pond area within the
development that provides both an amenity and a method of attaining watershed goals.
Two row home-style townhome buildings front onto Winnetka Avenue. Each building houses six
residential units (12 units total) that range in size from 1,500 to 1,800 square feet. The buildings
have a reduced setback to the street to conserve land and create an attractive urban
streetscape.
Four back-to-back style townhome buildings will be located in the center of the site, with two
buildings on either side of the proposed pond area. The plans illustrate two building styles, one
style accommodating eight total units and one style accommodating six total units. Two buildings
of each style are proposed, housing a total of 28 units. These residential units range in size from
1,700 to 1,900 square feet. Landscaping is proposed to screen the single-family neighborhood
from the traffic and side yards of the townhomes.
Access to the proposed development will be provided from Sumter Avenue and Winnetka
Avenue. The development will be served internally by private streets.
4. Density and Lot Area Per Unit
The plans indicate that the total site area is 137,976 square feet (3.167 acres). Locating the
proposed 40 townhome units on the site will result in a gross density of one unit per 3,450
square feet (12.6 units per acre). Within the R-4 District, a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet
per townhome unit is required, which is equivalent to 8.5 units per acre. The applicant is
requesting density flexibility through the planned unit development. Allowance of the increased
density is dependent upon the city approving site design flexibilities.
5. Open Space
The New Hope Zoning Ordinance provides that within residential districts, buildings and
structures of any type, parking areas, or other features shall not occupy more than 65 percent of
the lot area resulting in less than 35 percent open space. The development data shown on the
site plan indicates that the proposed development includes 71 percent impervious, surface
coverage with 29 percent open space. The proposed development does not meet the open
space requirements of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. Flexibility to reduce the open space
requirement for this development is'being requested through the planned unit development.
6. Setbacks - The standard setbacks in an R-4, High Density Residential District are as follows:
R-4 District Standards III. Required Proposed
front yard setback from local street 25 feet from property line 16 feet from the property
(Sumter Avenue) line
front yard setback from arterial street 30 feet from the property line 15 feet from the property
(Winnetka Avenue) line
side yard setback for interior lot line 10 feet from the required lot line
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 9 4/2/04
Front Yard Comments. A reduced setback is acceptable if it provides an attractive urban
streetscape appeal. The architecture and appearance of the proposed townhome units abutting
Winnetka Avenue should complement the sidewalk areas and landscaping and provide an
attractive urban feel along the street.
The reduced setback along Sumter Avenue is appropriate as a means of conserving space
within the overall redevelopment site. In this area, only side elevations o7 the two buildings are
exposed, limiting the number of units directly fronting along Sumter Avenue to four units.
Side Yard Comments. The applicant illustrates setbacks from the adjoining properties greater
than 10 feet with the exception of the northwest corner where the setback is 10 feet from the
Wincrest Apartments property. There is a 10-foot separation between the two townhome
buildings located along Winnetka Avenue. The planner states that application of the side yard
setbacks within the R-4 District would typically result in 20 feet of separation between buildings.
The 10-foot separation was discussed by the Design and Review Committee and the building
official does not see it as a building code problem.
Access and Circulation
The applicant has revised the site access and circulation plan. The plans now illustrate that the
site will be served by a single access drive to Winnetka Avenue and three access drives to
Sumter Avenue. The site will be served internally by private drives.
Winnetka Avenue Access. The Winnetka Avenue access drive is a shared access with the
funeral home located southeast of the site. To address concerns regarding use of the funeral
home parking lot by through traffic, the applicant is proposing to install "No Thru Traffic" signs.
The applicant has also enlarged the turning radius for the access drive from Winnetka Avenue
to 20 feet to address concerns regarding vehicular maneuverability.
Sumter Avenue Access. The plans indicate that the proposed private drives located on the north
and south side of the site have been extended through to Sumter Avenue, creating a loop that
permits traffic to circulate through the site. The plans also illustrates a third access to Sumter
Avenue that exclusively serves eight units. The radii of all curves within the site have been
increased to 20 feet to address concerns regarding maneuverability. Access to Sumter Avenue
should be approached with sensitivity to the existing single-family residential properties to the
east of the site. The applicant has provided a site section on Plan L1.1 to demonstrate the
impact of vehicle headlights on adjacent property fronting Sumter Avenue to the east on the site.
Screening of headlights off of the development and into nearby residences may be required.
Internal Private Drives. The private drives within the development are 22 feet wide. The Design
and Review Committee raised concerns regarding circulation within the site and vehicular
maneuverability. To address these concerns, the applicant incorporated two additional entrances
to the site from Sumter Avenue. In addition, the applicant has increased the radii of all curves
within the site to 20 feet. The site design continues to rely upon the utilization of the private
driveways as a means of turning vehicles around at the end of the dead-end drives. In addition,
trucks entering the dead-end private drive accessed via Sumter Avenue that services eight units
will be required to back out of the site onto Sumter Avenue.
Snow Storaqe. The dimensions and setbacks preserve approximately 5,574 total square feet of
snow storage that is scattered throughout the site with very small snow storage areas located at'
the ends of each driveway within the side yard setbacks. These areas are not sufficient to
accommodate snow storage on site. Snow storage could impede upon the private drives and
parking area, adding further concerns regarding traffic circulation and off-street parking. The
applicant indicates that excess snow will be stored in the pond in the event the proposed snow
storage plan proves inadequate.
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 10 4/2/04
Driveway Parking ~..
1. The plans illustrate 72 "tandem" parking spaces, which refers to driveway parking spaces.
The driveways in front of all double garages are dimensioned with a minimum width of 18
feet and the length between garage and curb of 20 feet. This is compliant with city
requirements for parking stall spaces. Snow storage areas present some concern as far as
the backing movements in and out of the individual garages and driveway areas related to
traffic visibility.
2. The driveways in front of all "tandem" garages are dimensioned with a minimum width of
11.5 feet and the length between garage and curb of 20 feet.
Additional Surface Parking. Fifteen additional surface parking spaces are provided on site. Two
parking stalls are proposed at the end of each private drive. Access or egress to these proposed
parking stalls would require backing into the driveways of the end units. Additionally, if these
parking stalls are occupied, it may limit the turning movements from the end units in exiting their
driveway. No parking will be allowed on private drives.
8. Parking
The New Hope Zoning Ordinance requires one enclosed parking space and one and one-
quarter surface parking spaces for each townhome unit. Based upon such formula, 40
townhome units require 40 enclosed parking spaces and 50 surface parking spaces (90 total
parking spaces (40 X 2.25 - 90)). The site plan indicates the following parking accommodations:
Enclosed parking (2 car garage stalls per unit) 80
Tandem parking (driveway parking) 72
Surface parking 15
167 total parking provided
The site plan illustrates 95 total parking spaces, exclusive of driveway parking. As each
townhome is illustrated to have a two-car garage, 80 of the parking spaces provided are
enclosed parking spaces.
Garaqe Parking
1. Each townhome is illustrated to have a two-car garage, per the request of City Council. The
plans indicate that tandem garage parking is proposed for eight interior units of Building C,
which is located along Winnetka Avenue North. The dimensions of the proposed tandem
garages are indicated as 11.5 feet in width by 41.5 feet in length. The tandem parking
arrangement, illustrated on Sheet A-4.3, is unique to the subdivision. Design and Review
determined that the proposed garage dimensions were adequate, taking into consideration
storage of vehicles and ancillary equipment such as trash and recycling bins.
2. The plans indicate that the proposed two-car garages in the end units of Buildings A, B, and
C are dimensioned as 19 feet in width and 20 feet in length. The applicant has illustrated the
parking of two vehicles within~ the garage per request of city staff: the pick up truck
represents a vehicle similar to'a Ford Ranger or Chevy S-10 pick up and the automobile
represents a size of car equivalent to a Chevy Cavalier. The distance between the vehicles
and side walls ranges from one foot nine inches to two feet six inches with a separation
between cars of approximately three and one-half feet.
9. Sidewalks. Sidewalks have been provided from the entrance of the individual townhome units to
their individual driveway areas. Each townhome unit along Winnetka Avenue has a sidewalk that
extends to and connects with the existing Winnetka Avenue sidewalk. In addition, the plans
illustrate a sidewalk extending from the Winnetka Avenue sidewalk to the internal private drive in
the northwest area of the site and a sidewalk extending along the northern side of the access
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 11 4/2/04
drive to existing Winnetka Avenue sidewalk. Sidewalks extending along either side of the center
access driveway to Sumter Avenue are also illustrated. In review of the sidewalk configurations,
there does not appear to be any type of segregated internal pedestrian circulation pattern being
proposed. Pedestrians from Buildings A and B would be required to walk along the private drives
to access the sidewalk along Winnetka Avenue.
10. Landscape Plan. The landscape schedule is as follows:
Common Name I Species I Size I Noted I Shown
Trees
Colorado Spruce Picea glauca 6' BB 2 2
Pagoda Dogwood Comus alternifolia 2" BB 14 14
Wafer Ash Ptelea trifoliata 2" BB 11 11
Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor 2.5" BB 24 23
Shrubs
Artic Blue Leaf Willow Salix purpurea 'Nana' 3 Gallon 62 66
Northern Burgundy Viburnum Viburnum dentatum 'Morton' 5 Gallon 29 31
Sea Green Juniper Juniperous chinensis 'Monlep' 5 Gallon 116 113
Summer Wine Ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius 'Duncan' 3 Gallon 67 78
Perennials
Ballerina Geranium Geranium cineraria 'Ballerina' 3 Gallon 154 154
Blue Star Amsonia Amsonia tabernaemontana 3 Gallon 118 118
Samobor Geranium Phys,ostegia virginiana 'Miss Manners' 3 Gallon 102 102
Miss Manners Obedient Plant Geranium phaeum 'Samobar' 3 Gallon 82 82
Total Items 781 794
Sod will be placed around the site. Seed (MNDOT BWSR Mix #1-Wetland Fringe Native Seed
Mixture) will be placed around the pond area. All landscaping will be irrigated, as questioned by
the Design and Review Committee.
Per Design and Review comments,'an enlarged entry plan was submitted showing placement of
the gas meter and air conditioning unit in relation to the proposed landscaping.
Ten trees along the north property line will be retained.
The following new landscaping is proposed for the site:
Trees: Two Colorado spruce will be placed on the south visitor parking area. Twenty-three
swamp white oaks will be placed on the site, eight along Winnetka, six along Sumter (placed
closer to buildings per Design and Review comments) and nine lining the interior streets.
Fourteen pagoda dogwoods will be placed on the site, each in interior landscape areas. Eleven
wafer ash trees will be placed on the site, each in interior landscape areas. Forty techny
arborvitae will be placed on the site along both the south property line and throughout the
interior of the site. Caliper of the orn,.amental shade trees were increased per Design and Review
comments.
Shrubs: Sixty-six artic blue leaf willow will be placed throughout the site. Thirty-one northern
burgundy viburnum will be placed throughout the site. One hundred thirteen sea green junipers.
and seventy-eight summer wine ninebark will be placed throughout the site. Shrub sizes were
included in the schedule, per Design and Review comments.
Perennials (not counted by staff): One hundred fifty-four ballerina geraniums, 118 blue star
amsonia, 102 samobor geranium and 82 Miss Manors obedient plants will be placed throughout
the site.
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 12 4/2/04
Pond Retaining Wall: A retaining wall is proposed to line the majority of the pond. The wall is
proposed to be built of limestone boulders. The note indicates that a variety of boulders will be
provided to create a natural looking wall. The wall will be a maximum of four feet in height.
Granular backfill will be placed behind the wall for drainage. The building official and city
engineer will review the proposed retaining wall during plan review.
Comments from the planner on the landscaping are as follows:
1. The landscape plan preserves a number of over story trees along the north property line,
which is a very positive element. Infill landscaping including techny arborvitae and northern
burgundy vibernum is proposed to provide a visual screening of the Wincrest Apartments.
2. The applicant is proposing a streetscape along Winnetka Avenue that incorporates eight
swamp white oak trees spaced along the front of the 12 townhome units. A similar
streetscape including six swamp white oak trees is proposed along Sumter Avenue. The
plans have been revised to reflect placement of the swamp white oak trees proposed along
Sumter Avenue within the property boundaries rather than within the street right-of-way.
3. The plant materials for shade trees meet city requirements. The applicant has revised the
landscaping plan to substitute 2.0 inch caliper pagoda dogwood and wafer ash for the
previously proposed 1.5 inch caliper Donald Wyman crabapple and red splendor crabapple.
4. Along the foundation, the applicant is using a series of shrubs including arctic blue leaf
willow, sea green junipers, and summer nine bark. The applicant has not provided plant
sizes for these elements and this must be included in the plant schedule.
5. In conjunction with the shrubs that are planted at the perimeter of the buildings, perennials
are also included in the area around the pond and the center of the site is intended to be
seeded with MnDOT BWSR Mix #1 wetland fringe native seed mixture.
6. The landscaping plan indicates that all landscaping shall be irrigated unless otherwise noted.
Irrigation of green spaces should be a requirement of the PUD to insure long term
maintenance of the landscaping.
7. The landscape plan should also illustrate the location of heating and air conditioning
equipment to ensure proper screening of these devices. The applicant has provided an
enlarged entry plan (L1.1) illustrating proposed landscape screening for heating and air
conditioning equipment.
8. The plans indicate that a retaining wall and fence along the north property line will be
removed. The plans do not indicate that these elements will be replaced. Details must be
provided in the event that replacement for such elements are anticipated.
11. Signage
The applicant is proposing monUment signage for the proposed development. One
monument sign is proposed on the north side of the Winnetka Avenue site access and one
monument sign is proposed orr the north side of the center access to Sumter Avenue. The
details regarding the proposed monument sign indicate that the proposed monument sign
will be six feet in height and eight feet in length. The sign face is illustrated to be
approximately 17.5 square feet in area (five feet by approximately three and one-half feet)..
The sign face will be supported by two stone columns measuring six feet in height and one
and one-half feet in width. The applicant has redesigned the sign to use more durable
materials. The plan indicates that each monument sign will be supported by two stone with
stone caps. The sign face will consist of vertical siding to match the building exteriors,
painted wood trim, aluminum flashing and die cut aluminum letters.
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 13 4/2/04
The sign location must also be located at least ten feet from the Winnetka and Sumter
Avenueproperty lines and must be located outside of the traffic visibility triangle that extends
20 feet from the curb cut, north along the property lines, and along the common drive to
insure that views of traffic along Winnetka and Sumter Avenues is unobstructed.
The applicant is propOsing signage to prohibit egress onto the funeral home property. Details
pertaining to the "no thru traffic" signs and their proposed location are indicated on the plans.
The plans include details for proposed "no parking fire lane" signs but do not indicate the
proposed location of such signs. Details should be provided for all address signs. Unit
addresses must be visible from main drive aisles.
12. Architecture
The applicant is proposing two architectural styles within the proposed subdivision. Buildings A
and B are illustrated as back-to-back townhome structures with a similar architectural style,
while Building C is illustrated as a row style townhome structure incorporating a combination of
two story end units and three story interior units. Following is a description of the proposed
architecture and the concerns raised with the development.
Buildinq styles A and B. Building styles A and B are illustrated as back-to-back townhome
structures. Building style A includes eight units (four units back to back) and Building style B
includes six units (three units back to back). The plans illustrate two style A and two style B
buildings on the site. Individual units within Building styles A and B range in floor area (exclusive
of garage space) from 1,448 square feet (interior units) to 1,527 square feet (end units). In
review of Building styles A and B, the following issues are raised:
1. The site plan illustrates side doors for the end units. The site plan does not give a clear
depiction as to whether there will be a stoop or landing or patio located on these end units.
The site plan should reflect the developer's intention in these areas.
2. Sheet A3.0 illustrates the exterior elevations of Building styles A and B. The predominant
building materials are illustrated as asphalt shingles and vinyl siding. While the exterior
elevations illustrate a stone treatment on the end units, the exterior material is labeled vinyl
shake siding. '
The applicant has implemented changes in the siding from vertical to horizontal to provide
some architectural interest. Staff suggests that a variety of textured materials be provided for
the individual units to provide some diversity in appearance and building materials. Staff also
suggests that the end units include a stone or brick veneer which may then be extended as a
wainscot across the front of the units and around the garages to provide some break up of
the vinyl appearance.
Gas meter and air conditioning units are intended to be located on the sides of the end units.
These should be illustrated on the building elevations and addressed as part of the overall
landscape plan related to screening. Interior units of Building styles A and B have their air
conditioner and gas meter located near the entry point. Again, these should be identified on
the building elevation and addressed as part of the overall site screening and landscaping.
3. Based on city definition, the height of the proposed building, measured at the average of the
gable, is 28 feet, which is compliant with city standards.
Buildinq style C. Building style C is illustrated as a row style townhome structure incorporating a
combination of two story end units and three story interior units. The plans illustrate two style C
buildings containing six units each. In review of Building style C, the following issues are raised:
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 14 4/2/04
13.
14.
1. End units within the style C buildings provide two floors of living area consisting of
approximately 1,700 total square feet, exclusive of the garage. The end units include a two-
car garage with dimensions of 19 feet in width by 20 feet in depth.
2. The interior units within the style C buildings provide three floors of living area consisting of
approximately 1,800 square feet of floor area, exclusive of the garage. The interior units
include a "tandem" garage arrangement with dimensions of 11.5 feet in width by 41.5 feet in
depth.
3. The city requires all townhome units to have a minimum width of 24 feet. The interior units
within the style C building are 21 feet in width. Flexibility from this standard is being
requested through the PUD if the Planning Commission determines that the units have
adequate living area.
4. The building elevations for Building style C are illustrated on Sheet A3.1. The elevation
illustrates some vertical treatment through changes in facade, decks over the garages, and
decks serving the third story bedrooms. The primary building material will be four inch vinyl
siding. Staff suggests that a mixture of materials and textures be provided for the individual
units to provide some diversity in appearance and building materials. Brick/stone wainscot
introduced near the garages and entryways will certainly contribute to the character of the
building.
5. The west (rear) elevation of the style C building has a relatively flat face along Winnetka
Avenue. This elevation illustrates vinyl vertical and horizontal siding as the primary exterior
building material. While the end units incorporate a stone treatment, it is identified as vinyl
shake siding. With the reduced setback along Winnetka Avenue, the appearance of the
building becomes much more predominant. Staff recommends the introduction of alternative
building materials such as brick or stone to accent the entrances and the first floor of the
units. A variety of exterior building materials may mitigate the flat exterior and add character
to the Winnetka streetscape.
6. Gas meters and air conditioning units are illustrated as located at the rear of the building,
which faces Winnetka Avenue. The landscape plan and building elevations should illustrate
the location of these units so that there are assurances that they are properly screened.
Grading and Drainage
The applicant has submitted a preliminary grading and erosion control plan that illustrates a
storm water pond at the center of the property. This should be reviewed in conjunction with the
overall site design and traffic circulation within the property. The adequacy of all proposed
grading, drainage and erosion control is subject to the review and approval of the city engineer.
The applicant must provide storm water calculations and a drainage and utility easement over
the proposed pond.
Utilities
The applicant has submitted a preliminary utility plan that illustrates the extension of utilities
through the proposed development. City ordinance requires that each townhome have separate
utilities. The applicant's preliminary utility plan illustrates a single connection for sanitary sewer
and water for each building. Utility connections will affect how the land is subdivided and must
be addressed. The preliminary utility plan submitted by the applicant would necessitate
condominium ownership. The city engineer has recommended that overhead utilities serving the
site be buried.
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 15 4/2/04
15. Lighting
The applicant has submitted a site lighting plan. The plan specifies two different light fixtures
illus{rated at ten locations throughout the site. Details are provided for only one style of light
fixture mounted on a 20-foot pole. The fixture appears to be hooded with a ninety degree cut off.
The New Hope Zoning Ordinance provides that light sources shall be hooded or controlled in a
manner so as not to light adjacent property. Additionally, light cast on residential property shall
not exceed one foot candle as measured at or on the adjoining property.
The photometric plan indicates lighting of varying intensity measuring a maximum of 0.8 foot
candles on the northern property line, 0.3 foot candles on the east property line, 0.5 foot candles
over the south property line and 0.0 foot candles along the west property line. The lighting plan
does not indicate the. location or intensity of exterior building lighting.
Ten pole fixtures are proposed for the site. Each pole is proposed to be 23 feet in height
including a three-foot base. Each fixture will produce 14,400 lumens. Three fixtures will be at the
south edge of the property and three at the northern edge of the property. One fixture will be
located on each north/south end of the pond and one at each east/west interior drive.
16. Accessory Equipment
The applicant has submitted revised plans incorporating information regarding the location of
mailboxes. Details regarding street signs and address signs must be included as part of the
PUD review. These elements are necessary in light of traffic circulation and parking
arrangements.
17. Subdivision
While the applicant is requesting subdivision and platting approval, the city has not received a
preliminary plat indicating how the applicant will subdivide the property (i.e. whether it is intended
to be a unit lot configuration or a condominium subdivision). This element has to be submitted
as part of the overall application.
18. Homeowners Association
The applicant has submitted homeowners association documents for city attorney review.
Planning Considerations
Excerpts from the planning consultant's report have been incorporated into this report.
Buildin.q Considerations
Comments from the building official have been incorporated into this report.
Le.qal Considerations
The city attorney will review the condominium plat, homeowners association documents, and
prepare the PUD development agreem,.ent.
