030612 PlanningK67 , 8
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONSENT BUSINESS
4. P v viiC HEARING
• 4.1 PC 12 -01, Request for site plan review for an exterior remodel of the existing building
and change from single to multi-tenant building, 8001 Bass Lake Road, Brian
Fabo/Fabo Enterprises on behalf of Family Dollar, petitioner
• 4.2 PC11 -09, Request for a variance from the side yard setback requirement for a driveway
expansion, 8424 46th Avenue North, Dawn Niess, petitioner
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1 Design and Review Committee — next meeting March 15, 7:30 a.m. (if needed)
5.2 Codes and Standards Committee
6. NEW BUSINESS
• PC12 -02, Amendment to Section 4 -32 Administration - Amendments
7. OLD BUSINESS
7.1 Approve January 3, 2012, Planning Commission Minutes
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
o Petitioner must in attendance at the meeting
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The
Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon
the Planning Commission's dete 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 u*� ac+�. 1;z-e the following procedure:
1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal.
2. City staff will outline the proposal and staffs 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 t' Le 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.
b. Direct your questions /comments to the chair. The ie 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.
A. If the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the
planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually
this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting.
B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next
Commission meeting.
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Report Date: Thursday, March 1, 2012
Planning Case: 12 -01
Petitioner: Brian Fabo, Fabo Enterprises on behalf of Family Dollar
Address: 8001 Bass Lake Rd
Project Name: Family Dollar
Project Description: Exterior remodel of the existing building and change from single to multi-tenant
building.
Planning Request: Site plan review
I. Type of Planning Request
II. Zoning Code References
Section(s) 4-35 Administration — Site Plan Review
III. Property Specifications
Zoning: CB, community business
Location: South side of Bass Lake Rd, just to the west of the intersection with Winnetka
Avenue
Adjacent Land Uses: CB to the north and east, a mix of residential (R -1, R -3, R -4, and R -5) to the
south, west, and north. ISD 281 owned soccer fields and Winnetka Learning
Center site to the south.
Site Area: 100,816 square feet or 2.31 acres. Irregular lot.
Building Area: 9,593 square feet gross floor area for Family Dollar.
Lot Area Ratios: Building area: 18,467 square feet (17.41 %)
Paved area: 68,679 square feet (64.74 %)
Green area: 18,938 square feet (17.85 %)
Planning District: Planning District 4. The site is identified as a marginal business and an
opportunity for redevelopment. The city has a goal of maintaining and
improving its commercial areas.
IV. Background
The commercial building at 8001 Bass Lake Road has been deteriorating for some time now. Formerly
used as a nursery and currently used for furniture sales and storage, the site is now proposed for
Planning Case Report PC 12 -01 Page 1 3/6,/12
exterior fagade and site renovations and interior changes which will split the building into two tenant
bays. Family Dollar has proposed to take approximately half of the building for a new store location.
Site plan review is required of all buildings changing occupancy and modifications of the building's
fagade that change the building's appearance from the public right -of -way.
V. Zoning Analysis
A. Plan Description
1. Setbacks (Building Placement)
The existing building meets all required setbacks.
2. Circulation Access Traffic and Emergency Vehicle Access
There is a loading dock located at the southwest corner of the building that will be serviced
by semi - trailer trucks. The applicant has submitted truck turning templates that show the
site has adequate space for truck maneuvering under normal circumstances. An area has
been identified as snow storage which interferes with the proposed path for semi - trailers.
The plans fail to show how the second tenant bay will be accessed for deliveries and
garbage. The applicant must demonstrate how this area will be accessed and trucks
maneuvered. The existing outdoor storage area will likely interfere with this function.
An existing access point at Bass Lake Road will remain.
3. Curbing Sidewalk and Pavement
The existing greenhouse at the northwest corner of the building is slated to be removed. In
its place the applicant has proposed to construct an area for additional parking. The parking
area will be curbed. A new pedestrian walkway has been proposed connecting the public
sidewalk to the building via a. concrete sidewalk and painted striping over the parking lot. A
new sidewalk, ranging in width from 5 to 16 feet, will be added along the front of the
building and connecting the two tenant bays.
4. Pedestrian Access and Common Space
As mentioned, the site will have new points of access for pedestrians. A pedestrian ramp is
recommended for the sidewalk connecting the public sidewalk to the parking lot. Because of
the curbing and lack of pedestrian ramp, the sidewalk would be inaccessible to those with
disabilities.