En.qineerinq Considerations
Comments from the city engineer include:
1. The property will need to be platted. Existing easements should be vacated and rededicated on'
the plat. Most notably, the road and utility easement shared with the funeral home will need to
vacated and reconfigured. The width of the existing easement would encroach into the proposed
building area, which is not acceptable. We did not receive a copy of the preliminary plat with this
submittal.
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 16 4/2/04
2. The city should discuss and coordinate the construction of new sidewalk along Winnetka, as well
as, the burial of overhead utilities. This process should be started if applicable.
3. Pon~l and storm sewer calculations must be submitted for review by the city engineer. These
calculations have not been received to date.
a. The pond discharge is directed via a 12-inch storm sewer to the existing storm sewer catch
basin in the northwest corner of the site. The condition of the existing catch basin and storm
sewer must be verified and may require replacement.
b. City staff is currently working with the developer on alternatives to eliminate the pond. This
would require a cash contribution from the development and off-site improvements. The
feasibility of the alternatives is being reviewed. If feasible, the pond would be eliminated and
four additional units could be added to the site plan.
4. This project does not need to be submitted to Shingle Creek Watershed for review, however, it
is referenced in the city's livable communities storm water study. The watershed will review this
study, and it appears that this application meets the requirements of the study. This will be
verified with the calculations.
.5. Some detail on the grading plan will require clarification:
a. The pond emergency overflow (EOF) is to be directed toward Sumter Avenue. The catch
basin (CB) in the north curb line is at 902.78. The high point in the north curb line is not
clear. An overflow from the pond could potentially pool at the CB in the north curb line and
then overflow to the Wincrest Apartments prior to Sumter Avenue. We realize that this is not
the intent, but it should be clearly identified.
b. The removal plan also indicates that the retaining wall along the north property line will be
removed. It was also indicated verbally that a new wall will be installed along the north
property line. This wall must be shown on the grading plan including height, location, and
material type.
c. A sidewalk to Winnetka Avenue has been added along the north property line. It is not clear
on the grading plan how this walk will be constructed while maintaining acceptable slopes on
and adjacent to the sidewalk.
6. Drainage and utility easement must be provided on the plat over the proposed pond. In addition,
a maintenance agreement shall be created identifying the homeowners association as the
responsible party for pond maintenance. The submitted revisions indicate that this will be
acceptable to the developer.
7. Fire hydrant locations are identified and must be approved by West Metro Fire. Previously, four
hydrants were cited as a minimum number. Two are shown on the plans. This must be verified.
8. The final civil plans must include details describing proposed manholes, pipe bedding, valves,
hydrants, water service stops, curb types, pavement sections and other infrastructure items.
While it is typical for the city to review and approve plans at this stage, the Civil plans will be
considered incomplete and not suitable for construction until these items are discussed and
shown on the plans. The developer's engineer is encouraged to coordinate with the city
engineer and Public Works for standard details.
9. One sewer and water service line will be provided to each condominium and will be split in a
common utility room. Each dwelling unit will be required to have a separate water meter. Public
Works and emergency personnel must have access to these rooms for functions such as water
shut offs and meter reading.
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 17 4/2/04
I. Police Considerations
Comments from the Police Department have been incorporated into this report.
J. Fire Considerations
Comments from West Metro Fire include:
1. Item number 35 on the letter discussed hydrant locations and numbers. We would at least
require four hydrants per the requirements of the Minnesota Fire Code. The location of the
hydrants can be discussed at the meeting and coordinated with the civil engineer.
2. Item number 38 on the letter states that fire lane signage has been located on the site plan. The
new revised site plan does not show the locations of the fire lane signs. Provide a site plan
showing where the hydrants will be located.
3. On sheet LI.0 (site plan) the locations of hydrants will need to be discussed. If a hydrant is
going to be located near the middle parking area, may need to adjust parking area or move
hydrant not to obstruct fire hydrant.
VIII. Summary
Armory Development II LLC, in partnership with Master Development Group, has requested the
following development applications to facilitate the redevelopment of the Franks Nursery site located at
5620 Winnetka Avenue North in New Hope:
1. Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the designated land uses to high density residential.
2. Rezoning from CB, Community Business to PUD, Planned Unit DeVelopment.:
3. Concept and development stage PUD and preliminary plat.
· 4. Preliminary and final plat review and approval.
As the Franks Nursery and Craft site has been identified for redevelopment, changing the land use and
zoning would be appropriate. The applicant is requesting flexibility related to density, setbacks, traffic
circulation, etc. The acceptable range of flexibility is a policy decision that will rest with the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment/PUD Rezoning
These applications are interconnected and should be considered together. Any land use change is a
policy decision for the City Council. Generally, the city must find that the proposed change is consistent
with the following criteria:
1. The zoning amendment is necessary to correct a past mistake.
2. The character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of an amendment.
3. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and
has been found to be consistent with the official city Comprehensive Plan.
The past zoning was correct for the past uses, however, the city in its Comprehensive Plan recognized
the changing character of the area by designating this site for redevelopment. The change in land use
and zoning provides the opportunity to implement the redevelopment objective. The PUD zoning is
directly tied to the proposed development plan. If the Planning Commission and City Council find that'
the proposed density and design fulfill the city's redevelopment objective, approval of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment is recommended contingent on the city approval of the PUD concept
and development stage plan.
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 18 4/2/04
IX. Recommendation
If the Comp_rehensive Plan and rezoning is deemed appropriate for the site, staff recommends approval
of the PUD concept and development stage plans with the following conditions:
1. Execute PUD development agreement and provide the appropriate financial security for site work
(amount to be determined by building official and city engineer).
2. Comply with city engineer recommendations, per April 1, 2004, attached correspondence.
3. Approval of plans by building official.
4. Comply with West Metro Fire recommendations, as stated in report.
5. Comply with planner recommendations/conditions:
(1) Site Plan
a. Site density shall be 12.6 units per acre.
b. The site shall include a minimum of 29 percent open space.
c. Setbacks shall not vary from the setbacks illustrated on Sheet LI.0 as revised 3/26/04.
d. All proposed townhome units shall have a minimum width of 21 feet.
(2) Access and Circulation
a. The site will be served by a single access drive to Winnetka Avenue and three access drives
to Sumter Avenue. The site will be served internally by private drives. Private drives shall be
a minimum of 22 feet in width.
b. The applicant will install "No Thru Traffic" signs to address concerns regarding use of the
funeral home parking lot by through traffic.
c. The applicant will install "No Parking Fire Lane" signs along the internal private drives at
locations approved by the city engineer.
d. All snow storage for the site shall be accommodated on site. The homeowners association
shall keep the internal drives free of snow.
e. The applicant shall provide additional screening or take such other measures as may be
required to mitigate the impact of vehicle headlights on adjacent property fronting Sumter
Avenue to the east on the site.
(3) Parking
a. No parking will be allowed on private drives.
(4) Landscaping
a. Retaining walls are subject to review and comment of the city engineer and Public Works.
b. Fencing must meet the requirerflents of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance.
c. The applicant shall revise the plant schedule to include plant sizes for all foundation
plantings and correct discrepancies between plan and schedule.
d. All green spaces shall be irrigated.
(5) Signage
a. Monument signage must meet required setback and avoid traffic visibility triangles.
b. The applicant shall provide details for all address signs. Unit addresses must be clearly
visible from main drive aisles.
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 19 4/2/04
c. The applicant shall submit revised plans illustrating a signage plan indicating the location of
all "no parking fire lane" signs to be posted.
(6) Lighting
a. The applicant shall submit revised plans illustrating details for all proposed light fixtures.
b. All light fixtures shall be hooded and direct light downward.
c. The applicant shall submit revised plans illustrating the location or intensity of exterior
building lighting.
(7) Buildings
a. The applicant shall submit revised plans clearly illustrating
conjunction with the side doors for the end units.
b.
a stoop, landing or patio in
Planning Commission to determine if the applicant should submit revised plans illustrating a
variety of exterior materials for the individual townhome units to provide some diversity in
appearance and building materials.
c. The applicant shall submit revised plans illustrating the location of gas meter and air
conditioning units on the building elevations and addressing screening of such elements as
part of the overall landscape plan.
(8) Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control.
a. The adequacy of all proposed grading, drainage and erosion control is subject to the review
and approval of the city engineer.
b. The applicant shall provide storm water calculations.
c. The applicant shall provide a drainage and utility easement over the proposed pond.
(9) Utilities.
a. The applicant shall provide separate utility connections for each townhome unit.
Alternatively, the applicant shall adequately address condominium ownership of the
townhome units.
b. Overhead utilities on the site shall be buried.
(10) Homeowners Association
a. The homeowners association documents are subject to approval by the city attorney.
(11 ) Subdivision
a. The applicant shall submit a preliminary or condominium plat in accordance with the
requirements of the New Hope Subdivision Ordinance.
Attachments:
· Address/Zoning/Topo Maps ~
· 3/26/04 Petitioner Correspondence'
· 3/26/04 Architect Correspondence
· Plans: Site Plan
Lighting Plan
Monument Sign Plan
Planting Plan
Foundation Plans - Buildings A, B, C
Floor Plans - Buildings A, B, C
Elevations - Buildings A, B, C
Enlarged Floor Plans - Buildings A, B, C
Removal/Utility/Grading Plans
3/30/04 Planners Report
4/1/04 City Engineer Memorandum
Application Log
Planning Case Report 04-06 Page 20 4/2/04
ST. THERESE
NURSING
HOME
8008
80OO
7910
7go0
8
5539
7940
54.36 5437
15430 5431
~4265427
.~420 5421
Z
54.36 5437
5430 5431
5426 5427
5420 5421
5736 5732
5720
5716
5700 5704
5620
Z
I..d
5600
7800
5550 5559
o o F
~ ~ 5537
554O
5532 5531
5524 5519
5518 5509
5512
5501
5506
5500 5443
5446 5437
54.34 5427
5422 5423
7610
7
5538
5520 7621 / '
7708: P'' ~
I I I~s°~
55TH AVE
56TH ,~
5444. 5437
5438 5433
5428 .5429
5426 54-27
5436 '
RAI::::)HA FI
HOSTERMAN --.-_.=-=
JR HIGH ·
SCHOOL WINNETKA ~ .............
ELEMENTARY ..................................
SCHOOL ~ ................. :. ....... - ...... .--
.......................... ~t~'i':H A~_N ......
R-2
ST. RAPHAEL
.- --~AT HOUC
~E CHURCH
'..'-. -'.'.l,l~ 1.-'-"' _ .............. ~r ..................
........ '~' ................. :Z ..................
..... ~ ..... ; ...... ;~,, : ~<~ ...............
....... i ....... ~=- ............ !,., ............. . ........ -.--
......................................... ~ .................. --: ...........
.......... :::.-':-..-'.-::' :'_:?~;_." _:i:_':: = .... - ....... ' ......
I~L
; $3~D AVE~
'' '"/--:. ' ' : ..... i ......
0
i
X' 9~5.2
Master
Engineering. Development- Construction
New Hope Town Home Redevelopment
5620 Winnetka Avenue North
Armory Development II LLC, in partnership with Master Development
Group, is proposing to redevelop the former Franks Nursery & Craft site as
forty units of homeownership housing in an attractive combination of
rowhouses, two story rowhouses, and two story townhomes. This
development is the result of a partnership with the City of New Hope, who
has named our development team the preferred developer for the site and
is providing a TIF financing package to make this development a reality.
We are requesting approval of our development plan from the Planning
Commission, including rezoning and planned unit development (PUD)
approvals. The development as envisioned meets City of New Hope goals
of creating life cycle housing and conforms to the master plan in effect for
the Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake Road area.
The development team and architect, Tushie Montgomery Architects, have
been working closely with City of New Hope staff to review the design,
access, and green space in light of City goals and guidelines. The
resulting final design achieves the City's vision of creating a vibrant mix of
housing options in a layout that promotes safety and livability while
contributing to the natural environment.
The housing units will be divided into six buildings, a design which allows
for flexibility in the construction process and creates green space around
each unit. The plan presented for approval provides a large pond as both
an amenity and a method of attaining watershed goals. Overall, the plan
creates higher density housing in a layout that will maintain a sense of
spaciousness and openness.
Two of the buildings will front Winnetka Avenue and be consist of twelve
rowhomes approximately 1,500 - 1,800 sf each, with main entries on
Winnetka and parking at the rear of each unit. These units are expected to
be priced between $180,000 and $220,000.
Four of the buildings will be set in the center of the site and will be phased
in during the sales cycle. These homes will consist of two-story units at
approximately 1,700 - 1,900 sf and will be priced ranging from $195,000 -
$230,000.
The exterior of the units will be a mixture of brick or stone material, cedar
trim, clad windows, hardi-plank, vinyl or comparable material siding. There
will be professionally designed, installed, and maintained landscaping
through out the site.
The interior of the units will be professionally designed interiors with
upgraded standard finishes. Some of the finishes include:
· Pre- engineered hardwood flooring
· Designer selected lighting package
· Designer selected paint palette
· European custom designed wood cabinets
· Energy efficient stainless steel appliances
· Natural hardwood millwork
The development team is excited about bdnging this high quality
development to the City of New Hope. We hope to break ground in
summer 2004, with the first units ready for occupancy in spring 2005.
Condominium Association Information
The development will be maintained over the long term by a condominium
association that will govern the entire parcel and the forty townhomes.
Because of the layout of the site and the many development features that
are shared among all homeowners (e.g., pond, common streets, visitor
parking stalls, landscaping), the development is best defined and governed
by one condominium association. Each townhome unit will be individually
owned and maintained, but condominium association rules and regulations
will establish guidelines for maintenance and upkeep of each building's
exterior, of the landscaping, extedor parking stalls, and private streets.
The association will charge monthly dues to each homeowner to cover the
costs of shared maintenance and improvement expenses. A few other
issues unique to this development will be addressed in the condominium
association documents. Specifically, the condominium association will be
responsible for maintenance of the storm water retention pond. The
condominium association wi'~'l also provide that snow loading will be
accommodated where reflected in the site plan submitted to the City of
New Hope, and will provide that if snow loading needs exceed that
capacity, then the snow will be hauled off-site. Establishing a Common
Interest Community (CIC) condominium association is the most appropriate
legal definition of the proposed project, and will best achieve the goals of
long-term care and maintenance of the property.
T L' S H I E
MONTGOM ERh'
ARCHITECTS
March 26, 2004
Amy Baldwin
City Planner
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Winnetka Townhomes
Dear Ms Baldwin,
The following is a summary of the concerns raised by the City. We have addressed each item as it pertains
to the drawings or discussion and have shown our responses in italics.
Design
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Review Committee comments March 18, 2004
10' separation between the two See-Thru buildings fronting Winnetka. We have moved these
buildings as recommended by Staff
Poor circulation pattern. We have added two entrances off Sumter as recommended by Staff
Concerns of large vehicular movement through the site. We have changed the radii o'n aH cuta'es
within the site to 20' radii.
Enlarge radius at Winnetka. We have enlarged the radius from Winnetka to the site to 20 '.
Concern with through traffic through the Funeral Home parking lot. We have added "No Through
Tra2~c" signs at the Funeral Home entrance.
Storm water calculations will be forwarded to your staff by the Ehvner.
Concern of vehicular headlight impact to the neighbors across Sumter. We have added a Site
Section drawing to study the headlight impact upon the Neighbors across Sumter.
Concern with adequacy of tandem garages. The tandem garages are designed to house two
vehicles; one behind the other. The management of these vehicles will be placed upon the resident
of the home. We believe that .this arrangement provides the best parking accommodations for the
· width of the unit. This will be a market choice for the home buyer as thesepeople will be
encouraged to park in the garage.
Size of Snow Storage areas. We have calculated snow storage areas throughout the site. These
areas are calculated to meet the ordinance for snow storage, but if these areas prove to be
inadequate, the excess snow will be stored in the pond.
Sidewalks throughout the project. We have added two sidewalks for residents to access l~nnetka :
from the interior of the site.
Trees along Sumter are located within the Right-of-Way. We have relocated the trees to be within
our property.
Ornamental shade trees sized at 1.5~'. We have increased the size of the ornamental shade trees to
be 2" as recommended by Staff.
Foundation shrub plant sizes have been included in the Plant List.
.4ll areas of the site to be landscaped sha11 be irrigated..4 note has been added to the Landscape
drawing.
Concern about landscaping around the air conditioning condensers and gas meters. We have
provided an enlarged plan showing the landscaping in these areas.
Concern was raised about the design of the monument sign. The sign has been re-designed to use
more durable materials and is included in the set of drawings.
7645 Lvndale Avenue South, # 100
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423
Amy Baldwin
City of New Hope
Wintletka Townhomes
March 26, 2004
Page 2 of 3
17. Concern regarding the monument sign location due to traffic vision triangle. The monument sign
has been relocated to ensure proper vision onto Winnetka.
18. Concern over size of the 19'x20'-3" garage. We understand that this size garage is acceptable to
the CIO'. '
19. Exterior doors at end units. These doors are designed to have a patio attached to thc home.
20. Clarify building materials at all units. We have incorporated cultured stone into the corners of the
buildings to tie aH of the buildings on site together. In addition, the buildings have var~qng
protrusions throughout to provide visual interest. We have differentiated the buildings'by
providing similar, yet different colors schemes to pairs of buildings as will be evident by the
colored elevations which will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting.
21. Concern was raised about the adequacy of the tandem garages. The tandem garages are designed
to house two vehicles; one behind the other. The management of these vehicles will be placed
upon the resident of the home. We believe that this arrangement provides the best parking
accommodations for the width of the unit. This will be a market choice for the home buyer as these
people will be encouraged to park in the garage.
22. Concern regarding the 21' width of the unit. We understand that the width of the unit is acceptable
to the City.
23. Consider alternative materials to break up the long bailding appearance of the See-Thru building
fronting Winnetka (Building C). We have incorporated cultured stone into the corners of the
buildings to tie aH of the buildings on site together. In addition, aH of the buildings (including
Building C fronting Winnetka) have varying protrusions throughout to provide visual interest. We
have differentiated the siding by using vertical and horizontal patterns of siding. In addition, the
siding will also be differentiated by complementary colors as will be evident by the colored
elevations which will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting.
24. Consider stone or brick at the entries of the units fronting Winnetka. We wouM discourage the use
of these expensive materials at locations which will be hidden by shade and shadow as well as
areas which will be covered by air conditioning condensers, gas meters and lawn.furniture. We
have provided more visual interest to the Winnetka elevation by varying the colors of the siding as
described in the statement above.
25. Photometric plan was submitted and has not changed.
26. Provide detail ofs~'eet signs, address signs, and mailboxes. These items have been located on the
Site Plan.
27. The Owner shaH forward the Homeowners documents to the City Attorney.
28. City Engineer to determine storm water overflow to apartments to north. The stormwater
calculations shah be forwarded by the Civil.
29. North retaining wall to be removed. Civil to forward more information as to the extent of retaining
wall removal.
30. Grading Plan will be re-submitted by Civil.
31. Retaining wall at pond shaH be rock boulder as shown on revised drawings.
32. Easement and maintenance agreement shah be forward to the City by the Owner.
33. Sanitary sewer and water service shown as one point of service to each building. These buildings
will be organized as per Condominium Plat. It is our understanding that one sanita sewer a
water service is allowed under the Condo--;-".- '~' ......... ry nd
,,-,,,,,urn rtut. ~ne Outlatngs are organized to have a
water room located at one end of the building with an electric room located at the other end of the
building.
34. Water connections at Sumter and Winnetka. Civil to forward most current set of Utility Plans to
the City.
35. Fire hydrant locations shah be coordinated with Fire Marshal and Civil Engineer.
36. AH fire Hydrants shah have marker flags and be posted with Fire Lane signage.
Amy Baldwin
City of New Hope
Winnetka Townhomes
March 26, 2004
Page 3 of 3
3Z One building address has been located per building. The units shall have a letter ass(ened to each
unit and these shall be posted at the front doors of the units.
38. "No Parking Fire Lane" signage has been located on the site plan.
39. All buildings shall be sprinkled. A note has been placed on the plans.
Thank you for your c~nsideration to this project. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to
give me a call. J/,
/ /rv ·
Prbject ~t~t
PROJECT TEAM
PREPARED FOR ,
WINNETKA TOWNHOMES
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
i"IA~TER CIVIL AND CONSTRUCTION ENG , INC TIJSHIE P1ONTGOP'IER¥ ARCI'IITECTS
ABBREVIATIONS
SITE LOCATION
~"~'~' ~ ,l ,' ,
GENERAL NOTES
T U 1
~ ~,~,~, ~,~o, IMONTGOMBRYJ
cs .... ,.~ JARCHITECTSJ
(commer¢ial-~jas station)
(resident Jol-aportments)
~' 51DE SETBACK
(commecciol-Fur~erol Home.)
N
I
)ULDER RETAINING
DEVELOPMENT DATA
SITE AREA ..... 1~7,~7& SF, 317 AC
TOTAL LA'IT5 ........ 40 L~IT5
~IL~ LOT C~ERAGE. ~ ~, ~
I~ERV~ SURFACE.~~ ~
O$1TE SECTION AT BLDG,'A' BT 5UMTER
~WINNETKAT'
C)~N,..u,r'I, FNT SIGN FRONT I"~MON. SIGN $1DJE e~NUMJENT SIGN REAR
O.PLANTING P~_AN
N
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.i
I
I
L5 0
®®
SITE PLAN REVIEW CITY SUBMITTAL
WINNETKA TOWNHOMES
5620 Winnetka Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota
®® CL.
L
SITE PLAN REVIEW CITY SUBMITTAL
WINNETKA TOWNHOMES
5620 Winnetka Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota
®® ®
®®
®
SITE PLAN REVIEW CITY SUBMI'I~AL
WINNETKA TOWNHOMES
5620 Winnetka Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota
e
eF,~,N..T,.~ R~AP. ELEVATION - BUILDING
'C'
QRIGt-'IT 51DE ELEVATION - BUILDING 'C'
O O e
S~OH_kL~OE
mosouu!-I~. ';~doH -~1~!
I~OM a'nua~AV I~T'-I~IILI!A~- 0~9~
SEIIAIOHN_/~O,I, V)I,I,EtlqlqlA~
"I'V,,LI,II~I_r'IS ~I,ID AtlitIA~tH lq'~IcI ELI, Is
® ®
mos~uuT~. '~IOH ~hI
q'~ol~I onuo~v ~r~um./~ 099~
S~t~OHlq~O& V>IJ~IXlIXlI/B.
¸:.%
® ®
"2
mos~uu~. 'odoH
~Uol~ onu~¥ ~ouu~.A,~ 0g9g
S~[F~OHNA~O/.
® ®
®®
Z
?
® ®
i
I
HI,ION 3nN3AV V>t±BNNI/~
e
. L~H~IIIIIIIIIIIIJ ~
I I !
3nN3AV~ ~31NflS
~.8'IOgo -:I.O0,80.OON ~
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
NAC File No.
Kirk McDonald
Alan Brixius / Anne Marie Solberg
March 31,2004
New Hope - Winnetka Townhomes (Franks Nursery Site)
131.01 - 04.06
BACKGROUND
Armory Development II LLC in partnership with Master Development Group is
requesting a redevelopment opportunity for the Franks Nursery site located at 5620
Winnetka Avenue North in New Hope. The site consists of 3.167 acres and is currently
occupied by a stand alone commemial building. The applicant is proposing to remove
all existing buildings and parking areas to accommodate redevelopment of the site with
urban-style townhomes. The proposed development has been reviewed by the staff
development team and the Design and Review Committee. The applicant had revised
the plans to address issues identified during such review process. In review of revised
development plans, the following comments and recommendations are offered for
consideration of the Planning Commission and City Council.
PROCESSING
To accommodate the proposal, the following approvals are necessary:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A Comprehensive Plan amendment changing
the land use of the property from commercial to high density residential is
necessary to make it conSistent with New Hope'.s Comprehensive Plan.
Rezoning. Currently, the site is zoned CB, Community Business. A rezoning of
the property from CB, Community Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development
District is necessary to accommodate the proposed use. A planned unit
development district is necessary to accommodate the change of land use and to
allow for flexibilities above and beyond the standard townhouse or medium
density zoning district to accommodate the density and the setbacks that are
being requested within the development. The City will have to make a
determination as to the range of flexibility that would be permitted in allowing for
this redevelopment to occur.
Approval of a concept and development stage planned unit development. This
part of the PUD rezoning is necessary to establish specific flexibilities allowed
within this redevelopment related to setbacks, density, traffic circulation, use of
private streets, and other items which will be identified later in this review.
Subdivision. The property must be replatted to create individual townhome lots
or condominium ownership of the townhomes. A preliminary plat and final plat
will have to be processed.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
As previously indicated, the development proposal will require a change of the City's
land use plan. The 1998 New Hope Comprehensive Plan land use plan suggests
commercial uses at the corner of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. The Livable
Communities Task Force has identified the Franks Nursery site as a redevelopment
target site.
· Through the Task Force review, it was suggested that a redevelopment with a medium
to high-density residential land use was appropriate for this site. The concept that was
presented by Master Development Group was seen as preferred which included the
redevelopment of the site for townhomes. In this respect, the past review of the-
potential land uses for this site would suggest that the proposed land use is appropriate
and the land use change should be pursued.
Rezoning
The applicant has requested a planned unit development zoning designation to provide
design and density flexibility. In evaluating the PUD, it will be compared to the City's
R-4, High Density Residential District to show where the flexibilities are being requested
and the differences between the standard R-4 and the higher density PUD district that is
being proposed. Section 4-32 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance outlines the criteria
for considering a change in zoning as follows:
(1) The zoning amendment is necessary to correct a past zoning mistake.
(2)
The character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of an
amendment. /
(3)
The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific
policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to provide for grouping of
buildings in an integrated and coordinated design. The PUD is intended to introduce
flexibility from typical site design requirements and architectural controls for the
conservation of land and to encourage creative environments that might not otherwise
be accommodated through the strict application of New Hope's Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances.
The proposed development is of an urban character that does not fit with New Hope's
standard high-density residential zoning district. The PUD zoning district allows the
Planning Commission and City Council to evaluate the requested zoning based on the
merit of the proposed development.
It is apparent that through the Comprehensive Plan and the City's redevelopment efforts
that the character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of Comprehensive
Plan amendment and change in zoning. The proposed redevelopment is consistent
with the land use objectives of the Comprehensive Plan related to the City's housing
needs and redevelopment goals and policies. The Planning Commission and City
Council will, however, need to evaluate the details of the submitted plan and determine
whether the densities and the flexibilities being requested are consistent with the City's
objectives and the spirit of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance.
The past zoning was appropriate for the prior land uses, however, the character of the
area has changed and redevelopment has been recommended for this project site by
the Comprehensive Plan. As a mature fully developed community, New Hope has
targeted a number of areas for residential redevelopment as a means of promoting
reinvestment into the community and offering new housing options within the City. The
1997 Life Cycle Housing Study for year 2010 identified the following housing needs for
New Hope:
Higher Value, Move Up Housing. Due to the lack of vacant land supply in
New Hope, this housing need must be met through continued
maintenance upgrading and modernization of existing single family
housing stock. The City may also look to satisfy the housing need through
redevelopment of blighted sites which may have amenities that would be
attractive to higher value medium or high density housing options.
Owner Occupied or Rental Attached Housing. The Life Cycle Housing
Study identified the need for attached housing (townhomes, twinhomes,
cooperative apartments) that offer Iow maintenance, independent housing
opportunities. These types of housing opportunities are attractive to
empty nesters or older residents wishing to live in New Hope.
Affordable Rental. The Life Cycle Housing Study identified a need for
additional affordable rental units before year 2010. Due to the City's
extensive rental housing supply, these units can be provided through
rental assistance certificates for use within existing rental units.
Special Needs Housing, New Hope has made special efforts to provide
housing for people with special needs, such as the elderly and disabled.
New Hope will continue to expand its special needs housing stock as
opportunities present themselves.
The proposed Winnetka Townhomes housing project will provide upscale urban-style
townhomes that fit the description of categories 1 and 2 above. The change in zoning is
also consistent with the New Hope residential goals and policies as follows:
RESIDENTIAL GOALS
Goal 1:
Provide a variety of housing types, styles and choices to meet the
needs of New Hope's changing demographics.
Policies:
Through infill development and redevelopment efforts, increase life cycle
housing opportunities not currently available within the City (i.e., high
value housing, townhomes). -
Promote medium density attached housing to address the needs of an
expanding empty nester or independently living elderly population.
Goal 3:
Promote multiple family housing alternatives as an attractive life
cycle housing option.
Policies:
B. Adhere to the highest community design and construction standards for
new construction and redevelopment projects.
Accompany medium and high-density development with adequate
accessory amenities such as garages, parking, open space, landscaping,
and recreational facilities to insure a safe, functional, and desirable living
environment.
Surrounding Land Use
The subject site is surrounded by the following land uses:
· To the north, high density residential (Wincrest Apartments);
· To the south, commercial uses'including automotive repair and a funeral home;
· To the east, single family residential development east of Sumter Avenue. This
area lies within the City of Crystal; and
· To the west, St. Therese elderly housing complex west of Winnetka Avenue.
The proposed introduction of townhomes to this area is seen as being appropriate
based on the adjoining densities and the land use relationships.
General Site Layout
The proposed redevelopment project creates a high-density urban townhome
neighborhood bounded by Winnetka Avenue North and Sumter Avenue North. The
development plan incorporates six buildings that will house 40 townhome units. The
plan also includes a large pond area within the development that provides both an
amenity and a method of attaining watershed goals.
Two row home-style townhome buildings front onto Winnetka Avenue. Each building
houses six residential units (12 units total) that range in size from 1,500 square feet to
1,800 square feet. The buildings have a reduced setback to the street to conserve land
and create an attractive urban streetscape.
Four back-to-back style townhome buildings will be located in the center of the site, with
two buildings on either side of the proposed pond area. The plans illustrate two building
styles, one style accommodating eight total units and one style accommodating six total
units. Two buildings of each style are proposed, housing a total of 28 units. These
residential units range in size from 1,700 square feet to 1,900 square feet.
Landscaping is proposed to screen the single-family neighborhood from the traffic and
side yards of the townhomes.
Access to the proposed development will be provided from Sumter Avenue and
Winnetka Avenue. The development will be served internally by private streets.
Density and Lot Area Per Unit
The plans indicate that the total site area is 137,976 square feet (3.167 acres). Locating
the proposed 40 townhome units on the site will result in a gross density of one unit per
3,450 square feet (12.6. units per acre). Within the R-4 District, a minimum lot size of
5,000 square feet per townhome unit is required, which is equivalent to 8.5 units per
acre. The applicant is requesting density flexibility through the planned unit
development. Allowance of the increased density is dependent upon the City approving
site design flexibilities discussed in subsequent paragraphs.
Open Space
The New Hope Zoning Ordinance provides that within residential districts, buildings and
structures of any type, parking areas, or other features shall not occupy more than 65
percent of the lot area resulting in less than 35 percent open space. The development
data shown on the site plan indicates that the proposed development includes '71
percent impervious surface coverage with 29 percent open space. The proposed
development does not meet the open space requirements of the New Hope Zoning
Ordinance. Flexibility to reduce the open space requirement for this development is
being requested through the planned unit development.
Setbacks -;:
The standard setbacks in an R-4, High Density Residential District are as follows:
R-4 District Standards Required Proposed
front yard setback from local street 25 feet from 16 feet 'from the
(Sumter Avenue) property line property line
front yard setback from arterial street 30 feet from the 15 feet from the
(Winnetka Avenue) property line property line
side yard setback for interior lot line 10 feet from the
required lot line
Front Yard Comments. A reduced setback is acceptable if it provides an attractive
urban streetscape appeal. The architecture and appearance of the proposed townhome
units abutting Winnetka Avenue should complement the sidewalk areas and
landscaping and provide an attractive urban feel along the street.
The reduced setback along Sumter Avenue is appropriate as a means of conserving
space within the overall redevelopment site. In this area, only side elevations of the two
buildings are exposed, limiting the number of units directly fronting along Sumter
Avenue to four units. -
Side Yard Comments. The applicant illustrates setbacks from the adjoining properties
greater than 10 feet with the exception of the northwest corner where the setback is 10
feet from the Wincrest Apartments property. Of concern is the 10 foot separation
between the two townhome buildings located along Winnetka Avenue. Application of
the side yard setbacks within the R-4 District would typically result in 20 feet of
separation between buildings. The 10 foot separation would have'to be evaluated to
determine whether it meets both Fire Code and meets the City's expectation as far as
design criteria under the PUD.
Access and Circulation
The applicant has revised the site access and circulation plan. The plans now illustrate
that the site will be served by a single access drive to Winnetka Avenue and three
access drives to Sumter Avenue. The site will be served internally by private drives.
Winnetka Avenue Access. The Winnetka Avenue access drive is a shared access with
the funeral home located southeast of the site. To address concerns regarding use of
the funeral home parking lot by through traffic, the applicant is proposing to install "No
Thru Traffic" signs. The applicant h~s also enlarged the turning radius for the access
drive from Winnetka Avenue to 20 feet to address concerns regarding vehicular
maneuverability. ·
Sumter Avenue Access. The plans indicate that the-proposed private drives located on
the north and south side of the site have been extended through to Sumter Avenue,
creating a loop that permits traffic to circulate through the site. The plans also illustrate
a third access to Sumter Avenue that exclusively serves eight units. The radii of all
curves within the site have been increased to 20 feet to address concerns regarding
maneuverability. Access to Sumter Avenue should be approached with sensitivity to the
existing single-family residential properties to the east of the site. The applicant has
provided a site section on Plan L1.1 to demonstrate the impact of vehicle headlights on
adjacent property fronting Sumter Avenue to the east on the site. Screening of
headlights off of the development and into nearby residences may be required.
Internal Private Drives. The private drives within the development are 22 feet wide.
The Design and Review Committee raised concerns regarding circulation within the site
and vehicular maneuverability. To address these concerns, the applicant incorporated
two additional entrances to the site from Sumter Avenue. In addition, the applicant has
increased the radii of all curves within the site to 20 feet. The site design continues to
rely upon the utilization of the private driveways as a means of turning vehicles around
at the end of the dead-end drives. In addition, trucks entering the dead-end private
drive accessed via Sumter Avenue that services eight units will be required to back out
of the site onto Sumter Avenue.
Snow Storaqe. The dimensions and setbacks preserve approximately 5,574 total
square feet of snow storage that is scattered throughout the site with very small snow
storage areas located at the ends of each driveway within the side yard setbacks.
These areas are not sufficient to accommodate snow storage on site. Snow storage
could impede upon the private drives and parking area, adding further concerns
regarding traffic circulation and off-street parking. The applicant indicates that excess
snow will be stored in the pond in the event the proposed snow storage plan proves
inadequate.
Parking
The New Hope Zoning Ordinance requires one enclosed parking space and one and
one-quarter surface parking spaces for each townhome unit. Based upon such formula,
40 townhome units require 40 enclosed parking spaces and 50 surface parking
spaces(90 total parking spaces (40 X 2.25 = 90)). The site plan indicates the following
parking accommodations:
Enclosed parking (2 car garage stalls per unit)
Tandem parking (driveway parking)
Surface parking
80
72
15
167 total parking provided
The site plan illustrates 95 total parking spaces, exclusive of driveway parking. As each
townhome is illustrated to have a two car garage, eighty (80) of the parking spaces
provided are enclosed parking spaces.
Garage Parking
1. Each townhome is illustrated to have a two-car garage. The plans indicate that
tandem garage parking is proposed for eight interior units of Building C, which is
located along Winnetka Avenue North. The dimensions of the proposed tandem
garages are indicated as 11.5 feet in width by 41.5 feet in length. The tandem
parking arrangement, illustrated on Sheet A-4.3, is unique to the subdivision.
Design and Review determined that the proposed garage dimensions were
adequate, taking into consideration storage of vehicles and ancillary equipment
such as trash and recycling bins.. The Planning Commission must make a
determination as to the adequate size of these garages to serve the storage
needs of the tenants.
The plans indicate that the proposed two-car garages in the end units of
Buildings A, B, and C are dimensioned as 19 feet in width and 20 feet in length.
The applicant has illustrated the parking of two vehicles within the garage per
request of City staff: the pick up truck represents a vehicle similar to a Ford
Ranger or Chevy S-10 pick up and the automobile represents a size of car
equivalent to a Chevy Cavalier. The distance between the vehicles and side
walls ranges from one foot nine inches to two foot six inches with a separation
between cars of approximately three and one-half feet.
Staff was concerned that the garages may not be adequate to accommodate a full size
pick up truck or larger passenger car and may lead to parking on the driveway leading
into the garage. Furthermore, concerns with the garage dimensions and configurations
· are noted by staff on the basis that the flexibilities that are being requested as to
setbacks, garage depths, driveway depths, and private streets are all inter-related and if
they do not function properly, they will have an effect on the other flexibilities that are
being requested. Design and Review determined that the proposed garage dimensions
were adequate, taking into consideration storage of vehicles and ancillary equipment
such as trash and recycling bins. The Planning Commission must make a
determination as to the adequate size of these garages to serve the storage needs of
the tenants. ·
Driveway Parking
1. The plans illustrate 72 "tandem" parking spaces, which refers to driveway parking
spaces. The driveways in front of all double garages are dimensioned with a
minimum width of 18 feet and the length between garage and curb of 20 feet.
This is compliant with City requirements for parking stall spaces. Snow storage
areas present some concern as far as the backing movements in and out of the
individual garages and driveway areas related to traffic visibility.
The driveways in front of all "tandem" garages are dimensioned with a minimum
width of 11.5 feet and the length between garage and curb of 20 feet.
Additional Surface Parking. Fifteen additional surface parking spaces are provided on
site. Two parking stalls are proposed at the end of each private drive. Access or
egress to these proposed parking stalls would require backing into the driveways of the
end units. Additionally, if these parking stalls are occupied, it may limit the turning
movements from the end units in exiting their driveway. No parking will be allowed on
private drives.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks have been provided from the entrance of the individual townhome units to
their individual driveway areas. Each townhome unit along Winnetka Avenue has a
sidewalk that extends to and connects with the existing Winnetka Avenue sidewalk. In
addition, the plans illustrate a sidewalk extending from the Winnetka Avenue sidewalk to
the internal private drive in the northwest area of the site and a sidewalk extending
along the northern side of the access drive to existing Winnetka Avenue sidewalk.
Sidewalks extending along either side of the center access driveway to Sumter Avenue
are also illustrated. In review of the sidewalk configurations, there does not appear to
be any type of segregated internal pedestrian circulation pattern being proposed.
Pedestrians from Buildings A and B would be required to walk along the private drives
to access the sidewalk along Winnetka Avenue.
Landscape Plan
The landscape plan is illustrated on Sheet L3.0.
offer the following comments:
In review of the landscape plan, we
The landscape plan preserves a number of over story trees along the north
property line, which is a very positive element. Infill landscaping including techny
arborvitae and northern burgundy vibernum is proposed to provide a visual
screening of the Wincrest Apartments.
The applicant is proposing a streetscape along Winnetka Avenue that
incorporates eight swamp white oak trees spaced along the front of the 12
townhome units. A similar streetscape including six swamp white oak trees is
proposed along Sumter Avenue. The plans have been revised to reflect
placement of the swamp white oak trees proposed along Sumter Avenue within
the property boundaries rather than within the street right-of-way.
The plant materials for shade trees meet City requirements. The applicant has
revised the landscaping plan to substitute 2.0 inch caliper pagoda dogwood and
wafer ash for the previously proposed 1.5 inch caliper Donald Wyman crabapple
and red splendor crabapple.
Along the foundation, the applicant is using a series of shrubs including arctic
blue leaf willow, sea green junipers, and summer nine bark. The applicant has
not provided plant sizes for these elements and this must be included in the plant
schedule.
In conjunction with the shrubs that are planted at the perimeter of the buildings,
perennials are also included in the area around the pond and the center of the
site is intended to be seeded with MnDOT BWSR Mix #1 wetland fringe native
seed mixture.
The landscaping plan (L3.0) indicates that all landscaping shall be irrigated
unless otherwise noted. Irrigation of green spaces should be a requirement of
the PUD to insure tong term maintenance of the landscaping.
o
The landscape plan should also illustrate the location of heating and air
conditioning equipment to ensure proper screening of these devices. The
applicant has provided an enlarged entry plan (L1.1) illustrating proposed
landscape screening for heating and air conditioning equipment.
o
The plans indicate that a retaining wall and fence along the north property line
will be removed. The plans do not indicate that these elements will be replaced.
Details must be provided in the event that replacement for such elements are
anticipated.
$ignage
The applicant is proposing monument signage for the proposed development. One
monument sign is proposed on the north side of the Winnetka Avenue site access and
one monument sign is proposed on the north side of the center access to Sumter
Avenue.
The details regarding the proposed monument sign are illustrated on Sheet L2.1. The
plan indicates that the proposed monument sign will be six feet in height and eight feet
in length. The sign face is illustrated to be approximately 17.5 square feet in area (five
feet by approximately three and one-half feet). The sign face will be supported by two
stone columns measuring six feet in height and one and one-half feet in width.
The applicant has redesigned the sign to use more durable materials. Plan L2.1
indicates that each monument sign will be supported by two stone with stone caps. The
sign face will consist of vertical siding to match the building exteriors, painted wood trim,
aluminum flashing and die cut aluminum letters.
The sign location must also be located at least ten feet from the Winnetka and Sumter
Avenue property lines and must be located outside of the traffic visibility triangle that
extends 20 feet from the curb cut, north along the property lines, and along the common
drive to insure that views of traffic along Winnetka and Sumter Avenues is unobstructed.
The applicant is proposing signage to prohibit egress onto the funeral home property.
Details pertaining to the "no thru traffic" signs and their proposed location are indicated
on the plans.
10
The plans include details for proposed "no parking fire lane" signs but do not indicate
the proposed location of such signs.
Details should be provided for all address signs. Unit addresses must be visible from
main drive aisles.
Architecture
The applicant is proposing two architectural styles within the proposed subdivision.
Buildings A and B are illustrated as back-to-back townhome structures with a similar
architectural style, while Building C is illustrated as a row style townhome structure
incorporating a combination of two story end units and three story interior units.
Following is a description of the proposed architecture and the concerns raised with the
development.
Building styles A and B. Building styles A and B are illustrated as back-to-back
townhome structures. Building style A includes eight units (four units back to back) and
Building style B includes six units (three units back to back). The plans illustrate two
style A and two style B buildings on the site. Individual units within Building styles A
and B range in floor area (exclusive of garage space) from 1,448 square feet (interior
units) to 1,527 square feet (end units). In review of Building styles A and B, the
following issues are raised:
The garage size is 19 feet wide by 20 feet three inches in depth. Design and
Review determined that the proposed garage dimensions were adequate, taking
into consideration storage of vehicles and ancillary equipment such as trash and
recycling bins. The Planning Commission must make a determination as to the
adequate size of these garages to serve the storage needs of the tenants.