5. Parking
Parking is more than adequate at the site. A total of 24 new parking stalls (including 4
handicap) are being added in the area where the greenhouse currently sits. The entire site
will have 9: parking stalls. Assuming both tenant spaces are used as retail a total of 83 stalls
are required. The site has an excess of 14 stalls.
The parking stalls in the existing parking lot are shown to be a length of 18 feet. Code
requires these stalls to be a length of 19 feet.
Planning Case Report PC 12 -01 Page 2 3/6/12
6. Building
a. Elevation (design, materials, and color)
The applicant is proposing to repaint the existing concrete and wood exterior. The
concrete masonry units (CMU) on the bottom two- thirds of the building will be
painted two different tones — the bottom will be a dark brown color and the middle
a medium brown color. The wood at the top of the building will be painted a light
I
rown color. This design will be carried out around all sides of the building.
A "tower" entrance will be constructed at the front of the Family Dollar store. This
tower will feature a sign and will highlight the entrance and make it a prominent
feature of the building.
New windows and red awnings will be added to the front and west side of the
building. Awnings will also be added near the tower entrance.
b. Floor Plan
The proposal will split the building into two tenant spaces. The Family Dollar will
occupy the western portion of the building and a yet to be determined tenant will
occupy the eastern portion.
In the Family Dollar space the entrance will be moved from the western wall to the
north (front) wall. The general sales area will be towards the north end of the space
with the restrooms, office, break area, and receiving area towards the south. Family
Dollar will not be utilizing the basement area below its space. The existing stairway
and elevator accessing the basement will be removed.
Little information is provided about the use of the second tenant space. The
applicant has stated they have no information as to the other building use. Before a
tenant mo9es into the second cpare� riamnnctratinn ±hat th e 11gP is . CnmpHance
with the zoning and building codes will. be required. West Metro has reviewed the
plans and is concerned with the lack of access to the building's water and electrical
controls from the Family Dollar space. It is recommended that the building's
services be isolated to an area that is accessible to the entire building and not a
single tenant.
c. Roof Top
Roof top equipment will be placed towards the center of the tenant space. The
equipment should be painted to match the building.
7. Landscaping and Screening_
A landscaping plan has been submitted which shows new landscaping at the edge of the
property along Bass Lake Rd. The plan includes four types of bushes /shrubs including rose,
deutzia, honeysuckle, and juniper. All are hardy species capable of surviving the Minnesota
climate. The plantings will grow to a height of 3 -4 feet, which will be an ideal height to
screen parked cars. All landscaped areas will be irrigated. Plantings and irrigation will be
the responsibility of the property owner.
Planning Case Report PC 12 -01 Page 3 3/6/12
8. Lighting Plan
The landscape plan indicates three new light poles will be installed as part of the project -
one in the new parking area on the north side of the property, one in the existing west side
parking lot, and another within the fenced area to the rear of the building. The poles are
proposed to be a height of 30 feet on top of a 3 foot base. Pole heights are limited to 25 feet in
height. The applicant has stated the pole heights will be reduced.
A partial photometric plan has been provided for the proposed parking area. A full
photometric plan will be needed to determine if lighting is appropriate for the remainder of
the site. In the areas the photometric is provided, there are three main areas of deficiency —
the eastern portion of the parking lot, the building entrance, and the private sidewalk
adjacent to the building. Additional lighting will need to be added to meet compliance. No
exterior building lighting is provided. Adding some exterior fixtures to the building would
help to meet lighting compliance and add visual interest to the building.
9. Si_gnage
The applicant has submitted information on signage as it pertains to the Family Dollar. An
area for a wall sign at the second tenant bay has been provided, but no location has been
provided on the freestanding sign near the site entrance. if such signage will be considered
at a future date, that should be noted in the plans.
As proposed, the applicant meets the requirements of the code. A freestanding sign has
been proposed at the vehicle access point on Bass Lake Rd. The sign is 79 square feet and
approximately 20 feet in height. An existing freestanding sign near the northeast corner of
the site will be removed.
One wall sign has been proposed for the tower entrance. Buildings in the district are
allowed two wall signs not to exceed 15 percent of the wall area or 250 square feet total,
` 1 iu �ever i; less. Tl^.is si is ap 148 square feet or 10.7 percent of the front
fagade. An existing wall sign on the western wall will be removed.
10. Utility Plan
An existing storm sewer easement currently runs through the middle of the existing parking
lot. That easement is to remain.