The site plan illustrates side doors for the end units. The site plan does not give
a clear depiction as to whether there will be a stoop or landing or patio located on
these end units. The site plan should reflect the developer's intention in these
areas.
Sheet A3.0 illustrates the exterior elevations of Building styles A and B. The
predominant building materials are illustrated as asphalt shingles and vinyl
siding. While the exterior elevations illustrate a stone treatment on the end units,
the exterior material is labeled vinyl shake siding.
The applicant has implemented changes in the siding from vertical to horizontal
to provide some architectural interest. Staff suggests that a variety of textured
materials be provided for the individual units to provide some diversity in
appearance and building materials. Staff also suggests that the end units include
a stone or brick veneer which may then be extended as a wainscot across the
front of the units and around the garages to provide some break up of the vinyl
appearance.
11
Gas meter and air conditioning units are intended to be located on the sides of
the end units. These should be illustrated on the building elevations and
addressed as part of the overall landscape plan related to screening. Interior
units of Building styles A and B have their air conditioner and gas meter located
near the entry point. Again, these should be identified on the building elevation
and address as part of the overall site screening and landscaping.
Based on City definition, the height of the proposed building, measured at the
average of the gable, is 28 feet, which is compliant with City standards.
Building style C. Building style C is illustrated as: a row style townhome structure
incorporating a combination of two story end units and three story interior units. The
plans illustrate two style C buildings containing six units each. In review of Building
style C, the following issues are raised:
End units within the style C buildings provide two floors of living area consisting
of approximately 1,700 total square feet, exclusive of the garage. The end units
include a two-car garage with dimensions of 19 feet in width by 20 feet in depth.
The interior units within the style C buildings provide three floors of living area
consisting of approximately 1,800 square feet of floor area, exclusive of the
garage. The interior units are include a "tandem" garage arrangement with
dimensions of 11.5 feet in width by 41.5 feet in depth.
The City requires all townhome units to have a minimum width of 24 feet. The
interior units within the style C building are 21 feet in width. Flexibility from this
standard is being requested through the PUD if the Planning Commission
determines that the units have adequate living area.
The building elevations for Building style C are illustrated on Sheet A3.1. The
elevation illustrates some vertical treatment through changes in facade, decks
over the garages, and decks serving the third story bedrooms. The primary
building material will be four inch vinyl siding. Staff suggests that a mixture of
materials and textures be provided for the individual units to provide some
diversity in appearance and building materials. Brick/stone wainscot introduced
near the garages and entryways will certainly contribute to the character of the
building.
The west (rear) elevation of the style C building has a relatively fiat face along
Winnetka Avenue. This elevation illustrates vinyl vertical and horizontal siding as
the primary exterior building material. While the end units incorporate a stone
treatment, it is identified as vinyl shake siding. With the reduced setback along
Winnetka Avenue, the appearance of the building becomes much more
predominant. Staff recommends the introduction of alternative building materials
such as brick or stone to accent the entrances and the first floor of the units. A
12
variety of exterior building materials may mitigate the flat exterior and add
character to the Winnetka streetscape.
Gas meters and air conditioning units are illustrated as located at the rear of the
building, which faces Winnetka Avenue. The landscape plan and building
elevations should illustrate the location of these units so that there are
assurances that they are properly screened.
Grading and Drainage
The applicant has submitted a preliminary grading and erosion control plan (C2) that
illustrates a storm water pond at the center of the property. This should be reviewed in
conjunction with the overall site design and traffic circulation within the property. The
adequacy of all proposed grading, drainage and erosion control is subject to the review
and approval of the City Engineer. The applicant must provide storm water calculations
and a drainage and utility easement over the proposed pond.
Utilities
The applicant has submitted a preliminary utility plan (C3) that illustrates the extension
of utilities through the proposed development. City ordinance requires that each
townhome have separate utilities. The applicant's preliminary utility plan illustrates a
single connection for sanitary sewer and water for each building. Utility connections will
affect how the land is subdivided and must be addressed. The preliminary utility plan
submitted by the applicant would necessitate condominium ownership. The City
Engineer has recommended that overhead utilities serving the site be buried.
Lighting
The applicant has submitted a site lighting plan (L2.0). The plan specifies two different
light fixtures illustrated at ten locations throughout the site. Details are provided for only
one style of light fixture mounted on a 20-foot pole. The fixture appears to be hooded
with a ninety degree cut off.
The New Hope Zoning Ordinance provides that light sources shall be hooded or
controlled in a manner so as not to light adjacent property. Additionally, light cast on
residential property shall not exceed one foot candle as measured at or on the adjoining
property.
The photometric plan indicates lighting of varying intensity measuring a maximum of 0.8
foot candles on the northern property line, 0.3 foot candles on the east property line, 0.5
foot candles over the south property.fine and 0.0 foot candles along the west property
line. The lighting plan does not indicate the location or intensity of exterior building
lighting.
Accessory Equipment
The applicant has submitted revised plans incorporating information regarding the
location of mailboxes. Details regarding street signs and address signs must be
13
included as part of the PUD- review. These elements are necessary in light of traffic
circulation and parking arrangements.
Subdivision
While the applicant is requesting subdivision and platting approval, we have not
received a preliminary plat indicating how the applicant will subdivide the property (i.e.
whether it is intended to be a unit lot configuration or a condominium subdivision). This
element has to be submitted as part of the overall application.
Homeowners Association
The applicant must provide homeowners association documents for City Attorney
review. These documents must be filed with the final plat.
Fire Code Comments
West Metro Fire Rescue conducted a plan review on the above-mentioned site on
March 16, 2004 and the following will be required:
1. Four fire hydrants shall be required throughout the project, no more than 350 feet
apart.
West Metro Fire Rescue shall determine all fire hydrant locations after the final
site plan has been approved.
3. All fire hydrants shall have marker flags and be posted with fire lane signs to
prevent blocked access.
4. Address posting shall be visible from main drive aisles to prevent emergency
vehicles from committing to long drive aisles going east.
5. A signage plan shall show all "no parking fire lane" signs to be posted.
CONCLUSION
Armory Development II LLC in partnership with Master Development Group has
requested the following development applications to facilitate the redevelopment of the
Franks Nursery site located at 5620 Winnetka Avenue North in New Hope:
1. Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the designated land uses to high
density residential.
.,~
Rezoning from CB, Community Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development.
Concept and development stage PUD and preliminary plat.
Preliminary and Final Plat review and approval.
As the Franks Nursery and Craft site has been identified for redevelopment, changing
the land use and zoning would be appropriate. The applicant is requesting flexibility
related to density, setbacks, traffic circulation, etc. The acceptable range of flexibility is
a policy decision that will rest with the Planning Commission and City Council. A
general overview suggests that the site is being over-developed and in light of concerns
related to traffic circulation and requested setbacks, a reduction of units may be
appropriate. Based on the foregoing review, the following recommendations are
offered:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment/PUD Rezoning
These applications are interconnected and should be considered together. Any land
use change is a policy decision for the City Council. Generally, the City must find that
the proposed change is consistent with the following criteria:
1. The zoning amendment is necessary to correct a past mistake.
2. The character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of an
amendment.
The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City
Comprehensive Plan.
The past zoning was correct for the past uses, however, the City in 'its Comprehensive
Plan recognized the changing character of the area by designating this site for
redevelopment. The change in land use and zoning provides the opportunity to
implement the redevelopment objective. The PUD zoning is directly tied to the
proposed development plan. If the Planning Commission and City Council find that the
proposed density and design fulfill the City's redevelopment objective approval of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment is recommended contingent on the City approval of
the PUD concept and development stage plan.
PUD ConCept and Development Stage
If the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning is deemed appropriate for the site, staff
recommends approval of the PUD concept and development stage plans with the
following conditions:
Site density shall be 12.6 units per acre.
The site shall include a minimum of 29 percent open space.
Setbacks shall not vary from the setbacks illustrated on Sheet L1.0 as revised
3/26/04.
4. All proposed townhome units shall have a minimum width of 21 feet.
15
Access and Circulation
a.- The site will be served by a single access drive to Winnetka Avenue and
three access drives to Sumter Avenue. The site will be served internally
by private drives. Private drives shall be a minimum of 22 feet in width.
b. The applicant will install "No Thru Traffic" signs to address concerns
regarding use of the funeral home parking lot by through traffic.
c. The applicant will install "No Parking Fire Lane" signs along the internal
private drives at locations approved by the City Engineer.
d. All snow storage for the site shall be accommodated on site. The
Homeowners Association shall keep the internal drives free of snow.
e. The applicant shall provide additional screening or take such other
measures as may be required to mitigate the impact of vehicle headlights
on adjacent property fronting Sumter Avenue to the east on the site.
Parking
a. The City Council shall determine the adequacy of all proposed garages.
b. No parking will be allowed on private drives.
The City Council shall determine the adequacy of all proposed sidewalks
connections.
Landscaping
a. Retaining walls are subject to review and comment of the City Engineer
and Public Works.
b. Fencing must meet the requirements of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance.
c. The applicant shall revise the plant schedule to include plant sizes for.all
foundation plantings.
All green spaces shall be irrigated.
The City Council shall determine the adequacy of the proposed landscape
screening of heating and air conditioning equipment
16
9. Signage
10.
11.
12.
a,-
Monument signage must meet required setback and avoid traffic visibility
triangles.
The applicant shall provide details for all address signs. Unit addresses
must be clearly visible from main drive aisles.
The applicant shall submit revised plans illustrating a signage plan
indicating the location of all "no parking fire lane" signs to be posted.
Lighting
The applicant shall submit revised plans illustrating details for all proposed
light fixtures.
b. All light fixtures shall be hooded and direct light downward.
The applicant shall submit revised plans illustrating the location or
intensity of exterior building lighting.
Buildings
ao
The applicant shall submit revised plans clearly illustrating a stoop,
landing or patio in conjunction with the side doors for the end units.
The applicant shall submit revised plans illustrating a variety of exterior
materials for the individual townhome units to provide some diversity in
appearance and building materials.
Co
The applicant shall submit revised plans illustrating the location of gas
meter and air conditioning units on the building elevations and addressing
screening of such elements as part of the overall landscape plan.
Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control.
The adequacy of all proposed grading, drainage and erosion control is
subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide storm water calculations.
The applicant shall provide a drainage and utility easement over the
proposed pond.
17
13. Utilities.
The applicant shall provide separate utility connections for each
townhome unit. Alternatively, the applicant shall adequately address
condominium ownership of the townhome units.
b. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be buried.
14.
Homeowners Association
a. The applicant shall provide homeowners association documents for review
and approval by the City Attorney. These documents shall be filed with
the final plat.
Subdivision -
1. The applicant shall submit a preliminary plat in accordance with the requirements
of the New Hope Subdivision Ordinance.
2. Plat approval shall be subject to the City Engineer's comments regarding:
Site grading and erosion control
Stormwater management
Utility plans
Easement size and location
Fire Code Comments
1. Four fire hydrants shall be required throughout th~ project, no more than 350 feet
apart. West Metro Fire Rescue shall determine all fire hydrant locations after the
final site plan has been approved.
All fire hydrants shall have marker flags and be posted with fire lane signs to
prevent blocked access.
18
Engineers & ~rchit~cts
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal
Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. Marvin L. Sorvata, P.E. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Robert G.
Schunicht, P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Mark A. Hanson, P.E.
Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. iRichard E. Turner,
P.E. Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A.
Associate Principals: Keith A. Gordon, P.E. Robert iR. Pfefferle, P.E. Richard W. Foster,
P.E. David O. Loskota, P.E. Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. Ted K. Field, P.E. Kenneth P.
Anderson, P.E. Mark R. Rolls, P.E. David A. Bonestroo, MB.A. Sidney P. Williamson, P.E.,
L.S. Agnes M. Ring, MB.A. Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E. ThomasW. Peterson, P.E. James R.
Maland, P.E. Miles B. Jensen, P.E. L. Phillip Gravel Ill, P.E. Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E.
tsmael Martinez, P.E. Thomas A. Syfko, P.E. Sheldon J. Johnson Dale A. Grove, P.E.
Thomas A. Roushar, P.E. Robert J. Devery, P.E.
Offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar, MN Milwaukee, WI Chicago, IL
Website: www.bonestroo.com
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM:
Vince Vander Top
CC:
Mark Hanson, Guy Johnson
DATE: April 1, 2004
SUBJECT: Winnetka Townhome site review - 5620 Winnetka Avenue
Our File No. 34-Gen E02-19
We have reviewed the revised plans for the site improvements. Overall, the plans are very well
· done and have addressed many of the previously issued comments. Previous comments which
were not addressed should still be considered and may be repeated herein:
The property will need to be platted. Existing easements should be vacated and
rededicated on the plat. Most notably, the road and utility easement shared with the
funeral home will need to vacated and reconfigured. The width of the existing
easement would encroach into the proposed building area, which is not acceptable.
We did not receive a copy of the preliminary plat with this submittal.
The City should discuss and coordinate the construction of new sidewalk along
Winnetka, as well as, the burial of overhead utilities. This process should be started if
applicable.
Pond and storm sewer calculations must be submitted for review by the City
Engineer. These calculations have not been received to date.
a. The pond discharge is directed via a 12-inch storm sewer to the existing storm
sewer catch basin in the northwest comer of the site. The condition of the
existing catch basin and st6rm sewer must be verified and may require
replacement.
b. City staff is currently working with the developer on alternatives to eliminate the
pond. This would require a cash contribution from the development and off-site
improvements. The feasibility of the alternatives is being reviewed. If feasible,
the pond would be eliminated and four additional units could be added to the site
plan.
This project does not need to be submitted to Shingle Creek Watershed for review,
however, it is referenced in the city's livable communities storm water study. The
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
o
o
watershed will review this study, and it appears that this application meets the
requirements of the study. This will be verified with the calculations.
Some detail on the grading plan will require clarification:
The pond emergency overflow (EOF) is to be directed toward Sumter Avenue. _
The CB in the north curb line is at 902.78. The high point in the north curb line is
not clear. An overflow from the pond could potentially pool at the CB in the
north curb line and then overflow to the Wincrest apartments prior to Sumter Ave.
We realize that this is not the intent, but it should be clearly identified.
bo
The removal plan also indicates that the retaining wall along the north property
line will be removed. It was also indicated verbally that a new wall will be
installed along the north property line. This wall must be shown on the grading
plan including height, location, and material type.
Co
A sidewalk to Winnetka Avenue has been added along the north property line. It
is not clear on the grading plan how this walk will be constructed while
maintaining acceptable slopes on and adjacent to the sidewalk.
Drainage and utility easement must be provided on the plat over the proposed pond.
In addition, a maintenance agreement shall be created identifying the homeowners
association as the responsible party for pond maintenance. The submitted revisions
indicate that this will be acceptable to the developer.
Fire hydrant locations are identified and must be approved by West Metro Fire
Department. Previously, four hydrants were cited as a minimum number. Two are.
shown on the plans. This must be verified.
The final civil plans must include details describing proposed manholes, pipe
bedding, valves, hydrants, water service stops, curb types, pavement sections and
other infrastructure items. While it is typical for the City to review and approve plans
at this stage, the Civil plans will be considered incomplete and not suitable for
construction until these items are discussed and shown on the plans. The developer's
engineer is encouraged to coordinate with the City Engineer and Public Works for
standard details.
One sewer and water service line will be provided to each condominium and will be
split in a common utility room'.' Each dwelling unit will be required to have a separate
water meter. Public Works and emergency personnel must have access to these
rooms for functions such as water shut offs and meter reading.
End of memo
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 65~-636-4600 ° Fax: 65~-636-~3~
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 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City
cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response
number Name received notice limit limit 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
04-06 Armory Development / Master 3/12/04 5/11/04 7/10/04
Development Group
2104 Fourth Avenue S.
Minneapolis 55404
Charlie Nester
612-872-9200
B.
C.
D.
Eo
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.
Assign each application a number.
List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
List the date the City received the application.
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.
To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
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.)
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.
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Planning Commission
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
April 2, 2004
Miscellaneous Issues
NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with
additional detail on Council/EDA/HRA actions on Community Development related issues or
other city projects. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review,
at your discretion.
March 8 Council/EDA Meetings - At the March 8 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took
action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
· Projects #760, 753, 741, 756, 758, and 743, Motion approving demolition plans and
specifications and authorizinq advertisement for bids: Approved, see attached Council
request.
· Project #751, Resolution awardinq contract to Leqend Technical Services for bulk
asbestos and environmental hazards surveys: Approved, see attached Council request.
· PC04-01, Request for rezonin.q of properties, preliminary plat approval, and concept/
development staqe PUD, Ryland Homes: Approved as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
· Project 724, Resolution calling for a public hearinq on the modification of the restated
redevelopment plan for redevelopment project no. 1; modification of the tax increment
financing plans for tax increment financinq districts nos. 80-2, 81-1, 82-1, 85-1, 85-2, 86-
1, 02-1, 03-1 (specials law) and 04-1 (special law): Approved, see attached Council request.
· Resolution appointin.q Douglas Andersen to the New Hope City Council to serve April 1
through December 31, 2004: Approved, see attached Council request.
· Project #754, Resolution authorizinq acquisition of property at 7901 Bass Lake Road by
direct neqotiation or eminent domain: Approved, see attached EDA request.
March 22 Council/EDA Meetings - At the March 22 Council/EDA meetings, the CounCil/EDA
took action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
· Proiect #751, Resolution rescindinq award of city of New Hope public improvement
contract bulk asbestos and environmental hazards survey to Legend Technical Service.,'
and authorizinq staff to seek quotes: Approved, see attached Council request.
· Proiect #751, Motion approving environmental services proposal and authorizinq staff
to be.qin coordinatinq remediation activities, 5550 Winnetka Avenum Approved, see
attached Council request and excerpts from proposal.
· Presentation of the Livable Communities Redevelopment Area Storm Water Analysic
Report, and motion acceptin.q the report from Bonestroo & Associate~: Accepted report,
see attached.
· Project #749, Update reqardin.q development proposal for city owned property at 5501
Boone Avenue and direction to proceed with preliminary terms of a.qreement: Granted
authorization to proceed with terms of agreement, see attached EDA request.
· Project #734, Discussion and direction to proceed with a purchase aqreement for the
NCRC development proposal, 4301 and 4317 Nevada Avenue: EDA directed staff to
proceed with purchase agreement and development proposal, see attached EDA request.
· Project #723, Discussion re.qardin.q 7615 Bass Lake Road (New Hope Alano), GAP
request and appraisal proposal: :Authorized appraisal and expenditure of $1,000 for
appraisal, see attached EDA request.
· Projects #761,748, and 768, Resolution approvin.q purchase agreements and relocation
benefits for acquisition of three properties in the Winnetka East housinq redevelopment
area: Approved, see attached EDA request.
· Proiect #724, Resolution findinq need to acquire title and possession of the Winnetka
Avenue East area development properties prior to the commissioner's award, approvin.n.
the appraisal of damaqes for each property resultinR from the takinq and ratifyinR and
authorizinq all steps taken by staff to acquire the properties: Approved, see attached EDA
request.
Codes and Standards Committee - The Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in
March. Staff will be requesting to schedule a committee meeting this spring to discuss the transit
shelter ordinance and several minor code amendments. Please understand that these items take
a lower priority with all of the planning/development activities taking place.
Desi.qn and Review Committee - The Design and Review Committee met in March to review the
plans for the Winnetka Townhome development, AC Carlson new construction and plat, and
Northland Mechanical new construction and plat. The deadline for the May Planning Commission
meeting is April 9. It is anticipated that at least six applications may be filed, including:
· St. Joe residential plat
· CVS Pharmacy
· Frattallone Hardware
· 8501 54th Avenue
· 2 residential applications
The Design and Review Committee will meet on Thursday, April 15, at 7:30 a.m.
Future Applications - Future applications or businesses that staff is currently working with
include:
1. Collisys- amend CUP
2. Paddock Laboratories expansion
3. Waymouth Farms expansion
4. Restaurant and office condo project, 42n~ and Quebec - on hold
5. Egan McKay lot split
6. 4301/4317 Nevada - six housing units
7. Dakota Growers (Creamettes) expansion
8. YMCA addition
Simon Delivers - The planning consultant prepared the enclosed memo regarding a proposed
building expansion of less than 25 percent of the gross floor area and processing this by
administrative permit.
Retail Sales Kiosk - The planning consultant has prepared the enclosed memo regarding an
inquiry from T Mobile about constructing a T Mobile sales kiosk on the northwest corner of the City
Center Shopping Center parking lot, in front of Lifetime Fitness.
10.
11.
12.
13.
City Center Task Force Update - The Council reviewed the study and recommendations in detail
at its work session on March 15 and direCted! ,Staff~ to present more information on financial and
transportation issues at its April work session.
Planninq/Council/EDA Minutes - Enclosed are Planning/Council/EDA meeting minutes for your
review.
Planninq Commission Thanks - Enclosed is a letter from former Mayor Enck to the Planning
Commission in appreciation for its work in the redevelopment of New Hope.
Project Bulletins - Enclosed are project bulletins on Winnetka Green and 5536 Sumter Avenue.
Enclosed please find an updated version of the City Plan for 2004.
If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff.