The condition of the 24 -inch storm sewer pipe which conveys storm water from the
property south and west of the site to the north should be reviewed to see if the storm sewer
is in adequate condition. The recent improvements at the North Education Center site
provide significant drainage to this storm sewer, and drainage issues do exist on the
adjacent property to the west. Unfortunately, the area in which the storm sewer exists will
not be replaced or disturbed. Unless the city is willing to put forth the expense, the applicant
or property owner is unlikely to allow disruption.
11. Snow Storage
Snow storage is proposed for the western edge of the parking lot in a lot designed for 13
parking stalls. The site has an excess of 14 parking stalls so this fits within the required
parking. Because an area of the snow storage is identified for truck maneuvering, this will
Planning Case Report PC 12 -01 Page 4 3/6/12
limit the area of snow storage. The applicant will need to properly store snow and maintain
truck maneuvering.
There is also a line of trees adjacent to the area proposed for snow storage. The applicant
will need to ensure these trees are not damaged or destroyed, and if they are, that they are
replaced.
12. Location of Services, Loading, Drive - through, Trash, Equipment and Outdoor Storage Areas
A 16,000 square foot area of outdoor storage exists to the rear of the building. This area was
approved in 1992 by conditional use permit (CUP) as an accessory use to a garden store.
The area is fenced by a 7 foot chain link fence. The applicant does not intend to have
outdoor storage in the area, but has proposed to keep the fence. With the change of use and
occupancy, and absent a demonstration that the outdoor storage is directly related to the
principal use of the building, the CUP is contrary to code and would not be considered a
legal nonconforming use in that it is not being operated in a manner consistent with the
original approval. The concern is to avoid this becoming an independent storage yard
separate from the on -site activities. If the storage area is to remain the city will want to know
what is be stored in this area and that it is accessory to the on -site businesses. It is
recommended the outdoor storage within the fenced area be removed. If outdoor storage is
integral to the site, then a new CUP, accessory to the uses in the building, may be pursued
by the applicant.
The trash receptacles are intended to be stored in the fenced area. No trash enclosure is
proposed because the applicant intends to screen the trash receptacles with the existing
fence. City code requires that trash must be in the rear yard, fully screened from view by
adjacent properties and public right -of -way, enclosures must be constructed with walls of
architectural elements similar to the principle structure, and enclosures must be located in
an accessible location for pick -up. The applicant will need to provide an enclosure to screen
the trash from adjacent properties and one that is of similar building materials. It is
recommended that a trash enclosure be constructed to accommodate both tenant bays.
As mentioned previously, Family Dollar will receive shipments at an existing loading bay at
the southwest corner of the building. No indication of how the second tenant bay will
receive shipments is provided. The site plan must demonstrate that the second bay has a
loading area and adequate truck maneuvering for deliveries and garbage hauling. The
existing fence and gate limits access to the back of the building and should be removed.
13. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control
The city engineer has expressed no concerns.
14. Design Guideline Compliance
The proposal generally meets the requirements of the Design Guidelines.. The site is well
landscaped, has pedestrian access, the architecture provides a top, middle, and base, and
parking is generally screened from the public view. The fagade of the building barely meets
the intention of the guidelines as articulation in the building front, windows, and visual
interests are minim The addition of the tower entrance and windows with awnings is a
Planning Case Report PC 12 -01 Page 5 3/6/12
step in the right direction but more could be done. Overall, the applicant meets the
guidelines.
15. Neighborhood Character
The site is identified as a redevelopment site in the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal
means redevelopment is unlikely to happen in the near future. The proposal, while not
ideal, will be an improvement over the existing conditions. Because the building is existing
the improvements will have a rn�inimal hmpact on fl-ee neighborhood. Additional traffic is
likely, but the site is designed as a commercial retail location and should be able to handle
the change.
16. Environment
Storm water ponding has been discussed in the past for this property, however, has never
been required. The proposed impervious area is not increasing and the disturbed area is less
than 10,000 square feet. The Shingle Creek Watershed District does not require their review.
B. Zoning Code Criteria
1. Site Plan Review. Criteria. 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.
Findings. The Comprehensive Plan outlines the site for redevelopment and encourages
commercial investment. While the project is not a redevelopment per se, a significant
investment will take place and the project will improve the overall site and building.
(2) Consistency with the purposes of the Code.
Findings. Generally speaking, the proposal meets the purposes of the Code. In instances in
which the proposal does not meet the requirements, conditions of approval have been
placed on the applicant.
(3) Preservation of the site in its natural state, insofar as practicable, by minimiz 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.
Findings. The site is already developed and no longer in a natural state. The applicant has
agreed to provide additional landscaping at the edge of the northern property line.
(4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open spaces with the terrain and
with existing and future building having a visual relationship to the proposed
development.
Findings. The building is existing. As mentioned, landscaping and screening of the site
will be improved. The fagade aesthetics will be an improvement on existing design.
(5) Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features including:
Planning Case Report PC 12 -01 Page 6 3/6/12
a. Creation of an internal sense of order for the various functions and buildings on
the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and
general community.
Findings. Pedestrian access has been improved to the site through various
sidewalk connections. Ample parking has been provided on site.
b. Appropriateness of the amount and arrangement of open space and landscaping
to the design and function of the development.
Findings. Landscaping will be provided in existing open space.
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.
Findings. The existing building materials will remain. They will be repainted to
give the building a fresh look and to provide a sense of base, middle, and top. The
materials used are acceptable.
d. Adequacy of vehicular, cycling and pedestrian circulation, including walkways,
interior drives and parking, in terms of location and number of access points to
the public streets, width of interior drives and 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.
Findings. Adequate pedestrian and vehicular access has been provided. Bicycle
parking has not been provided but is recommended.
(6) Creation of an energy - conserving design through design, location, orentation and
elevation of structures, the use and location of glass in structures, and the use of landscape
materials and site grading.
Findings. The building is existing and provisions have been made to best utilize the
existing facility. Landscaping has been added to provide an aesthetic and environmental
feature.
(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.
Findings. The existing building and proposal shall not alter or affect the ways in which
water, sound, light, and air are enjoyed by neighboring properties.
C. Design and Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee was scheduled to meet on February 16, 2012. Unfortunately,
an error in notification of the committee meant no one from the committee was in attendance.
Planning Case Report PC 12 -01 Page 7 3/6/12
Staff and the planning consultant met with the applicant and discussed the concerns of the
Development Review Team.
D. ARnr oval
1. Type of Approval
Site plan review
2. Ti neline
a. Date Application Received: February 10, 2012
b. Date Application Deemed Incomplete: February 16, 2012
c. Date Application Deemed Complete: February 24, 2012
d. End of 60 -Day Decision Period: April 24, 2012
e. End of 120 -Day Decision Period: June 26, 2012
VI. Petitioner's Comments
Petitioner's comments are included in the attachments.
VII. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments.
VIII. Summary
The applicant is proposing a change to the building fagade facing the public right -of -way and change
the building from single to multi- occupancy which requires site plan review. The existing greenhouse
will be removed and replaced with additional parking and pedestrian connections. The exterior of the
building will be repainted and new windows, awnings, and a tower entrance added. The building will
be split into two tenant bays. The plans lack detail on the specifics of the second, yet unknown, tenant
space.
IX. Recommendation
Staff believes the applicant has met the requirements of the site plan review, and where the applicant
has not met the requirements conditions of approval have been placed. Staff recommends approval of
the site plan review with the following conditions:
1. Applicant to enter into site improvement agreement with city (to be prepared by the city
attorney).
2. Applicant to provide financial guarantee /performance bond for site improvements (amount
to be determined by city engineer and building official).
3. Outdoor storage within the fenced area of the site shall be removed. If this is integral to the
site, then a new conditional use permit may be pursued.
4. All parking must be properly dimensioned and striped on site (8 feet 9 inches by 19 feet).
All parking lot improvements, paving, striping, and curbing shall be completed prior to
building occupancy.
5. Snow storage shall not interfere with delivery vehicles maneuvering and shall not damage
the existing trees.
Planning Case Report PC 12 -01 Page 8 3/6/12
6. The applicant shall demonstrate how the delivery vehicles shall access the second tenant
bay. Staff recommends the removal of the fence and gate across the parking area to provide
improved access to the back of the building.
7. Exterior trash enclosures shall be constructed to match the building and serve both tenant
bays.
8. The applicant shall provide an exterior lighting plan for the entire site that complies with
city requirements with regard to pole heights, required light levels, and light locations.
9. The approved landscape plan is installed prior to building occupancy. All plants shall be
kept alive or replaced according to the approved plan.
10. Roof top equipment shall be painted to match the building.
11. The pedestrian sidewalk provided between the public sidewalk and parking lot should have
an accessible ramp.