Attachments:
Demo plans for six properties
Award contract for bulk asbestos and environmental hazards survey
Call for public hearing on TIF plan
Doug Anderson appointed to City Council
7901 Bass Lake Road
Rescind contract for bulk asbestos and environmental hazards survey
5550 Winnetka remediation activities
Storm Water Analysis Report
5501 Boone update
4301/4317 Nevada Avenue NCRC development proposal
7615 Bass Lake' Road
Purchase agreements for 5446 & 4412 Winnetka, 5519 Sumter
Quick take procedure for balance of East Winnetka properties
Simon Delivers
T Mobile sales kiosk
Project Bulletins
2004 City Plan
Planning/Council/EDA Minutes
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CONSENT BUSINESS
March 2, 2004
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Present:
Absent:
Aisc Present:
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Buggy
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Vince
Vander Top, Assistant City Engineer, Greg Johnson, Krass
Monroe Financial Consultant, Aimee Gouday, Mediation
Consultant, Amy Baldwin, Community Department Intern,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC04-01
Item 4.1
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for platting of
properties, rezoning, and concept/development stage planned unit
development, 5340-5550 Winnetka Avenue (east side of road), 7601-7809
Bass Lake Road (south side of road), 5519-5559 Sumter Avenue (both sides
of road), Ryland Homes, Petitioners.
Landy reported that the order of presenters for this application would be Mr.
McDonald to introduce the planning case, the planning consultant to explain
the information on the plans, the city engineer to discuss the water issues, the
representative of Ryland Homes would address the Commission, and then the
floor would be opened for comments.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, stated the property at
the southeast quadrant of Winnetka and Bass Lake Road was located in
Planning District 6 of the Comprehensive Plan, which was updated between
1998 and 2000. The plan identified two target residential areas in this district
for redevelopment. The first area was the Iow-density residential properties
along Bass Lake Road and the Bass Lake Road extension. The second
area was the Iow-density residential area along Winnetka Avenue between
Bass Lake Road and 53rd Avenue consisting of very deep lots.
The city has been acquiring properties in the subject area since 1995 in
anticipation of future redevelopment. The first property that was acquired
was 7621 Bass Lake Road. The city has been acquiring properties on a
voluntary willin~ seller basis since that time. A Metropolitan Council Livable
Communities Grant was received by the city in 2000 to study redevelopment
opportunities in this area. A task force was formed to study redevelopment
opportunities and prepare concept plans and recommendations. The report
was presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in December
2002. Several of the task force representatives and consultants are in the
audience tonight. Early in 2003, the Council selected preferred developers
for each of the study area sites, including this East Winnetka area, the
former Frank's Nursery site, the southwest quadrant of Winnetka and Bass
Lake Road, and the site west of the golf course. Ryland Homes was
designated as the preferred developer for the East Winnetka site. The
primary reason the City Council .selected Ryland was because of the quality
of its developments.
On June 24, 2002, the Council: directed staff to complete the steps
necessary to create a tax increment financing area in the Livable
Communities redevelopment area. Staff coordinated with Krass Monroe, the
city's financial consultant, to draft special legislation to allow the creation of
this district to assist with redevelopment. During the 2003 Legislative
Special Session, the special legislation was passed giving the authority to
create a tax increment financing (TIF) district in this area. The public
hearing was held at the December 8 Council/EDA meetings and the East
Winnetka TIF District was created around the boundaries of these
properties.
One of the main recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and Life
Cycle Housing study was to try to create different life cycle housing
alternatives in the city. Currently, about 47 percent of the housing stock in
New Hope is apartments and about 53 percent is single-family homes.
There are very few condominiums or townhome developments in the city. It
has been strongly recommended that the city develop this type of housing to
encourage young professi0nal~ and empty nesters to stay in the city rather
than migrate to neighboring suburbs that offer that type of housing.
McDonald stressed that this proposal was not Iow-income housing. The
average sales price of these homes would be $200,000 and the market
rates on the majority of the properties that abut this development are below
$200,000, with a small portion of the homes over $200,000.
Staff had been meeting with Ryland Homes for the past year to develop site
plans and discuss financing for the redevelopment of the East Winnetka area.
In April 2003, the City Council approved an exclusive 90-day negotiation
period between Ryland Homes and the city. The city continued to work with
Ryland on final site plan/development contract issues. McDonald explained
that acquiring/demolishing property for redevelopment required much more
effort and the process was completely different from a development on raw
land. In October, the Council authorized the city engineer to complete a storm
water analysis for the all the Livable Communities redevelopment areas in
anticipation of future redevelopment. McDonald stated that at this time the City
Council had not seen the East Winnetka P, ytand plan details, it had only seen
concept plans. At a work session in November, the Council confirmed the
selection of two unit types, Carriage Townhomes and Heritage
Condominiums. Council members also toured the Ryland development in
Circle Pines with the exact same mix of units as this proposal. At the January
26 Council meeting, the Council approved the development agreement with
Ryland Homes, based on the concept plan and authorized eminent domain for
the remaining properties in the area. McDonald stated that the city was
negotiating with several additional property owners and staff expected to
reach agreements soon. Eminent domain papers were filed on February 25
giving the city the authority to take any remaining properties within a 90-day
period so the city would have ownership of all properties by May 25, 2004.
A determination was made to cul-de-sac Sumter Avenue near 55th and
Sumter. The property at 5519 Sumter was not originally included in the plan;
however, the city is currently negotiating with this property owner and is
hopeful that a voluntary acquisition can be reached. Therefore, the proposal
should be approved including that property.
McDonald reported that the terms of the development agreement called for
the city to tum over several vacant parcels of land on Winnetka to the
developer for the construction of two model buildings (one of each type) by
mid-April. It is anticipated it will take four months to complete the model
construction. The agreement states that the city would turn over a Phase 1
parcel of land (anticipated to be all remaining parcels on Winnetka) by July 1,
2004. The developer would then start the street construction through the
development this summer sO that the streets and utilities would .be available to
Planning Commission Meeting 2 March 2, 2004
the models by the. time they are completed in September. The development
agreement then states that the Phase 2 parcel of land (anticipated to be along
Bass Lake Road) would be turned over to the developer by September 1. The
city continues to coordinate with the developer on a number of aspects on the
development that would be either a city or joint city/developer responsibility.
The city is proposing to construct a new public sidewalk along Winnetka and
Bass Lake Road, the burial of overhead utilities along Winnetka, the vacation
of Sumter Avenue and related turn-around, the removal or relocation of
utilities on the site, and park/ponding improvements. The developer will
contribute approximately $80,000 in park dedication fees to the city as part of
the development agreement and those funds would be utilized to make
improvements at Elm Grove Park, adjacent to the development on the east.
McDonald added that property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified
of the public hearing, including the city of Crystal. Staff received some calls
and comments and several people came to city hall to look at the plans. The
same people received notice of a neighborhood open house, which was
conducted on February 24. Staff felt it important to show the neighbors the
plans and answer questions prior to this public hearing. Over the last two to
three years, the city has mailed out a number of project bulletins on the status
of this development to a mailing list of approximately 500 residents within a
one-half mile radius of the intersection of Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake
Road. Staff has conducted a number of cable TV interviews and several
newspaper articles have been written on this development.
Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, stated that the applicant was requesting
several applications for the redevelopment of this site. Currently the property
is zoned R-l, single family residential, and CB, community business districts.
The request is for a Comprehensive Plan amendment which would change
the land use for this area from Iow to medium-density to high-density
residential. The site would be rezoned from the R-1 and CB districts to a PUD
district. The PUD district was selected to allow for some flexibility that would
not otherwise be allowed in the standard high-density district. Along with the
PUD district, the applicant is requesting concept/development stage planned
unit development approval. Two subdivisions are necessary. The first would
be a city subdivision to combine all the properties into a single parcel for
conveyance to Ryland. The second plat would divide the property into
condominium and townhome parcels. The last element for Planning
Commission consideration, with the public hearing conducted at the City
Council meeting, is the vacation of a segment of Sumter Avenue.
Brixius explained that the first plat prepared by Bonestroo and Associates on
behalf of the city, combines all the existing parcels of land into a single lot and
block description for conveyance as part of the redevelopment project. The
second plat illustrates the individual townhome buildings, which would be
divided so that ownership of the townhome includes the land undemeath. The
condominiums would be an ownership of the living space and commonly
owned land associated with the individual building. The plat includes 17.1
acres, the right,of-way, or Street A, includes approximately 2.3 acres, and the
total lot area to be utilized for building would be 14.8 acres. The total number
of units proposed would be 175, which results in a gross density of
approximately 10.2 units per acre and a net density of approximately 11.8
units per acre. There would be approximately 44 percent green space
intermixed among the buildings. With the approval of the PUD, the PUD
subdivision would be compliant with the city's requirements for both the zoning
and subdivision regulations. This would be tied together with a homeowners'
association and covenants to be recorded with the plat. The applicant is
requesting waiver of the final plat review by the Planning Commission.
A part of the application is a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the
Planning Commission Meeting 3 March 2, 2004
land use classification. In 1998, the Comprehensive Plan identified this area
for redevelopment, due to the extraordinary deep lots along Winnetka, existing
housing conditions, marginal commercial properties at the intersection, and
substandard access near the Bass Lake Road extension. The Livable
Communities Task Force reviewed this area and recommended the following:
1) townhome and Iow-density residential, 2) expressed specific concems
regarding the integration and compatibility of the neighboring single-family
areas, 3) traffic generation, 4) avoiding intrusion upon adjacent residential
properties, 5) density of development and its impact upon the quality of
development, 6) building quality, and 6) establishing a design that would be
attractive and complementary to the existing single family neighborhood as
well as the streetscape along Winnetka and Bass Lake Road. After the task
force study was complete and presented to the City Council, the city solicited
developers to provide a proposal that would be financially feasible. It was
determined that greater density was necessary to make the redevelopment
cash flow. Altemative plans were prepared over the last year to respond to
Livable Communities concerns for land use compatibility and a density that
would be financially feasible to uphold the redevelopment. Code provides for a
medium density residential of 10 units per acre and this proposal provides for
a net density of 11.8, which is not significantly higher.
In considering a change in rezoning, the city has three criteria: past mistake,
change in character of area, and consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. Brixius stated that the previous uses were appropriate
for the area. The character of the area has changed and redevelopment has
been recommended for this project site by the Comprehensive Plan, which
would merit some consideration in land use. He indicated that the applicant
had met two of the criteria for consideration of the land use change, as well as
the change in zoning.
The 1997 Life Cycle Housing Study indicated that the city should provide
higher, move-up housing and owner-occupied or rental attached housing,
such as townhomes, twinhomes and cooperative apartments. These elements
are lacking in New Hope and this proposal addresses that type of housing.
Specific goals of the Comprehensive Plan include providing a variety of
housing types, styles and choices to meet the needs of New Hope's changing
demographics, maintaining and enhancing the strong character of the single-
family neighborhoods by preventing the intrusion of incompatible land uses,
and promoting multiple-family housing altematives as an attractive life cycle
housing option. The emphasis being that there is a change in the community
needs and the city is trying to respond to that need with this redevelopment.
Brixius reported that a straight high-density residential zoning would allow for a
variety of land uses including apartments, condominiums and townhomes.
This townhome development would be located in close proximity to single-
family residential, as well as two major collector streets. The PUD zoning
district is intended for this type of design - an integrated, clustered, urban
design which promotes a mixture of uses, higher densities, and flexibility in
setbacks, heights, and impervious surface issues.
The Development Review Team and the Design and Review Committee
reviewed the plans and identified issues for the developer to respond to on the
plans. The developer made the changes and submitted revised plans.
Brixius explained that the general layout attempted to segregate townhomes
and condominiums from the single-family neighborhood to the southeast. A
public street would run throughout the development. Access points would be
moved away from the intersection to allow for proper spacing and stacking of
vehicles. The entrance points are intended to align with existing roads for full
Planning Commission Meeting 4 March 2, 2004
intersection arrangements at those points. The higher density urban
townhomes are pushed up closer to the major collector streets to provide an
urban streetscape appearance and to economize on space within the
subdivision. The condominium units are located in closer proximity to the
single-family homes to try to lessen the impact of the taller buildings. The
street is a curvilinear design that would abut several single family homes in the
center of the area. There would be a 20-foot setback from the property line
along with the use of boulevard trees and a fence as a screening device. The
standard 30-foot setback would be where units abut the single-family homes.
The 11.8 units per acre would be a higher density that what the typical
townhome development would be, and the PUD allows that flexibility, if
approved. The proposed setback would be 25 feet from the back of the curb
along Street A. There was a concern that there would be adequate space for
parking between the garage and street for the condominiums. Flexibility was
requested for driveway parking that would intrude into the boulevard area. The
front yard setback on an arterial street is 30 feet. At the suggestion of staff,
this was reduced to 25 feet with the idea that the building front and stoops
should be close to the street and connect to the public sidewalk, and create a
streetscape to make the building more predominant along with streetscape
plantings. The side yard setback requirement is 10 feet from the property line
or 20 feet from adjoining structures, and the plans are compliant. The side
yard setback abutting a street is 20 feet from the property line and the
applicant is requesting 20 feet from the curb on internal settings, not at the
exterior of the property.
Brixius noted that the public streets A and B through the project would have a
50-foot right-of-way and a 28-foot street surface. Parking would be limited to
one side of the street. The curvilinear design was intended to move the larger
buildings away from the single-family areas as far as possible. Fencing and
boulevard trees would be placed to shield the areas from the lower density
single-family area. Access points have been reviewed by Hennepin County
and are acceptable. All the existing curb cuts along Winnetka Avenue would
be eliminated. Brixius reported that there had been a lot of discussion on the
potential vacation of Sumter Avenue from 5509 Sumter north to Bass Lake
Road. A big concern noted by the task force was that the development traffic
not infiltrate through the single-family neighborhood. Some trips for residents
in the adjacent neighborhood may be slightly longer to reach Bass Lake Road
or Winnetka. There will be fire lane connections at Drives B and H. The public
streets will all have B-618 curbing except near the condominium driveways. B-
618 curbing would be established near the court~/ard parking areas.
Surmountable curbing or no curbing would be in place on the outside
courtyard near the driveways. This should be clarified on the plans.
Emergency access points have been identified on the plans, with two of the
points consisting of knockdown bollards. It would be the responsibility of the
homeow,~ers' association to provide snow plowing of the fire lanes. A portion
of Drive H is located on the 5510 Sumter property, and would need to. be
relocated. The driveway of 5510 Sumter is adjacent to the north property line
of the project so no bollards could be located there that might interfere with
the driveway access. Public Works personnel suggested that the proposed
Sumter Avenue cul-de-sac be moved to the south 15 feet to allow for
adequate snow storage. The applicant revised the site plan to show a transit
station on Winnetka Avenue and an easement should be provided. The
easement should be sized based on a Winnetka street and boulevard
improvement plan coordinated between the city and county. Public Works
expressed concern for snow storage between Street A and the eastern
boundary fence. The fence would be set back 20 feet from the curb, which
should allow for adequate space for snow storage. All streets other than A and
B would be private drives and maintained by the homeowners' association.
The plans show adequate fuming space to accommodate delivery trucks and
emergency equipment. Concern was raised over 22 versus 20-foot drive lanes
Planning Commission Meeting 5 March 2, 2004
and the applicant has indicated that 20 feet would be sufficient.
Code requires 393 parking stalls and the plans indicate 350 two-car garage
spaces and 36 surface parking stalls for a total of 386. This does not include
the driveway space in front of each garage. The applicant has provided
information on how the garage parking would work for each of the units. The
applicant increased the driveway width to 18 feet, which would provide two
parking stalls for each unit. Brixius explained that there are a number of areas
on the plans that show very narrow landscaped areas. In the areas where that
space is less than six feet wide, staff suggested that the entire area be paved.
Parking stalls in the green islands between the private drives are oversized
and meet all requirements. There would be an internal pedestrian circulation
system with six-foot sidewalks along the public streets behind the curb, per
the suggestion of Public Works. At the open house, suggestions were made
to continue the sidewalk to St. Raphael Church parking lot and to Elm Grove
Park, which is part of the city's recommendation.
Brixius reported the landscape plan showed a generous landscaPe treatment
for the streetscape, common area, and foundation areas. Additional plantings
are recommended for the ends of Drives B, C, G and L where they abut
Winnetka Avenue or Bass Lake Road. These plantings are intended to further
screen the garages and private drives from the public streets. Screening
between the single-family area and the new development includes a six-foot
high, maintenance free privacy fence and over-story trees that will have
canopies that extend above the fence. Based on community input at the open
house as well as the review of the cross-sections, the fence falls below the
street surface and staff would prefer to see the fence high enough to screen
the automobiles and provide screening of backyard areas of the development.
Two options have been offered: 1. increase the height of the fence to eight
feet, and 2. consider using a berm along the property line to increase the
height of the fence. The applicant has included a tree preservation plan, which
listed a number of trees and shrubs to be removed and replanted in other
areas. There is a significant spruce tree in the southeast corner that should be
saved, if possible. Brixius stated that staff felt the silver maple tree included in
the tree preservation plan did not need to be saved. The foundation plantings
were appropriate for the area. The plantings in and around the pond are
shown on the plan. There would be a two-tier retaining wall located around the
pond, with a portion of it in the water. A 42-inch aluminum fence would be
installed around the pond to protect pedestrians. The area between the
retaining walls would be landscaped with viburnum and planting beds, as well
as dogwood shrubs and planting beds near the water's edge. The details on
the retaining walls would be subject to review by the director of public works
and the city engineer.
Details have been provided for the monument signs at the entrances and the
sign at the comer of Winnetka and Bass Lake Road. The signs would need to
meet the 10-foot setback requirements and be located outside the sight
visibility triangle. The lighting plan indicated lighted bollards along the sidewalk
near the pond. A "traditional-old favorite" light fixture, which is a lantern design
on 18-foot poles, would be located along Street A. Issue was raised that the
luminary of the light fixture may be visible to adjacent residences. Developer
should consider a light fixture that would be hooded and screened. Accessory
equipment is shown on the plans and identified street signs, address signs
and mailboxes, and the locations are acceptable.
Brixius stated that the elevations show finished building treatments. A number
of items need attention including: 1. attention to the rear of the building where
utilities and gas meters, etc. are located and proper screening or color
integration with the building, 2. downspouts on the condominiums should not
outlet to the driveways, and 3. condominium parking, which has been partially
Planning Commission Meeting 6 March 2, 2004
addressed on the revised plans. The townhomes would be three stories in
height and the back of the buildings would include the garages, which have
adequate space for two cars and storage of trash cans. There would be
variable front color treatments including brick, vinyl and additional sidings.
Brixius indicated the city attorney reviewed the homeowners' association
documents and his comments were included in separate correspondence in
the planning packet.
The street vacation would be a separate consideration by the City Council.
Staff endorses the vacation due to the fact that it eliminates an unsafe
intersection at Bass Lake Road and provides buildable land for the project,
and disconnects the Winnetka Green development from the single-family area
to the south. If this vacation would occur, utility relocation would be necessary.
Mr. Vince VanderTop, city engineer, stated he would review issues with
transportation, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water main. The city plat and
the developer's plat have been submitted to Hennepin County for review. Last
week Hennepin County completed traffic counts at the intersection of Bass
Lake Road and Winnetka, as well as, Rhode Island and 54t~ avenues, the two
areas where this development will be accessing the county roads. Hennepin
County wrote a recommendation requesting 60 feet of half right-of-way for
both corridors, which is a standard recommendation based on standard
details. From a city perspective, the city does not agree with this
recommendation. The city's transportation planner is reviewing the traffic
counts and looking at turn lane requirements and translating that into right-of-
way requirements. This plat assumes 40 feet of half right-of-way for each
corridor. That issue still needs to be resolved. The submitted information does
anticipate a right turn lane for the Rhode Island access and a right turn lane by
the 54th Avenue access.
The utility plan indicated all the underground utilities, sanitary sewer, water
main, and storm sewer. The water main would be connected to existing water
main in Bass Lake Road and Winnetka. There would be a water main
connection near 54th that would Iccp through the site. Another connection
would be through the 55th Avenue outlot connecting to the 55th and Sumter
water main. There would also be other water main connections to the existing
system. The proposed system would maintain adequate pressure and flow for
the water main and fire hydrant connectiOns. The existing trunk sanitary sewer
line that extends from the intersection of 55th and Winnetka through the
existing residential properties to the east and the sanitary sewer ultimately
flows to the east toward Quebec and then south. This trunk sanitary sewer
that cuts through the property would be rerouted as part of the development
around the proposed units and incorporated into the sanitary sewer design for
the proposed development. Other sanitary sewer laterals are shown on the
plan to service the new units. Utilities under the public road, as well as .the
trunk utilities cutting through the site, would be public utilities and protected by
public right-of-way or public easement. The other lateral utilities that just serve
units in the development would be private.
VanderTop began explaining storm sewer issues on the western portion of the
site. He stated that the storm water runoff from the properties abutting
Winnetka would be routed to the storm water pond, which meets the
requirements for the development for water quality and quantity, the
requirements of Shingle Creek Watershed, and the Surface Water
Management Plan. All the water captured in the pond, the Iow spot in the
development, would be released at a controlled rate so to prevent
downstream flooding. The Iow spot on Winnetka Avenue that floods during
large events would continue to flood and that water would overtop the curb
and be routed through the pond. Runoff from the eastern .portion of the
Planning Commission Meeting 7 March 2, 2004
development would be routed through storm sewers to Elm Grove Park. A
storm water pond would be constructed in the park to meet the requirements
for water quality and quantity. This pond design and the park layout would be
developed by the city to enable the improvements in the park.