12. Building services shall be accessible to all tenant spaces, not isolated.
13. Provide bicycle parking near the building entrance.
14. Submit comprehensive sign plan.
Attachments:
• Application
• Applicant narrative
• Plans
• Location maps
• Planning consultant memorandum (February 15 and February 29, 2012)
• Engineering consultant memorandum (February 16, 2012)
• Design and Review Committee notes (February 16, 2012)
• Applicant response to Design and Review (February 23, 2012)
• Application log
Planning Case Report PC 12 -01 Page 9 3/6/12
RECEIVED FEB 0 9 2092
AMVec nWm aawMWAw
City of New Hope, 401 X*n Avenue North, New Hope, W 55+{26
C" Na J, efts DOW
CWFlba r� a ��re. 3"aS 3_
Rmol N&
N MOfApptasnk 6K I ON rP-
-�
( Moms Phone: V&k PhM a m/ FM Iff T94
Appkwft ON e of lepgar h 2 7s I t�
Typo d ft*ga (pert my io wr o "am d civ
Pbm *Aft Desal m of f *n k (We add jm* Ma NrAc wy)
vwwsr,ou 6e&r . ?(LW %rye 1 N._ p r k ANO
prqvo S
APPMant adanoa imbm tilt bdm tide requW an be contdom O dW preyed. d poet lr bft the
bolo mnIN the and 8Wzo" depoob (n GLOW in the applaron ndmMb) mud be pdd b
Noe dty end thd. Naddllaall9em aos nxpTrad to coyer ooeb irarrrod by the dly, Nie dvmsrrasr,� tl�e
Tho cly hereby nOWn the app Mmod the dole bw r *MS ON 00 deyalopnM MWON be oompleI
wNdn da dbs ttm the dVs aoosphrra cf Nds app Nan. K the dndop d mylew annot be
co mpbtsd w M 00 doM reperdl o l of I* r loo m the dly did erorrd Nrereybw Fri IFN R dotrrre
dbye W ba addNWAW cooftm a i re wp vad by to dp �t I wri�dr ' Ift vOlm 120
Dualopnud Department wM notly you dal mmtkW
EVMMM7e d Ownwdfp &ftdhd:
CoWled Lot & n oy:
Logd Ad Ropka :
Yes No_.
Yes Ne ROW"
Ye Nq_. R q*d4.—
Yok ..,.,_ NR_„_
Dds of Plw**4 Corryr"m Ml@ ft
By Pbnrrd'IN COn>tntmm on:
ANXM44 Derded
By CRY Gound on:
Sued to the tbkm" oo dieeer�
.................
uol ...... �
-:::.cOlooSE-
..........
8411
Is
21
..........
moo.............
0
sloo
8317
8119,
5635
z
z
5629
W
5630
5621
5618
40 ca
z
5619
V -
0 5600
5610
rW4
5615
z
0
0
H
M
Ball
5605
N
5600
8 007
ST. THERESE
NURSING
HOME •
8008
go 4 �
8001
7901
HOSTERMAN
A HIGH SCHOOL
7940
55TH AVE N
. .........
5437
5436 5437
.4
5431
............
Z 5430 5431
5 427
LLJ
re"
7900
Ln
an
ig
5600
M
SA-36 5437 5436 5437
431
0
5430 5 Wo U41 EL
6430 wil 11 GROVE
c nAo N%O -W A-- a FI
8000
57
Am
7910
Hennepin County Property Map Print
Page I of I
----------
Hennepin County Property Map - Tax Year: 2011
j. The data contained an this page Is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that Can Only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed
i� land surveyor. The perimeter and area (square footage and acres) am approximates and may contain discrepancies. The Information an this page should be used for reference purposes only.
Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of material herein contained and Is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this Information or Its derivatives.
Selected Parcel Data
Parcel ID: 06-118-21-41-0006
Owner Name: GARDEN AD AGENCY INC
Parcel Address: 8001 BASS LAKE RD NEW HOPE MN 55428
Property Type: COMMERCIAL-PREF
Homestead: NON-HOMESTEAD
Area (sqft): 100816
Area (acres): 2.31
A-T-B: TORRENS
Market Total: $1,000,000.00
Tax Total: $37,829.94
Date Printed: 2/14/2012 3:03:40 PM
Current Parcel Date: 02/03/2012
Sale Price: $400,000.00
Sale Date: 08/1992
Sale Code: WARRANTY DEED
I .. I/ !_ - 2/14/2012
*�d::YC=' sl q
, -M^z4 1 a
_ C ■ii■ NIMBI
f or
O'Slim mm
� I!� Cri1J �H1
n�.�� ,k �,' -ZV� r .,�rr��tM i J • 5_� rl �r ' _� ���i�.�lr 1 .�
dtl lilt
t-
-r
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 7e3.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2581 planners @nacplanning.corn
MEMORANDUM
TO: Curtis Jacobsen
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: February 15, 2012
RE: New Hope — Family Dollar Store
FILE NO: 131.01 —12.01
BACKGROUND
The following is the preliminary site and building plan review of the Family Dollar Store
to be located at 8001 Bass Lake Road. This site is currently developed and contains
the Market Furniture building. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing
greenhouse portion of the building and redevelop the site for their retail use.
ZONING
The site is zoned CB, Community Business District. The proposed retail use is
permitted in the CB District.
LOT AREA AND SETBACKS
CB District
Proposed
Compliance
Standards
Lot Area
None
2.44 acres
Yes
Lot Width
None
3.98 feet
Yes
Setbacks:
Front (North)
10 feet
80 feet
Yes
Side (East)
10 feet
10 feet
Yes
Side (West)
10 feet
105 feet
Yes
Rear South
30 feet
30 feet
Yes
DEMOLITION
Currently, the site contains a 21,700 square foot building with a fenced outdoor sales
area north of the existing building. The applicant is proposing to demolish the 3,325
square foot greenhouse and remove the outdoor sales area.
n � A s quare mi '1..
I he remaining building will have a total area of " 18,400" square feet. I Fa D o ll ar
Store will occupy approximately 9,880 square feet of the building. How is the remainder
of the building used and accessed?
PARKING
Based on a retail building of 18,900 square feet in size, the following number of parking
stalls is required:
18,400 square feet X.9 = 16,560 square feet . 200 = 83 spaces
The site plan shows 100 parking stalls, however, the parking stalls do not appear to
meet City minimum dimensions of 8 feet, 9 inches wide by 19 feet in length. An 18 foot
length may be allowed with an approved snow removal plan. Absent this approved
plan, all stalls must be striped to a 19 foot stall length. The extension of the stall length
throughout most of the parking lot should not be an issue. The parking lot dimensions
in the extreme northeast corner of the lot present an issue due to the dimension that
exists between the wrought iron fence and the building. The following options may be
considered for this parking area:
Eliminate a row of parking (five stalls) and properly dimension the remaining
stalls.
2. Since the site has 17 stalls in excess of what is required, the City may require a
snow removal plan for this area of the site and allow them to remain.
3. Sign the substandard parking stalls for compact cars.
SITE ACCESS
The site takes access from an existing curb cut from Bass Lake Road. The curb cut
width is 32 feet, which is acceptable for a commercial property. This access point is on
the west end of a Bass Lake Road median. The location of the curb cut allows for
treacherous full access to the site. Are there any plans for Bass Lake Road that may
extend the median and restrict access to right -in and right -out only?
PA
LOADING
The site plan should illustrate where the building will receive deliveries and
demonstrates truck maneuvering within the site. The site plan appears to retain a
fenced in area of the site on the south end of the building. The applicant should provide
information on how this area will be utilized.
TRASH RECEPTACLES AND ENCLOSURE
Section 4.3.b(6)1 requires all commercial uses to provide trash enclosures for all waste
recycling containers if stored outside the building. The applicant must provide details on
location and design of a trash enclosure.
LIGHTING PLAN
The lighting plan illustrates the location of light pole locations. The applicant provides
no other exterior lighting details. The applicant's plans should include the following
details:
1. Location of all exterior parking lot and building lighting.
2. Details on proposed light fixtures.
3. Photometric plan illustrating compliance with the minimum and maximum parking
lot required light levels.
4. Pole height is limited to 25 feet above the ground and 30 feet is being proposed.
LANDSCAPING
The applicant provides a landscape plan along the new parking lot area. The other
parking lot edges have not been addressed. The New Hope Zoning Ordinance requires
landscaping on all sides of parking lots containing six or more stalls. We would
recommend additional landscaping along Bass Lake Road and the west property line.
The landscape plan does not address irrigation of the proposed planted areas.
NEW HOPE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The proposed front building elevation shows the exterior finish to be a scored CMU with
horizontal wood siding near the top of the building. While an improvement over existing
conditions, the following issues are raised when compared to the City's design
guidelines:
3
The building facade does not have a well defined base, middle and top. The
building does change materials and texture, however, it maintains a limited color
theme.
2. The door opening on the north building fagade meets guidelines. The applicant
should provide a west elevation to show any window treatments, doorways, and
exterior wall treatments proposed toward the larger parking lot. T he window
canopies are a nice treatment. They should be duplicated over the adjacent
elevations and along the west elevation.