VanderTop relayed backyard drainage concerns from residents at the open
house. Storm water runoff collects in the back yards of residents on 55th
Avenue. To rectify this situation, a large portion of the runoff from properties
along 55th and the Bass Lake Road extension area would be rerouted through
the storm sewer to the Elm Grove Park pond. The drainage would be
decreased in the back yards of residents along 55th Avenue. Staff
recommends that the city consider options through grading and other
enhancements to make the drainage situation better not worse. The balance
of the drainage area would be directed to the new pond along Winnetka
Avenue. A catch basin was proposed along Street A adjacent to the back
yards of the Sumter properties. At this time, the water travels along the back
yards to the Iow point in the area. Similar concerns for runoff are attached with
the southernmost area of the property where the water drains to 53~d Avenue.
The theme would be to enhance the drainage from the existing back yards
and not make the situation worse.
Mr. Chris Enger, land resource manager for Ryland Homes, came forward to
address the commission. He thanked the commission and city staff and
consultants that they worked with for the past year. He commented that
everyone was very professional and articulated the city's goal to the developer
clearly. He stated that Ryland was happy to be chosen as the preferred
developer by the City Council. He understood that the final plan was not the
exact concept as developed by the task force. They have prepared dozens of
building and street layouts, taking into account the recommendations of staff
and consultants before presenting this final plan for approval. The plan was a
marriage of the community and the type of neighborhood that Ryland could
build, and the vision of the city. They desired to have a long and lasting
relationship with the city, and were looking forward to beginning construction
and providing homes for existing residents and bringing new residents into
New Hope. Enger stated_that all staff and consultant work had been helpful
and thorough, and the Design and Review Committee helped them prepare
for the myriad of details necessary to carry out the construction of a
neighborhood in the city.
Enger stated Ryland agreed with most recommendations in the staff report.
The proposed streetlight would be a traditional coach light and was the
standard streetlight in many communities throughout the metropolitan area.
He understood the concern of light washing off the property. The photometric
drawing illustrated the radius around each light that was illuminated to .5-foot
candle. City ordinance called for no moro than a one-foot candle at the
boundaries of the property. The radius would be 34 feet around each
streetlight. The streetlights adjacent to the single-family neighborhood have
been eliminated and replaced with a four-foot bollard fixture, which would be
lower than the fence. The spill of light for the bollard lights would be a 20-foot
radius with a .35-foot candle measurement. There would be no light spillage
off the site.
Enger stated that due to concerns voiced at the open house by residents,
where the perimeter fence abuts the single-family neighborhood and the
adjoining grade drops below the road, the height of the fence could be up to
16 inches higher than six feet proposed.
Chairman Landy opened the floor for comments. He reminded the audience
that the charge of the Planning Commission was to be sure that the city code
was adhered to. The Commission does not set policy.
Planning Commission Meeting 8 March 2, 2004
Mr. Tom Niebuhr, 5325 Sumter Avenue, stated he had a vinyl fence in his
back yard and questioned if the development's fence would butt up to his or if
there would be a gap between the fences and who would maintain that area.
Brixius replied that this point was mentioned at the open house and indicated
that Ryland would work with the property owner to integrate the two fences
together in some fashion.
Ms. Kathy Bardwell, 5319 Sumter Avenue, stated they were considering
installing a fence in the back yard and wondered if it would be all right for them
to hook up to the new development's fence. Brixius stated that this was raised
at the open house. He stated he felt there would be no problem if the fences
were installed pole-to-pole with a very small gap between them so the fences
did not directly connect, with each party .maintaining their own fence. Mr.
Enger added that the fence for the development would be placed two feet off
the property line. Ms. Bardweil questioned who would be responsible for
plowing of the sidewalk along Winnetka Avenue. She stated she was fomed to
walk on Winnetka Avenueto get to her bus stop after one heavy snow, which
was dangerous with the heavy traffic. McDonald stated that the city would
maintain the public sidewalk, but the plowing of sidewalks gets done after the
streets are plowed and when time is available. She initiated discussion on the
transit stop along Winnetka and was told that it would be a northbound only
stop along the street. Routes would probably be the same as now, but she
should check with the bus company.
Ms. Barb Drenth, 7616 55th Avenue, stated she was pleased with the
possibility of berming the backyards, due to the fact that the drainage had
been a big concern. She was concemed with the snow storage at Drive I,
which is adjacent to her back yard, and spring snow melt. Ms. Drenth pointed
out that the townhomes would be ata higher elevation than their house and
felt that a berm and taller fence would lessen the effect of the residents from
the development looking down into their backyard. She stated she was not
opposed to townhouses, but was disappointed with the proposed price range
of the units. If the prices of the units would be higher, possibly the density
could have been reduced. It would be a big adjustment to go from single-
family homes around them to the high-density townhomes as proposed. She
wondered whether anything could be done to encourage ownership of the
units, particularly the condominiums, instead of people using them for
investment properties and renting the units. Several Commissioners stated
that maybe the homeowners' association could deal with that issue. It was
mentioned that the owner of any single family home near them now could rent
the property. Ms. Drenth questioned the. loss of parkland for the pond and
requested to see the plans for the park. She wondered what was being done
as far as safety for the large, deep pond in the development. McDonald stated
that when park concept plans were available the neighborhood would be
invited for input. She pointed out the bump-out area was located three and
one-half feet from the comer of their garage and wondered whether
consideration could be given to squaring off their property.
Mr. Paul Edison, 7608 55~ Avenue, stated he was concerned with the
property line of the development, which is 10 feet from his bedroom window in
the bump-out area. He stated he would like to eventually add on to the back of
his garage and it would be nice to have additional space.
Mr. Mike Drenth, 7616 55t~ Avenue, stated they were not really opposed to the
redevelopment. He was concerned with the snow storage area at Drives H
and I and the snow melt in the spring. He questioned the purpose of all the
short drive aisles and was informed that those were required fire lanes. He
brought up the issue of homes along Sumter with streets on two sides and
reduced setbacks of 30 feet. He mentioned that staff had stated previously
Planning Commission Meeting 9 March 2, 2004
that residents would not be happy with the reduced setback and staff was now
suggesting that 30-foot setbacks are appropriate. He stated that the task force
proposed up to 40 less townhomes with higher sales prices than what is being
proposed. He stated the financial consultant had stated at one time that the
numbers would work. Mr. Drenth stated that there was no berm shown on the
plans and he stated that the Iow point in his yard was approximately 30 feet
below the top of the condominium. The Comprehensive Plan called for lower
density in this area and wondered how this plan conforms. He mentioned the
market values of surrounding homes and sales prices of the existing homes,
as well as the sales prices of the units. He wondered what study was
completed that showed the difference in property values before and after a
development was constructed. He felt the information given to the task force
was flawed. He suggested regulations be included in the homeowners'
association rules that units needed to be owner occupied or at least a certain
percentage of the units. He stated he researched sales prices in the Camden
area and found the minimum to be $150,000, the same as what is proposed
for New Hope. The city is proposing homes as Iow as $150,000. There is a
Iow-priced townhome development in Brooklyn Park, and he said someone
threatened him when he was visiting someone there. He feels this
development will be unsafe in a few years. The Circle Pines development
base prices start at $40,000 more than this development.
Mr. Jim Pearson, 5429 Sumter Avenue, has lived in the city since 1955 and
has seen lots of changes. He stated he does not like this change. Change
should not be difficult. He informed the Commission he was a member of the
task force and this design is not what was recommended. The task force did
not want the road where it is located now so properties would have a road at
the front and rear of the property. He felt there was the potential of hundreds
of cars per day traveling on the road, which would lead to noise and air
pollution and loss of privacy. The original design was for the road to go down
the middle of the development and the pond to be located in a different area.
He felt the drainage did not naturally go to the point where the pond is to be
located. He suggested that the fence should be as tall as possible and located
on top of a berm. If that did not happen, he would be selling his home.
Mr. Ernie Opheim, 5501 Sumter Avenue, felt that it was ridiculous to hold this
meeting during the precinct caucuses. He stated that the drainage collected
near the vacant lot between 5443 and 5501 Sumter Avenue. He said he
moved to New Hope 30 years ago and purchased his home on Sumter
Avenue because it was a quiet neighborhood with some separation to a major
street. He felt constructing 175 units on property that had housed 34
structures could not be justified. If the fence would be constructed at the
maximum height, he thought he would never see the sun set again.
No one else in the audience wished to address the Commission, and the
public hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to
close the Public Hearing on Planning Case 04-01. All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Commissioner Hemken questioned what would be done with the bump-out
property and whether something could be worked out with the residents of the
two affected properties. Mr. Enger responded that if the city wanted to resolve
the situation prior to the conveyance of the land to Ryland, it would be
acceptable to them. If that portion would be conveyed to Ryland, the property
would be landscaped and irrigated. He stated that Ryland had agreed with the
neighbor to move the fence back from the property line by 20 feet and the
association would maintain that area. The people that would buy the units with
the idea of having a larger back yard may pay a higher price for that privilege,
Planning Commission Meeting 10 March 2, 2004
therefore, the parcel would have a value to it. He reiterated that it would be up
to the city to resolve the land situation before the property was conveyed to
Ryland.
Commissioner Svendsen thanked the developer for all the input, knowledge
and help through the plan review process. He requested clarification on the
curbing for the project, especially by the guest parking near buildings 71-79.
Enger responded that they would try to prepare a more defined drawing. He
stated that the question of curbing came in the parking courts for the
townhomes. Their approach would be to bring the vertical curb around to the
first driveway. Svendsen asked that the sidewalk detail sheets be drawn to
match sizes and locations shown on the preliminai'y plats. Svendsen asked for
clarification of plantings around the air conditioning units by the condominium
units and by the townhomes. Enger replied that at the townhomes a tree
would be planted in each large median and there could be deciduous shrubs
by the air conditioners in the courtyard. The condominium air conditioning
units are on the back of the building and no plantings were proposed around
the units. Svendsen encouraged plantings around the utility transformers, if
the utility companies would allow it.
Svendsen wondered whether a berm in the northeast area parallel to 55th
Avenue would cause additional drainage problems or if it would help. Mr.
VanderTop responded that a berm of even one foot in height would help with
the drainage from the streets. The berm would stop the water at the property
line and direct it to the east toward the pond. The drainage through the back
yards along 55th Avenue is poor. With the development, the drainage flowing
to this area should be reduced, but it may not completely take care of the
drainage issues in the back yards. Possibly additional grading could be
accomplished in the bump-out area to help drain the water to the pond in Elm
Grove Park. The slopes should be limited to 4:1. This slope requirement is
more of a maintenance issue for mowing, etc. Svendsen questioned whether
a catch basin could be installed in this area like the one proposed at the rear
of the Sumter properties near the condominiums. VanderTop replied that it
could be researched and may be possible if funding was available. Oelkers
questioned how drainage would be affected with a berm along the rear yards
of the Sumter Avenue properties. VanderTop stated that the grading plan did
reflect somewhat of a berm along that area, approximately one foot, to control
the water onto Winnetka Green. In addition to that, the catch basin would
collect additional runoff. Oelkers wondered whether the berm would hinder the
water drainage from the rear of the Sumter Avenue properties and the city
engineer stated he felt the berm would not be an issue. Each property would
have to be studied individually. For the Bass Lake Court Townhome project,
the city met with each adjacent property owner to insure that no drainage
problem would be created. VanderTop added that the Winnetka properties
slope east to the rear yard and the Sumter properties slope west to the rear
yard. The drainage generally flows from the south to the north toward the low
point at the 55t~ Avenue outlot. There is a high point part of the way through
this area where the drainage breaks and some of the properties at the south
end of the development flow back to 53~ Avenue. The first strategy would be
to minimize drainage from what is there now, and second to look at berming
and storm sewer to further enhance the drainage. Oelkers questioned the
snow storage by Drives H and I, and VanderTop stated that it was a valid
comment and the city should look at snow storage in that area and determine
how the grading should be accomplished. A snow plowing plan could be
established stating no snow would be stored in that area. The grading should
be so that most of the water would slope back onto the Winnetka Green
property and not toward the 55th Avenue back yards.
Svendsen initiated discussion on the downspouts for the condominium units
and how the eaves and downspouts could be altered so that the water did not
Planning Commission Meeting 11 March 2, 2004
flow over the driveway. He wondered if it would be possible for the water to
drain to the green space or under the sidewalk. Enger stated that the garage
roofs were open gables to the front so it would not be possible to bring the
gutter across the front of the garage. Ryland would propose to retain a small
gravel planting area between each double garage and outlet the downspout
into the gravel area and then pave the double driveways in a way to pitch in to
create a definite and contained drainage area past the gravel planting area so
the water would not sheet out over the driveway and create an ice hazard in
winter.
Discussion ensued on the color of the fence. Enger stated that according to
the manufacturer, there was not a white satin choice. There were color
choices and they would look at those. Ryland had utilized the white fence in
other communities and felt it was an attractive fence. The fence in
combination with a generous amount of evergreen and deciduous plant
material would help tone down the color. That would be one reason they
would suggest not increasing the fence height for the total length of the
development. They would try to get an off white color. O'Brien questioned why
a vinyl fence was chosen. Enger replied that a very large length of fencing was
required, and it was as an expensive material to use, but one of the major
attractions to the developments was the maintenance free life style. There is
no paintable trim on the homes. All materials would be vinyl, stone, brick, or
coated aluminum, in other words, maintenance free. He stated that Ryland
was conscious of keeping homeowners' association dues down, while at the
same time, leaving the association with a well funded start so the long-term
maintenance would be minimal. The longevity of a vinyl fence is twice as long
as a painted wood fence.
O'Brien questioned whether the water and sewer lines throughout the property
were owned by the association. VanderTop stated that Streets A and B were
public streets and the utilities under those streets would be public and owned
and maintained by the city. There are also two trunk lines that cut through the
property that would be public lines and maintained by the city. Everything else
that serves only the units in this development would be private and owned and
maintained by the association, as well as the side streets. The storm sewer
would be the public that served the public rights-of-way, the pond within the
development would be private, and the pond in the park would be a public
facility because water from other rights-of-way would flow into that pond.
O'Brien questioned who would be plowing the fire lanes. Enger responded that
the association would be responsible for the driveways, parking courts, and
fire lanes. The city would plow the public streets.
Oelkers wondered what the life expectancy would be on the water and sewer
lines and how failure of those lines would be handled. VanderTop answered
that the existing water mains that are breaking were constructed of cast iron
which were installed inthe 1960s. Those lines are susceptible to failure due to
corrosion and fracture. The new lines are constructed of a different material
and the life expectancy of the new lines is 50 years. The city would maintain
fire hydrants due to the public safety standpoint. All of the sewer and water
lines throughout the development would be new. Staff and the developer
discussed the issue of public versus private ownership at length. It was
important that the main street through the development be public and
therefore the utilities under that street would also be public. There had been
discussion of all utilities being public, however, there was concern of
maintaining public utilities under private streets. Enger maintained that this is a
public policy question because there are public utilities on private land, even in
this development. Whether the street above the utilities was public or private
and the public utility had to be repaired, the public would have to repair the
road at the taxpayer's expense. With the private utilities being the
responsibility of the association, the maintenance, which is traditionally a city
Planning Commission Meeting 12 March 2, 2004
expense, to the private sector, The impact of that would be to budget in the
homeowners' association for the long-term replacement of those systems.
Commissioner Barrick stated that she agreed with what her neighbors had
said and was disappointed with regard to the density of the project. She had
been expecting higher value homes, and even though staff stated that the
homes would be sold for around $200,000, the documentation she saw
showed the condominium prices starting from $140,000 to $150,000. Mr.
Enger stated he had not supplied any information giving those prices. Ryland
would construct the same value and quality homes that were constructed in
Circle Pines. Whatever values the New Hope market supported would direct
the sales price. They would sell them for as high a price as they could get. The
City Council had bound Ryland to sell the units for no less than $149,900 for
the least expensive condominium. The lowest price in Circle Pines with some
options sold for $152,500. The same unit at the end of the project sold for
$160,000. The price of the other condominiums units increased by $10,000 for
each size unit. The townhomes would start at about $180,000 and go over
$200,000. Generally, the purchaser added about $20,000 in options above the
base price. There would be 117 units selling from the high $100s to the Iow
$200s for base price and 58 condominiums from the $150s to the $170s.
Enger stated that Ryland hoped to exceed the expectations of the City Council
with regard to the sales price. By the time the last units were sold, the average
sales price should be above $200,000. In the New Hope development, more
than half of the units were the more expensive type, which should bring up the
average.
Barrick wondered what percentage of the lower level units, proposed for
seniors, would actually be purchased and lived in by seniors. Enger stated that
there were 16 lower level units, and another 16 one-level units up one flight of
stairs, which are also popular with seniors.
Barrick initiated discussion on the $80,000 park dedication fee designated for
Elm Grove Park and questioned how much of that fee would be spent on the
park. McDonald indicated that all of that fee would go to Elm Grove Park and
probably additional monies as well.
The most objectionable issue for Barrick was Street A, which abuts the single-
family homes along Sumter Avenue. Barrick wondered if there was an
altemative to that layout. She was concerned that the peace and tranquility
would be robbed from the residents along Sumter. She felt the fence would
not provide any significant sound barrier for them, and asked what could be
done about moving the street to the west. Mr. Enger responded that this site
plan was the result of many different plans and alternatives for that read.
Taking everything into account, this was the plan that all staff and consultants
agreed upon. He concurred that the read abutted the single-family properties
but that Ryland was dealing with that in the most sensitive way possible.
Barrick stated she felt the east/west placement of the townhomes would
channel the sound from Winnetka right though to the back yards of the
residents on Sumter. Enger stated that the reason three of the townhome
buildings were placed perpendicular to Winnetka was to break up the length of
buildings along the read and keep the three-story building away from the
single-family neighborhood. Out of the 24 units in those buildings, only three
units would be visible to the single-family homes with this layout. The site
dictated where the storm water pond had to be placed. The pond was
necessary for the development and as a regional pond for the area, and to
accommodate the 100-year flood event. Barrick stated she felt something else
should be done so there was not a road behind and in front of the homes
along Sumter Avenue. Enger added that the deciduous trees along the fence
line would be 15 feet at the time of planting and additional under-story trees
could be placed there as well as shrubs. Oelkers wondered whether a
Planning Commission Meeting 13 March 2, 2004
staggered planting arrangement on both sides of the fence would be
acceptable to the residents along Sumter. Brixius interjected that this planting
plan did provide some separation. Enger added that the city required 20 feet
for snow storage along the street and there would be a few breaks in the
fencing to allow access to the back side for maintenance. They could work
with the property owners if they wished additional plant material for screening
at the back of their property. Oelkers stated he felt the traffic count along
Street A would not be that great and the curvature of the street would prevent
speeding. Barrick added that there may be headlights shining in the back
yards of the residences with the curvature of the street. Brixius interjected that
the solid fence would provide a greater obstruction. The idea of a curvilinear
street was to keep the speed down and eliminate the roaring of engines. The
fence element would not be a noise barrier, but a visual barrier. Based on
comments received, the fence was to provide a barrier between, this
development and the single-family homes. The three story buildings were
pushed away from the property line so they were not so obtrusive to the
single-family homes, and. Ryland had incorporated those elements into the
plans.
Commissioner Brauch commented that there are 14 trees proposed along
Street A adjacent to the back yards and wondered if the number of trees could
be doubled up and trees provided for the Sumter property owners to plant on
their own property, which be a Iow cost solution to doubling the visual and
sound barriers. A suggestion was made that Ryland meet with each of the
property owners to determine what would be acceptable to them. McDonald
stated that from the discussion tonight that the developer and/or the city would
need to meet with all of the residents abutting the Winnetka Green property.
Barrick wondered if prior to plan approval if consensus could be received from
the neighbors with regard to the street. Mr. Enger responded that Ryland
would not accept that. The city cannot turn over its zoning authority to
neighbors and put the developer in the position of trying to make each
neighbor completely happy before approval was received. They would work
with the neighbors as far as tree placement was concerned.
Svendsen initiated discussion on the preliminary plat and how the areas for
the condominiums and townhomes were described. Enger stated that this was
the way a plat for this type of development was accomplished. The preliminary
plat illustrates the townhomes were placed with a couple feet of leeway
forward or backward, however, the line between the townhomes was exact.
The condominiums were platted all together in an envelope setting. Brixius
stated that the plat was tied to the PUD approvals. The PUD approvals were
the actual construction drawings which shows the outline of setbacks. The plat
is designed to mimic the construction drawings. The building placements
would be dictated by the development stage approval and would be finalized
with the final stage. Those elements then would be incorporated into the plat.
As indicated by the developer, the townhome lots are generally slightly larger
than the footprint of the building and would not show the 25-foot setback, but
the building would. Mr. Sondrall, city attorney, added that there would be a little
play as the development evolves into the final plan.
Brixius summarized that the Planning Commission was looking at a number of
applications: a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a zoning amendment.
The zoning amendment would be tied to the concept/development stage
approval so the Commission must determine the acceptability of that. The
Commission was reviewing two preliminary plats: Winnetka East and
Winnetka Green, and staff recommended, if the Commission found everything
to be acceptable, to waive review of the final plat. Ryland must comply with the
city engineer recommendations and address City Council issues regarding
right-of-way and access permits prior to final plat approval. In conjunction with
the PUD concept/development stage approval, staff outlined seven conditions
Planning Commission Meeting 14 March 2, 2004
that incorporated individual consultant .reports. Brixius asked that, if the
Planning Commission were tO recommend approval, that it consider several
additional elements gathered from public testimony: 8) Ryland to integrate its
fence with fences of adjacent properties, 9) removal of snow storage at end of
Drives H and I and coordinate this with the grading plan, 10) explore rental
restrictions, 11) investigate the sale of property to adjacent residents to the
south prior to conveyance to Ryland, 12) additional shrubs around air
conditioners and utility transformers, and 13) double planting along Street A
and provide optional planting off site with the permission of the property
owner.