3. How is the unused portion of the building intended to be accessed?
4. The applicant needs to identify the location and screening of mechanical
equipment, if any. Is the mechanical equipment mounted on the roof?
5. It appears that the applicant will provide a painted pedestrian walkway
connecting the public sidewalk on Bass Lake Road to the front of the building.
6. Parking lot screening (see landscape comments).
SIGNAGE
Within the CB District, the following signage is permitted:
Freestanding Sign: One freestanding sign not to exceed 100 square feet in area and
30 feet in height is allowed per lot. The applicant is proposing a single freestanding sign
that is 79 square feet in area. This is a change can sign face of the existing freestanding
sign.
Wall Sign: Single occupancy buildings in a CB District may have up to two signs not to
exceed 15 percent of the wall area or 250 square feet, whichever is less. The applicant
is creating a canopy entrance that is accented with the tower sign. The total sign area
of this sign is approximately 148 square feet on a tenant wall face of 1,380 square feet.
The sign represents only 10.7 percent of the front fagade.
The Family Dollar Store only occupies a portion of the total building. The applicant
should demonstrate how the balance of the building will be used and accessed. If a
second tenant is anticipated, they should identify how additional signs will be
incorporated into the property.
4
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 7e3.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners @nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Curtis Jacobsen
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: February 29, 2012
RE: New Hope — Family Dollar Store
FILE NO: 131.01-12.01
BACKGROUND
Family Dollar Store is interested in leasing and redeveloping a portion of the commercial
building at 8001 Bass Lake Road. This site Is currently developed and the building had
previously been occupied by Market Furniture. With this application, the greenhouse
portion of the building will be demolished and the building will be converted from a
single occupancy to multiple occupancy. Family Dollar Store will occupy approximately
9,550 square feet of the 18,400 square foot building, after the demolishing of the
greenhouse.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Zoning. The site is zoned CB, Community Business District. The proposed retail use
is permitted in the CB District. Family Dollar Store is a permitted land use within the CB
District.
Staff has inquired as to the intended use of the remainder of the building, including the
second tenant bay and basement. The applicant stated they have no information as to
other building uses. Family Dollar Store shall not be using the basement. No
occupancy permit shall be approved for the second tenant bay unless it is demonstrated
that its future use is in compliance with the CB District land uses and all other City
zoning and building codes.
The rear of the property is fenced and gated. City staff has asked the intended use of
this fenced area. No information has been provided. The CB District allows outdoor
storage as an accessory use by conditional use permit. With the change in the principal
use of the property, we recommend that the property owner demonstrate the intended
use of the fenced area and how it is related to the principal use of the property. Without
this information, we would recommend that the outdoor storage use be removed from
the site.
Lot Area and Setbacks. The table below demonstrates that the site and building meet
the CB District lot area and setback standards.
Parking. After the demolition of the greenhouse, the building will have approximately
18,400 square feet of floor area on the ground level. The following parking calculation
assumes that both tenant bays will have a retail use:
18,400 square feet X.9 = 16,560 square feet _ 200 = 83 spaces
The site plan reveals that 96 parking stalls will be provided. The applicant's narrative
indicates that all stalls will have a 19 foot stall dimension. The site plan corrected the
stall dimension for stalls on the northeast side of the building, however, the balance of
the parking stalls are still dimensioned at 18 feet or less for the west parking lot. All
stalls shall be dimensioned and striped on site with a 19 foot length dimension.
The site plan shows that the parking lot shall have bituminous surfacing, striped stalls,
and continuous concrete curbing around the entire parking lot. The site plan notes that
the concrete curbing and landscaping shall be the responsibility of the landlord. The
City approval encompasses the entire site. While responsibility for required
improvements may be split between the tenant and landlord, all work must be
completed prior to City issuance of an occupancy permit for any part of the building.
Snow Storage. The applicant has illustrated that 12 parking stalls along the west
property line will be used for snow storage. The 12 parking stalls are in excess of the
83 stalls required by City ordinance. Under these circumstances, they may be used for
snow storage.
We would note that the truck maneuvering for on -site loading passes through five of the
snow storage stalls and will affect snow storage. Additionally, the site plan shows four
trees along the snow storage area. Snow storage shall not damage these trees. If
these trees are damaged or lost, the City shall require their replacement.
2
CB District
Proposed
Compliance
Standards
Lot Area
None
2.44 acres
Yes
Lot Width
None
398 feet
Yes
Setbacks:
Front (North)
10 feet
80 feet
Yes
Side (Fast)
10 feet
10 feet
Yes
Side (West)
10 feet
105 feet
Yes
Rear South
30 feet
30 feet
Yes
Parking. After the demolition of the greenhouse, the building will have approximately
18,400 square feet of floor area on the ground level. The following parking calculation
assumes that both tenant bays will have a retail use:
18,400 square feet X.9 = 16,560 square feet _ 200 = 83 spaces
The site plan reveals that 96 parking stalls will be provided. The applicant's narrative
indicates that all stalls will have a 19 foot stall dimension. The site plan corrected the
stall dimension for stalls on the northeast side of the building, however, the balance of
the parking stalls are still dimensioned at 18 feet or less for the west parking lot. All
stalls shall be dimensioned and striped on site with a 19 foot length dimension.
The site plan shows that the parking lot shall have bituminous surfacing, striped stalls,
and continuous concrete curbing around the entire parking lot. The site plan notes that
the concrete curbing and landscaping shall be the responsibility of the landlord. The
City approval encompasses the entire site. While responsibility for required
improvements may be split between the tenant and landlord, all work must be
completed prior to City issuance of an occupancy permit for any part of the building.
Snow Storage. The applicant has illustrated that 12 parking stalls along the west
property line will be used for snow storage. The 12 parking stalls are in excess of the
83 stalls required by City ordinance. Under these circumstances, they may be used for
snow storage.
We would note that the truck maneuvering for on -site loading passes through five of the
snow storage stalls and will affect snow storage. Additionally, the site plan shows four
trees along the snow storage area. Snow storage shall not damage these trees. If
these trees are damaged or lost, the City shall require their replacement.
2
Loading. The applicant has indicated that the Family Dollar Store will receive goods
from an existing loading area along the west building wall. The applicant has illustrated
how a semi -truck and trailer will enter and maneuver within the site to provide deliveries.
Review of this layout reveals that the truck maneuvering moves through five parking
stalls along the west property line. This is acceptable in light of the site having 13 stalls
in excess of the City requirements.
A concern of staff is the use and operation of the second tenant bay. The on -site
loading area only addresses the Family Dollar Store. The site plan must demonstrate
that the second tenant bay has a loading area and adequate truck maneuvering for
deliveries and garbage hauling. The existing fence and gate limits access to the back of
the building.
Trash Receptacles and Enclosures. The site plan illustrates that the Family Dollar
Store intends to locate the trash receptacles within the fence rear yard of the site. No
enclosure is proposed, rather the applicant intends to screen the receptacles with
existing fence and gate.
Section 4- 3(b)6.i requires all trash enclosures for commercial uses to meet the following
applicable standards:
• Trash enclosures in the rear yard shall meet all applicable setbacks for an
accessory building.
® Trash enclosures for waste containers must fully screen the containers from view
of adjacent properties and public rights -of -way.
• Trash enclosures must be constructed with walls of architectural elements (type,
quality, appearance) similar to the principal structure.
Trash enclosures shall be located in an accessible location for pick up.
In the proposed site plan, the trash containers will be visible to the properties to the east
and south. In review of the site plan, staff recommends that a trash enclosure be
constructed to accommodate both tenant bays and be constructed in a manner that
meets the City standards. The location of the trash containers must consider access to
the rear of the second tenant bay for deliveries and convenient trash pick up.
Lighting. The outdoor lighting plans are inconsistent between plan sheets. The site
and landscape plan sheet C -10 illustrates existing parking lot lights on the west parking
lot and at the rear of the building. This plan proposes a new light at the north edge of
the new parking lot. No building lighting is illustrated. The site plan notes reference to a
pole height of 30 feet on top of a three foot base.
Plan sheet SP -1 that provides the light fixture details and the photometric plan, has the
new light fixtures near the northwest corner of the building. The photometric plan only
addresses the north side of the building. In review of the available lighting information,
staff offers the following comments:
3
All plans shall be consistent in design and the design elements shall meet City
Code.
2. The parking lot pole heights shall not exceed 25 feet measured from the ground
grade to top of the light fixture. This shall apply to all freestanding lights.
3. The parking lot light fixtures are in shoe box design and offer 90 degree cut off
directional lighting. The luminaire is recessed into the fixture. This meets code.
4. The photometric plan must be extended throughout the site and demonstrate
compliance with the following minimum and maximum light standards:
No information has been provided for the west parking lot regarding light levels. In the
north parking lot, lighting is deficient