Mr. Sondrall felt that the condition to add plantings off site should not be a
condition of approval. It could be investigated.and considered by Ryland to be
a good neighbor. Brixius interjected that the spacing of the plantings along the
fence were 40 feet, and if the plantings were doubled that spacing would be at
20-foot intervals. Flexibility could be given to Ryland if they wanted to move
the plantings to the other side of the fence. Mr. Enger reiterated that the staff
report suggested an eight-foot high fence. The fence manufacturer had
indicated that the fence could be six feet plus 16 inches and possibly a berm
could be added. These are for sale homes, and he hoped that the city would
not put a restriction on the units that if the owner was transferred out of town
that he could not lease the property.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Commissioner Svendsen stated that he was on the Livable Communities
Task Force and went through all of the different designs and concepts that the
task force desired. He was a proponent of having a lot of single family housing
on the south end of the project. After listening to the financial consultant,
single family was not feasible. One concept of the task force was senior
apartments on the northwest corner of the project. This proposed plan was a
lot more aesthetically pleasing. Street A along Sumter seemed to be a better
solution than having the tall townhomes adjacent to the back yards. He felt the
traffic count would not be as significant as imagined.
Commissioner Oelkers stated that he was a realtor and had sold three houses
in New Hope in the last 90 days that were very similar to properties adjacent to
this development. None of the homes soldfor more than $200,000 and they
all had 20 to 30 showings, which indicated that buyers were not willing to pay
over that dollar amount. His experience suggested that townhome
developments were good neighbors. They are always painted, mowed, green,
and are an asset to a community.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Hemken,
to approve Planning Case 04-01, Request for platting of properties,
rezoning, and concept/development stage planned unit development,
5340-5550 Winnetka Avenue (east side of road), 7601-7809 Bass Lake
Road (south side of road), 5519-5559 Sumter Avenue (both sides, of
road), Ryland Homes, Petitioners, subject to the following findings and
conditions:
Winnetka East and Winnetka Green preliminary plats, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Planning Commission agrees to waive review of the final plat.
2. Comply with city engineer plat recommendations.
3. Address Hennepin County issues before final plat is processed
for approval by City Council.
PUD rezoning and concept/development stage PUD plans, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Enter into a PUD/Site Improvement Agreement with the city and
Planning Commission Meeting 15 March 2, 2004
furnish a performance bond or suitable financial guarantee for
site improvements (amount to be determined by city engineer and
building official).
2. Furnish all documents necessary for final stage PUD
administrative approval.
3. Comply with recommendations of city engineer memo dated
2~26~04.
4. Comply with bui_lding official recommendations, obtain required
permits and developer is encouraged to submit plans for review
as soon as possible.
5. Comply with recommendations of city attorney regarding minor
revisions to Homeowners' Association documents.
6. Continue to coordinate with West Metro Fire District to insure that
plans comply with Code.
7. Comply with conditions outlined in planner's report, including
Comprehensive Plan amendment, dated 2125104.
8. Integrate project fencing with fences of adjacent property owners.
9. Remove snow storage at end of Drives H and I and coordinate
with grading plan.
10. Investigate sale of portion of bump-out property to two adjacent
property owners.
11. Plant additional shrubs around air-conditioning units at
townhomes and by transformers, if allowed by electric and gas
companies.
12. Double the amount of plantings along Street A in area where
adjacent to rear yards of Sumter properties and consider optional
plantings on east side of fence. Increase height of fence by 16
inches and install berms, as appropriate.
Voting in favor: Anderson,
Svendsen
Voting against: Barrick
Absent: Buggy
Motion carried.
Brauch, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers,
Design and Review
Committee
Item 6.1
Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council
on March 8 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance.
Landy thanked those in the audience who addressed the Commission.
Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met with the
petitioners in February. He added that staff was expecting several applications
for the April meeting, and there may be many more projects on the horizon for
the next several months. The Committee meeting was scheduled for March
18. Svendsen initiated discussion on meeting at an earlier time, if necessary.
On March 18, the Committee will meet at 7:30 a.m.
Codes and Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
Hemken reported that the Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in
February.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
Svendsen commented that the Shell station at 36~ and Highway 169 has very
bright lights on all night with the 24-hour operation. McDonald stated city staff
could check on the situation.
Anderson raised the issue of sidewalk plowing in front of his business on 42"d
Avenue and the delay in clearing the sidewalks this winter. Sondrall added that
years ago the Council discussed having each property owner be responsible
Planning Commission Meeting 16 March 2, 2004
NEW BUSINESS
ELECTIONS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
for the sidewalks in front of their properties and there was great resistance
from the residents. It was mentiOned that due to budget cutbacks, no overtime
was allowed for the plowing of sidewalks.
Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
O'Brien, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 2,
2003. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
Brauch commented he appreciated the city update once a month that is now
being sent to commissioners.
Landy read a letter from Mayor Enck thanking the Commissioners for their
dedicated service to the community.
Chairman Landy stated that by ordinance he had to step down after three
years as chair and opened the floor for nominations for chair, vice chair, and
third officer.
Motion by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner Brauch, to
nominate Commissioner Svendsen as chair, motion by Commissioner
Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Brauch, to nominate Commissioner
Hemken as vice chair, and motion by Commissioner Brauch, seconded by
Commissioner Svendsen, to nominate Commissioner Oelkers as third officer.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
Chairman Landy thanked the Commission for its support during the last three
years. .
Svendsen initiated discussion of subcommittee assignments. He requested to
stay on the Design and Review Committee, if the Commission agreed. The
open meeting law would not be violated, if only four commissioners were on
the subcommittee. Landy asked that he continue as the representative for the
City Center Task Force. Due to the fact that each committee had four
commissioners, he requested that he be allowed to fill in on either committee
for any member that could not attend a meeting. The CommisSion concurred.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
..~~]ectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 17 March 2, 2004
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
February 23, 2004
City Hall, 7:00 p.m
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
New Hope City Council
Page 1
The New Hope City Council met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice
thereof; Mayor Enck called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
The City Council and all present stood for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Council Present:
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
Sharon Cassen, Councilmember
Don Collier, Councilmember
Mary Gwin-Lenth, Councilmember
Absent:
Steve Sommer, Councilmember
Staff Present:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator
Doug Debner, Assistant City Attorney
Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist
Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer
Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember
Cassen, to approve the regular meeting minutes of February 9, 2004. All
present voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember
Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, to approve the work session
minutes of February 17, 2004. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Mayor Enck, to
approve the work session minutes of February 18, 2004. Voting in favor: Enck,
Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Abstained: Collier; Absent: Sommer. Motion carried.
OPEN FORUM
· Juanita Hoffe, 4632 Flag Avenue North, questioned whether the city has a
parliamentarian and whether a vote made at the January 15 work session
needs to be rescinded. Councilmember Collier explained that the January 15
work session allowed the council to establish a timeline for the appointment
process to fill the mayoral seat being vacated by Mayor Enck. The council
determined to fill the position through a seated Councilmember, but the actual
vote on the action was not taken until the January 26 council meeting.
· Bob Sable, 5242 Quebec Avenue North, requested a clarification of the city
manager's salary increase. Mayor Enck reported that the city manager's salary
increase was 2% and a shift of one-half of his car allowance to base pay. Mr.
Sable also commented on the 170-unit housing project planned for the East
Winnetka Redevelopment project. He commented that the Task Force was not
supportive of high-density housing. Mayor Enck reported on the funding
differences between redevelopment projects and scattered site projects. He
encouraged Mr. Sable to learn more about the project by attending the
February 23, 2004
ROTATING VOTES
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION
Consent Items
FINANCIAL CLAIMS
Item 6.2
RESOLUTION 2004-37
Item 6.4
RESOLUTION 2004-38
Item 6.5
RESOLUTION 2004-39
Item 6.6
RESOLUTION 2004-40
Item 6.7
RESOLUTION 2004-41
Item 6.8
COMPUTER
EQUIPMENT
Item 6.9
SCANNER
Item 6.10
SALT PURCHASE
Item 6.11
RESOLUTION 2004-42
Item 6.12
February 24 neighborhood meeting. Lastly, Mr. Sable reported that he is no
longer able to access the agendas from the city's website due to the recent
installation of WebLink. He agreed to discuss the matter with the city's
communications coordinator.
Mayor Enck made an announcement regarding the candidates who were
selected as finalists for the councilmember position vacated by
Councilmember Collier due to his recent appointment as Mayor. Mayor Enck
reported that all eight residents who participated in the formal interview
process were outstanding candidates. He noted that Conncilmember Collier
was not involved with the interview process. The three candidates selected as
f'malists were Darin Allen, Doug Andersen, and Steve Reed.
Please note that votes taken on each agenda item are called by the secretary on a
rotating basis; however, the written minutes always list the Mayor's name first
followed by the Conncilmembers in alphabetical order.
Mayor Enck introduced the consent items as listed for consideration and stated that
all items will be enacted by one motion unless requested that an item be removed
for discussion.
Motion was made by Conncilmember Collier, seconded by Conncilmember Gwin-
Lenth, to approve all items on the Consent Agenda. All present voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Approval of £mancial claims through February 23, 2004.
Resolution accepting easement for the TH 169 storm sewer improvement project
no. 717.
Resolution ratifying the 2004 labor agreement with law enforcement labor
services, local #77.
Resolution approving agreement between City of New Hope and REACH
(formerly West Hennepin Community Services) for provision of adaptive
recreation services for persons with developmental disabilities for 2004 for $8,335.
Resolution establishing additional 2004 fees and charges for park and recreation
programs.
Resolution approving Metropolitan Council predevelopment grant (improvement
project no. 733).
Authorization to purchase replacement computer equipment and upgrade system
software for city hall and public works.
Authorization to purchase digital scanner and related equipment for phase two of
the electronic records management system.
Motion to approve the purchase of 395 tons of bulk de-icing salt from North
American Salt Company~ for $15,365.
Resolution adopting Hazard Mitigation Plan as part of New Hope's Emergency
Operations Plan.
New Hope City Council
Page 2
February 23, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING
Item 7.1
New Hope City Council
Page 3
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 7.1, Public Hearing - Resolution
approving proposed use of 2004 Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant Program funds and authorizing execution of
subrecipient agreement with Hennepin County and any third party agreements.
Mr. Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, utilized a power point
presentation to review the proposed use of 2004 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program funds. He reported that the US
Congress has not appropriated 2004 funds to HUD for disbursement and award to
grantees, therefore Heunepin County has not been notified of the exact CDBG
award. The County has requested that all consortium cities conduct a public
heating within their normal imposed schedule and use the County's preliminary
2004 allocation amount as a guide. The County has advised cities that any changes
would likely be minimal.
Mr. Doresky reviewed funding requests for public services activities and staff's
recommendations for allocation of the CDBG funds as follows:
Activity
Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association
Senior Transportation
Family Hope Youth Services (Treehouse)
Community Action for Suburban Hennepin
(CASH)
Housing Rehabilitation
Scattered Site Housing
Budget
$ 4,699.05
$ 11,500.00
$ 2,O00.0O
$ 1,500.00
$ 60,000.00
$ 51,627.95
$131,327.00
Mr. Doresky noted that due to lack of funding, the only program not being
recommended for funding is HOME Line, Renter Services.
Mayor Enck opened the floor for comments.
Ms. Rita DeBmyn, representing Five Cities Senior Transportation, was
recognized. She thanked the council for the city's continued support. She stated in
2003, New Hope ridership was 132 persons serving 1,598 total fides. She reported
that riders have a high donation rate, and donations in 2003 were $13,820.
Ms. Marcy Harris, Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH), was
reco~tmized. She expressed gratitude for the past funding. She reported on the
popularity of their first time home buyers training programs. Ms. Harris stated the
largest increase in demand include services such as foreclosure prevention, rehab
advice and assistance, and reverse mortgage counseling.
Ms. Carla Jacobson, Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association, was recognized.
She also thanked the city for the past support. Ms. Jacobson stated the funds will
be used to assist families with child care costs. The families served by GMDCA
represent low income families working toward self-sufficiency. She noted that
2003 was a difficult financial year for families with childcare costs as the
legislature reduced funding by 18%. She stated the present average time on a
waiting list is 24-36 months. Ms. Jacobson indicated the funds through New Hope
will assist eight to ten families or 12-20 children.
Mr. Brian Houst, Family Hope Services/TreeHouse, was recognized. He thanked
the city for its continued support for TreeHouse and the outreach programs for at-
risk children and families. He stated the CDBG funds pay for support group
programs. There is an average of 50-60 teens who attend weekly support groups.
February 23, 2004
CLOSE HEARING
Item 7.1
RESOLUTION 04-43
Item 7.1
IMP. PROJECT 759
Item 8.1
RESOLUTION 04-44
Item 8.1
New Hope City Council
Page 4
Mr. Houst noted TreeHouse offers barrier-free services including transportation.
The Council discussed the funding cuts if the allocation amount is less than the
proposed $131,327, and directed staff to equally reduce the amount among the
recipients.
Mayor Enck expressed his gratitude to all the agencies that provide public services
and commented that it's disappointing that the city cannot support all of the
programs at a greater level.
Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED USE OF 2004 URBAN
HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY
THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing
resolution was seconded by Councilmember Cassen, and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lcnth;
and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent:
Sommcr; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed
by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Resolution approving plans and
specifications for the 2004 infrastructure improvement project, ordering
advertisement for bids, improvement project no. 759.
Mr. Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer, requested approval of the £mal
plans and specifications and authorization to advertise for bids. He indicated a
copy of the plans is available at the city clerk's office. He illustrated the streets in
the southwest area of the city that are included in the proposed project. The
estimated project cost is $2,883,500. Mr. VanderTop explained that two alternates
will be solicited for storm sewer work in the seal coat area of 50th and Yukon for
the backyard drainage project. It is estimated that the two alternates will total
$30,000. He reviewed the project with construction starting in May.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth inquired regarding easements for the backyard
drainage project.
Mr. VanderTop stated a backyard project would not proceed unless the necessary
easements are provided by property owners.
Mayor Enck commented on the high volume of watermain breaks that already
occurred this year, and expressed support for the infrastructure project.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE 2004 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. 759." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded
by Councilmember Cassen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth; and the following
voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: Sommer; whereupon the
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was
attested to by the city clerk.
February 23, 2004
HIGHWAY 610
Item 10.1
RESOLUTION 04-45
Item 10.1
SHINGLE CREEK
WATERSHED
Item 10.2
New Hope City Council
Page 5
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Resolution requesting the
Governor of the State of Minnesota & the Commissioner of Transportation to
commit as a high priority new federal TEA-LU re-authorization funds for the
completion of TH 610/10 from TH 169 in the City of Brooklyn Park to 1-94 in the
City of Maple Grove.
Mayor Enck stated a number of cities are adopting similar resolutions requesting
the reallocation of resources to the Highway 610 project. He stated funds that
were previously earmarked for the project were reallocated. The North Metro
Mayors Association has been working with area cities to keep them apprised of the
project. He noted even though Highway 610 does not border New Hope, it greatly
impacts residents and businesses of the New Hope area.
Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE GOVERNOR OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA & THE COMMISSIONER OF
TRANSPORTATION TO COMMIT AS A HIGH PRIORITY NEW
FEDERAL TEA-LU RE-AUTHORIZATION FUNDS FOR THE
COMPLETION OF TH 610/10 FROM TH 169 IN THE CITY OF
BROOKLYN PARK TO 1-94 IN THE CITY OF MAPLE GROVE." The
motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth; and the following
voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: Sommer; whereupon the
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted~ signed by the mayor which was
attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.2, Resolution approving
amendment to the Joint and Cooperative Agreement of the Shingle Creek
Watershed Management Commission.
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, stated the city has been a member of the Shingle
Creek Watershed for many years. All nine member cities must approve the
amended joint and cooperative agreement. He stated the purpose of the financial
changes is to give the member cities greater control over funding and permit
greater input by cities before the Commission could approve projects. He stated
the changes are outlined in the following five points:
1. The assessments for general fund purposes for the year 2004 will be set as an
"assessment cap". The cap will be increased (or decreased) each year
thereafter based on changes in the consumer price index.
2. The assessment cap cannot be exceeded by the Commission without the
consent ora majority of the member cities.
3. In addition, the Commission cannot increase the assessment by more than
20% in any one year - even if such an increase would be within the
assessment cap - without the consent of a majority of member cities.
4. The current joint powers agreement does not allow a levy that requires any
member to contribute an amount in excess of one-half of one percent of the
net tax capacity of that portion of the city lying within the watershed. That
limitation remains in the proposed amendment.
5. The agreement currently allows the Commission to impose a supplemental
levy. Such a levy might be needed, for example, to cover unforeseen expenses
due to state mandates or litigation. The proposed amendment also allows
supplementary assessments. However, the supplementary assessment together
with the regular annual assessment for any one year cannot exceed the limits
noted above without city consent.
February23,2004
RESOLUTION 04-46
Item 10.2
WEIGHT
RESTRICTIONS
Item 11.1
RESOLUTION 04-47
Item 11.1
CITY
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 12.1
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth asked for clarificahon of Item number 2. Mr.
Donahue indicated that city councils would have to adopt resolutions to show
consent.
Councilmember Cassen eXtended congratulations to Mark Hanson on his
appointment as Chair of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT
AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT OF THE SHINGLE CREEK
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION,". The motion for the
adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Collier, and
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck,
Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth; and the following voted against the same: None;
Abstained: None; Absent: Sommer; whereupon the resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck recommended adding Item 11.1 to the agenda and introduced the
item, Resolution extending and terminating seasonal weight restrictions on city
streets.
Mr. Donahue reported that the action would set forth seasonal road weight
restrictions for 2004 commencing February 27. He stated the city follows the same
road weight restriction dates as Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION EXTENDING AND TERMINATING SEASONAL
WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON CITY STREETS". The motion for the
adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth; and the following voted against the same:
None; Abstained: None; Absent: Sommer; whereupon the resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city
clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Exchange of communication
between members of the city council.
Councilmember Cassen
· Reported that the city held its State of the City Address on February 19. She
invited the public to stop by city hall to view the display of development
projects. It was also noted that interested persons may contact the city to
request a CD of the power point presentation. The presentation will also be
replayed by Cable 12 after council meetings replays during the next couple of
weeks.
Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no further business to come before
the Council. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope City
Council adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Re?pectfully submitted,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
New Hope City Council
Page 6
February 23, 2004
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
March 8, 2004
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
New Hope City Council
Page 1
The New Hope City Council met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice
thereof; Mayor Enck called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
The City Council and all present stood for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Council Present:
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
Sharon Cassen, Councilmember
Don Collier, Councilmember
Mary Gwin~Lenth, Councilmember
Steve Sommer, Councilmember
Staff Present:
Roger Axel, Building Official
Amy Baldwin, Community Development Intern
Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator
Alan Brixius, Northwest Consultants
Doug Debrief, Assistant City Attorney
Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist
Shah French, Director of Parks & Recreation
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Daryl Sulander, Director of Finance
Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer
Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember
Cassen, to approve the regular meeting minutes of February 23, 2004. Voting
in favor: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Abstained: Sommer; Absent: None.
Motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, to approve the work session minutes of February
23, 2004. Voting in favor: Enck, Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Abstained: Collier,
Sommer; Absent: None. Motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember
Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to approve the work session
minutes of March 3, 2004. Voting in favor: Enck, Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer
Abstained: Collier; Absent: None. Motion carried.
Ms. Gunilla Bobb, representing the Regional Human Rights Coalition, explained
that the arts poster contest was established in 1999. She described the contest and
thanked New Hope for supporting the program. The Council acknowledged the 20
winning enl~ies on display in the council chambers and expressed its gratitude to
area schools for participating in the contest.
The following persons individually addressed the Council: Bill and Trish Gabrys,
9209 59th Avenue North; Georgia O'Brien, 9241 59th Avenue North, and Lynn
Bradway, 9233 59th Avenue North. They requested improved screening of their
residential properties from the north side of the commercial building located at
9220 Bass Lake Road. Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission for
additional viewpoints.
March 8, 2004
ROTATING VOTES
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION
Consent Items
BUSINESS LICENSES
Item 6.1
FINANCIAL CLAIMS
Item 6.2
RESOLUTION 2004-48
Item 6.4
RESOLUTION 2004-49
Item 6.5
RESOLUTION 2004-50
Item 6.6
IMP. PROJECT 735
Item 6.7
RESOLUTION 2004-51
Item 6.8
IMP. PROJECTS 760,
753, 741,756, 758, 734
Item 6.9
RESOLUTION 2004-52
Item 6.10
BID/PORTABLE
RESTROOMS
Item 6.11
BID/RECREATION
SUPPLIES
Item 6.12
Ms. Juanita Hoffe, 4632 Flag Avenue NoFth, requested that public informational
meetings be held prior to the council's vote on the water supply decision.
Mr. Stan Mack, ISD 281 Superintendent, presented information regarding the
reorganization of pre k-12 and community education program/facilities (Supt.
Mack spoke at 8:45 p.m. following Item 8.1).
Please note that votes taken on each agenda item are called by the secretary on a
rotating basis; however, the written minutes always list the Mayor's name first
followed by the Councilmembers in alphabetical order.
Mayor Enck introduced the consent items as listed for consideration and stated that
all items will be enacted by one motion unless requested that an item be removed
for discussion.
Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, to approve all items on the Consent Agenda. All present voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Approval of business licenses.
Approval of £mancial claims through March 8, 2004.
Resolution approving agreement with the New Hope/Crystal/Plymouth Swim Club
for use of Milton C. Homey pool for summer practices.
Resolution approving contract with Pearson Brothers, Inc. for 2004 street
sweeping services.
Resolution approving contract with Shaw Tracking Co. for the disposal of debris
collected during the 2004 street sweeping operation.
Motion to accept the replacement of sanitary sewer lift station control panels and
to authorize final payment to U.S. Filter Control Systems, Inc. (city project no.
735).
Resolution approving contract with Outdoors Again for 2004 mowing services.
Motion approving demolition plans and specifications and authorizing
advertisement for bids (improvement project nos. 760, 753, 741, 756, 758, and
734).
Resolution approving maintenance contract with RT Electric Inc. for civil defense
sirens for $1,995 per year.
Approval of bids submitted for portable restrooms for park facilities and
authorization to contract for season with Biffs, Inc. for $2,330.50.
Approval of bids submitted for summer recreation shirts, balls, equipment and
supplies; and authorization to purchase - $9,607.09 total.
New Hope City Council
Page 2
March 8, 2004
RESOLUTION 2004-53
Item 6.13
BID/16' TRIDECK
ROTARY MOWER
Item 6.14
BID/TRUCK BODY
WITH HOIST
Item 6.15
PLANNING CASE
04-01
Item 8.1
New Hope City Council
Page 3
Resolution awarding contract to Legend Technical Services for bulk asbestos and
environmental hazards surveys (improvement project no. 751).
Approval of bid from MTI Distributing for a 16-foot tri-deck rotary mower -
$78,762.08
Approval of bid from J-Craft Inc. for a truck body with hoist - $14,634.17
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Planning Case 04-01, request for
rezoning of properties, preliminary plat approval, and concept/development stage
planned unit development, 5340-5550 Winnetka Avenue North (east side), 7601-
7809 Bass Lake Road (south side), and 5519-5559 Sumter Avenue North (both
sides); Ryland Homes, petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the request
before council involves rezoning of the property from R-1 (single family
residential) and CB (community business) to PUD (planned unit development),
preliminary plat approval, and concept/development stage planned unit
development, to allow construction of 117 urban townhomes and 58
condominiums. The planning commission considered the request at its March 2
meeting and recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined within the
resolution. Mr. McDonald noted that several of the conditions had been added by
the Planning Commission in response to comments made by neighboring property
owners.
Mr. McDonald commented that a segment of Sumter Avenue will need to be
vacated to accommodate the project. This vacation will require a public hearing
and will be scheduled at a later date.
Mr. McDonald explained that over the past eight years, the city has been acquiring
property in the subject area in anticipation of future redevelopment. In 1998, the
city completed its update of the Comprehensive Plan which targeted several areas
in the city for redevelopment. A task force was formed to study redevelopment
oppommities and prepare concept plans and recommendations. The report from
the task force was presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in
December, 2002. Early in 2003, the Council selected preferred developers for each
study area and Ryland Homes was designated as the preferred developer for the
East Winnetka site.
He also stated special legislation was passed in 2003 governing the use of tax
increment £mancing by the city within a designated area. In December of 2003
following a public hearing, the Council approved the East Winnetka TIF District.
Two unit types have been selected (Carriage Townhomes and Heritage
Condominiums). At the January 26, 2004, New Hope EDA Meeting, the EDA
approved the development agreement with Ryland Homes, based on the concept
plan presented and authorized eminent domain for the remaining properties in the
area. It is anticipated that an agreement will be reached for voluntary acquisitions
of most of the properties and that eminent domain will only be necessary on a
small number of properties.
The development agreement requires the city to mm over several vacant parcels of
land on Winnetka by April 15 to allow the developer to construct two model
buildings. The agreement also calls for the city to turn over a Phase 1 parcel of
land (probably the remaining properties on Winnetka) by July 1, 2004. The Phase
March 8, 2004
New Hope City Council
Page 4
2 parcel of land (probably those along Bass Lake Road) is to be turned over to the
developer by September 1. Mr. McDonald stated that this development provided
market rate life cycle housing options and that this was not low income housing.
The models will be completed by September. Mr. McDonald stated the city is
continuing to coordinate with Ryland Homes on several other aspects of the
development including a public sidewalk along Winnetka and Bass Lake Road, the
burial of overhead utilities along Winnetka, the vacation of Sumter Avenue and
related m-around, the removal or relocation of utilities on the site and
park/ponding improvements. The developer will conlxibute approximately $80,000
in park dedication fees to the city as part of the development agreement and those
funds will be utilized to make improvements at Elm Grove Park, adjacent to the
development on the east.
A neighborhood meeting was held on February 24, 2004, to present concept plans
and address questions. Seven residents spoke at the Planning Commission meeting
regarding the development. The residents' concerns included drainage issues,
screening of adjacent properties, and the housing density.
Mr. A1 Brixius, City Planner, was recognized. Mr. Brixius stated the project
comprises 17.1 acres of land. The right-of-way (or Street A) includes
approximately 2.3 acres, and the lot area utilized for building is 14.8 acres. The net
density (exclusive of public street right-of-way) is approximately 11.8 units per
acre.
Mr. Brixius stated in 1998 the Comprehensive Plan identified this area for
redevelopment in part due to the extraordinary deep lots along Winnetka. The
Livable Communities Task Force suggested low to medium residential housing. It
was determined that greater density was necessary to make the project financially
feasible. The 1997 Life Cycle Housing Study indicated that the city should provide
higher, move-up housing and owner-occupied or rental attached housing such as
townhomes, twinhomes and cooperative apartments. These elements are lacking in
New Hope and the Ryland proposal addresses that type of housing.
Mr. Brixius reviewed proposed street widths, location of the streets, parking
arrangements, snow storage areas, lighting, and the landscaping plan including
fencing. He stated Ryland has been asked to work with the neighbors regarding the
fence height where the perimeter fence abuts the single-family neighborhood and
the adjoining grade drops below the road. He noted the proposed six-foot fence
height could be increased by 16 inches.
Mr. Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer, stated staff has reviewed the plans
with the developer. He explained that staff is working with Hennepin County
regarding their request for additional right-of-way. Mr. VanderTop stated he
recommends approval of the preliminary plat and any necessary adjustments can
be made to the final plat. He explained drainage patterns and the proposed storm
water pond at Elm Grove Park. He recommended eliminating the snow storage
areas at the end of the fire access lanes. Mr. VanderTop noted the plan may be able
to assist drainage through grading measures.
Mr. Chris Enger, land resource manager for Ryland Homes, was recognized. He
stated staff has been very thorough in their review of the project. He thanked the
City Council, Planning Commission, and staff for the collaborative efforts. He
noted they have prepared over 30 various plans to date, and they are pleased to be
a part of the redevelopment process. He indicated their willingness to comply with
all of the staff recommendations. He indicated the proposed street lighting adjacent
to the single-family neighborhood has been replaced with a four-foot high bollard
fixture which will be lower than the fence. There will be no light spillage off the
March 8, 2004
site. He stated they will address the screening of gas meters, utility equipment, and
air conditioning units of the condominiums and will ensure that the downspouts do
not outlet to the driveways. Ryland Homes is willing to double the Evergreen and
canopy tree plantings in the area that backs the single-families where the
development adjoins the street, and will also increase the fence height.
Councilmember Collier questioned the unit prices and installation of fencing
versus benning.
Mr. Enger stated the average sales price will be above $200,000. The average price
of add-ons is $20,000. Enger indicated due to space restrictions, the most positive
screening mechanism is a six-foot fence reinforced with plantings. He stated the
trees will be in excess of 2-1/2" caliber or approximately 15' in height.
Mr. McDonald indicated that the screening techniques were discussed at the
Planmng Commission meeting.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth inquired whether Hennepin County is proposing a
controlled traffic signal at Rhode Island (Street A and 54°~).
Mr. VanderTop stated Hennepin County's response to date has related to right-of-
way requirements. The plat dedicates 40' of half right-of-way which is typical of
the other properties in the area. Hennepin County is suggesting a 60' half right-of-
way especially along the Bass Lake Road corridor. In the county's plan this
includes a regional bike trail and dedicated left hand turn lanes. He stated staff is
reviewing these issues in terms of the city's vision. At this time, the county has not
suggested a lighting control at Rhode Island or 54th. The county's plan does
include right turn lanes at both 54t~ and at Rhode Island for access into the
development. The city's transportation planner is reviewing the issue of left turn
lanes.
Councilmember Sommer questioned the setback requirements. He also suggested
that the developer discuss the fence height with the residential properties.
Mr. Brixius stated the setbacks are 25' for R-1 zoning districts and 30' for R-5
zoning districts (high density). All the setbacks for the single-family homes are 30'
or greater so the minimums have been met.
Mr. Enger stated there was a request for a taller fence with additional landscaping
in the area along Winnetka where the road double fronts the back of the lots. He
differentiated this from the rest of the development where there is 30' setbacks
with landscaping. He stated it would be their preference to have the height uniform
in size with the decision made by the city rather than individual homeowners.
Councilmember Cassen suggested that the developer meet with the homeowners
and reach a consensus regarding the overall height of the fence. Mr. Enger agreed
that he would coordinate with the City to contact the affected six property owners.
He clarified that the fence height would remain at six feet unless all six property
owners agreed to the taller fence (six foot plus 16" fence).
Councilmember Cassen suggested consideration of selling the bump out property
on the south side to the two abutting home owners at 7608 and 7616 55th Avenue.
She noted it would create a hardship to the property owner at 7608 Avenue if they
chose to construct an addition to their home in the furore. She noted this would
have to be agreeable to Ryland and it would be necessary to ensure green space
requirements are met.
New Hope City Council
Page 5
March 8, 2004
RESOLUTION 04-54
Item 8.1
New Hope City Council
Page 6
Mr. Brixius recommended that the first plat create this as a separate outlot so that
it will not be conveyed to Ryland until it is determined whether it's part of the
development or not.
Mr. Enger emphasized that the section of properly has value to Ryland as it would
provide three homes to be sold at a premium as they would have more back yard
space. He expressed a willingness to pull the decorative fence 20' back so the
existing properties would have a pleasant visual use of the property. He stated a
decision has to be made very soon regarding the property.
Ms. Adrienne Edison, 7608 55th Avenue North, was recognized. She stated the
"bump out" being spoken about is near her properly. She stated the city has not
maintained the property, but her neighbor is desirous of purchasing it. Ms. Edison
stated the neighborhood submitted petitions against the project that were ignored
by the city. She commented that although she does not support the project, the
planning commission and city planner were helpful in explaining the plans.
Ms. Juanita Hoffe, 4632 Flag Avenue North, was recognized. She stated several
residents are impacted by the project. She inquired of the process used in deciding
to close off the street on Sumter Avenue.
Mr. A1 Brixius, City Planner, stated the Task Force discussed the issues associated
with integration of higher density residential development with the low density
neighborhood. Mr. Brixius explained that initially the plan called for an extension
of 55th to Winnetka but that was deemed inappropriate. Another consideration was
an extension of Sumter Avenue, but that also was inappropriate due to traffic
encroaching on the quiet neighborhood. He stated the closure of Sumter Avenue
option was arrived at after evaluating everyone's comments.
Mr. Paul Edison, 7608 55th Avenue North, was recognized. He suggested the lots
be made square. He noted he may add on to the rear of his garage in the future.
Ms. Barb Drenth, 7616 55th Avenue North, was recognized. In regard to the "bump
out", she asked the council to give higher consideration to the needs of the existing
property owners than the developer. She pointed out the neighborhood is akeady
negatively impacted by the higher density housing project. She expressed her
gratitude that screening is being addressed. Ms. Drenth also asked the council to
consider higher price housing in order to reduce the housing density.
Per the city planner's request, the resolution included the Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
Mayor Enck expressed the council's appreciation to staff, planning commission,
the Livable Communities Task Force, and Chris Enger of Ryland Homes for their
assistance with the redevelopment efforts.
Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 04-01,
REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTIES, PRELIMINARY PLAT
APPROVAL, AND CONCEPT/DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, 5340-5550 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (EAST
SIDE), 7601-7809 BASS LAKE ROAD (SOUTH SIDE), AND 5519-5559
SUMTER AVENUE NORTH (BOTH SIDES); RYLAND HOMES,
PETITIONER." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was
seconded by Councilmember Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereofi Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer;
and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None;
March 8, 2004
IMP. PROJECT 724
Item 8.2
RESOLUTION 04-55
Item 8.2
RECOGNITION
POLICY
Item 10.1
RESOLUTION 04-56
Item 10.1
APPOINTMENT TO
CITY COUNCIL
Item 11.1
New Hope City Council
Page 7
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the
mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Resolution calling for a public
hearing on the modification of the restated redevelopment plan for redevelopment
project no. 1; modification of the tax increment financing plans for tax increment
financing districts nos. 80-2, 81-1, 82-1, 85-1, 85-2, 86-1, 02-1, 03-1 (special law)
and 04-1 (special law), (improvement project no. 724).
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, indicated the
resolution establishes a public hearing date of May 10, 2004, to consider inclusion
of 5519 Sumter Avenue North in the TIF district.
Councilmember Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
MODIFICATION OF THE RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1; MODIFICATION OF THE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICTS NOS. 80-2, 81-1, 82-1, 85-1, 85-2, 86-1, 02-1, 03-1 (SPECIAL
LAW) AND 04-1 (SPECIAL LAW), (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
724)." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the
following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None;
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the
mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Resolution approving recognition
policy for retiring and outgoing council members.
Mayor Enck pointed out that the policy for council is consistent with the practice
of recognizing retiring employees.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOGNITION POLICY FOR
RETIRING AND OUTGOING COUNCIL MEMBERS." The motion for the
adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Cassen, and
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck,
Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same:
None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city
clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 11.1, Resolution appointing Douglas
Andersen to the New Hope City Council to serve April 1, 2004, through December
31, 2004.
Mayor Enck explained that the councilmember vacancy occurred due to his
resignation and the subsequent appointment of Councilmember Collier to complete
his remaining mayoral term. Mayor Enck reported that the Council interviewed
eight candidates for the position, and the Council was impressed with the
credentials of all the candidates. He conveyed the Council's appreciation to all the
residents for participating in the interview process and for their interest in the
community. Mayor Enck reported that the Council has unanimously agreed to
appoint Douglas Andersen to complete Councilmember Collier's term.
Mayor Enck noted that Mr. Andersen has served on the city's Personnel Board
March 8, 2004
RESOLUTION 04-57
Item 11.1
CITY
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 12.1
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 12.2
ADJOURNMENT
since 1989. The appointment of Mr. Andersen to the Council creates a vacancy on
the Personnel Board.
Councilmember Collier announced that he did not participate in the interview or
selection process and will abstain from voting on the item.
Councilmember Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPOINTING DOUGLAS ANDERSEN TO THE
NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL TO SERVE APRIL 1, 2004, THROUGH
DECEMBER 31, 2004". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
was seconded by Councilmember Cassen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Gwin~Lenth, Sommer; and the
following voted against the same: None; Abstained: Collier; Absent: None;
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the
mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Council input on city
communications.
Council reviewed various city communications.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.2, Exchange of communication
between members of the city council.
Councilmember Cassen requested that the association by-laws relating to the
Ryland Homes development include restrictions regarding minimum lease periods
if a unit is not owner-occupied.
Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember
Cassen, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no further business to come before
the Council. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope City
Council adjourned at 9:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
New Hope City Council
Page 8
March 8, 2004
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
EDA Minutes
Regular Meeting
February 23, 2004
City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVE MINUTES
SECTION 8
CONTRACT
Item 4
EDA Meeting
Page 1
President Enck called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order
at 8:21 p.m.
Present:
W. Peter Enck, President
Sharon Cassen, Commissioner
Don Collier, Commissioner
Mary Gwin-Lenth, Commissioner
Absent: Steve Sommer, Commissioner
Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to
approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2004. All present voted in
favor. Motion carried.
President Enck introduced for discussion Item 4, Resolution approving termination
of section 8 housing assistance payments program contract for administrative
services with Metropolitan Council and approving contract for inspection services.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the city of New
Hope has contracted with the Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority/
Metropohtan Council for the past 20+ years to administer the Section 8 Housing
Assistance Payments Program on a local level. The city employed a full-time
Section 8 housing coordinator to administer the program, the city provided
inspection services for the clients, and reimbursements from the Met Council/HUD
covered all costs of the program and position. In 2003, the long-time Section 8
coordinator retired and the city hired a new employee for the position, and that
employee has submitted a letter of resignation. With the primary focus of the
Community Development Department being on redevelopment at this time, staff is
recommending that the administrative services portion of the contract be returned to
the Met Council and that the city retain the inspection services portion of the
contract. This will enable staff to spend more time on redevelopment activities, yet
still maintain a close connection to the multiple family dwelling managers/owners
in the city via the inspection process.
To accomplish this objective, staff is recommending that the current contract with
Metro HRA be terminated for administration and that a new contract for inspection
services be approved. Staff has discussed this change with Metro I-IRA supervisory
staff and they support the change. A letter has already been sent to Metro HRA
advising that this recommended change would be presented to the EDA. They are
prepared to take over the caseload of the New Hope Section 8 clients. Staffhas also
discussed these changes with the city manager, director of fmance, and others (all
who are supportive of this action). The change will have a minimal budget impact.
President Enck noted his appreciation regarding the effective dialogue between the
Community Development Department and Metro HRA.
Commissioner Gwin-Lenth expressed support for the change but questioned the
impact to the clients.
February 23, 2004
EDA RESOLUTION
04-11
Item 4
IMP. PROJECT 754
Item 5
ADJOURNMENT
EDA Meeting
Page 2
Mr. McDonald stated most of the communications are handled by telephone or mail.
The in-person meetings will be handled at the office in St. Paul.
Cor,;-,issioner Gwin-Lenth recommended that staff offer New Hope city hall as a
satellite office (such as one day per month) to alleviate section 8 clients'
transportation issues.
Commissioner Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption "RESOLUTION APPROVING TERMINATION OF SECTION 8
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM CONTRACT FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES WITH METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND
APPROVING CONTRACT FOR INSPECTION SERVICES." The motion for
the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Cassen,
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck,
Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, and the following voted against the same: None;
Abstained: None; Absent: Sommer; whereupon the resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted, signed by the president which was attested to by the executive
director.
President Enck introduced for discussion Item 5, Update on potential redevelopment
by Bear Creek Capital and CVS Pharmacy and motion authorizing preparation of
resolution of friendly condemnation for property at 7901 Bass Lake Road
(improvement project no. 754).
Mr. McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated at the January 26,
2004, EDA meeting, staff updated the EDA on the status of the project and reported
that the acquisition of the residential property by CVS was moving forward, but that
there had not been any progress made on the Sinclair site at 7901 Bass Lake Road.
Subsequent to that meeting, CVS and Sinclair have been negotiating directly with
one another and Sinclair has agreed to a sales price, subject to certain conditions.
One of the conditions is that the city approve a resolution of friendly condemnation
for the Sinclair site for monetary reinvestment purposes. If the development would
move forward, the resolution would be presented for approval at a later date.
Other issues that staff continues to work on with the developer related to this
development include:
· Preparing a more detailed site plan and addressing storm water issues.
· Future meeting with School District officials regarding a potential minor land
swap.
· Developer responsible for all costs, including relocation of existing tenant and
soil cleanup issues.
· Coordination on potential creation of TIF district to benefit other development
projects in the area.
Commissioner Cassen recommended inquiring whether the School District would
be willing to sell its property outright rather than making a property trade.
The EDA authorized staff to prepare a resolution of friendly condemnation for
property at 7901 Bass Lake Road in the furore if the CVS project proceeds.
Motion was made by Commissioner Cassen, seconded by Commissioner Gwin-
Lenth, to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The
New Hope EDA adjourned at 8:31 p.m.
~R~gpectfully submit?d,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
February 23, 2004
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
EDA Minutes
Regular Meeting
March 8, 2004
City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVE MINUTES
IMP. PROJECT 754
Item 4
EDA RESOLUTION
04-12
Item 4
ADJOURNMENT
President Enck called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order
at 9:18 p.m.
Present: W. Peter Enck, President
Sharon Cassen, Commissioner
Don Collier, Commissioner
Mary Gwin-Lenth, Commissioner
Steve Sommer, Commissioner
Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Gwin-
Lenth, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2004. Voting
in favor: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Abstained: Sommer; Absent: None.
Motion carried.
President Enck introduced for discussion Item 4, Resolution authorizing acquisition
of property at 7901 Bass Lake Road by direct negotiation or eminent domain
(improvement Project no. 754).
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, indicated the City
received a letter today from Sinclair requesting that the resolution be amended by
deleting the reference to the appraisal of the property. Staff has prepared a revised
resolution that has been distributed to the EDA.
President Enck noted that he met with CVS and the School District regarding
property adjacent to 7901 Bass Lake Road and the School District is amenable to
considering sale of their property.
It was noted that eminent domain will probably not be necessary for the property
acquisition at 7901 Bass Lake Road but the passage of the resolution allows Sinclair
to utilize some financial reinvestment options that would otherwise not be available.
Commissioner Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
"RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT 7901
BASS LAKE ROAD BY DIRECT NEGOTIATION OR EMINENT DOMAIN
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 754)." The motion for the adoption of the
foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier,
Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained:
None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted, signed by the president which was attested to by the executive director.
Motion was made by Commissioner Cassen, seconded by Commissioner Sommer,
to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope
EDA adjourned 9:25 p.m.
ectfully submitted,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk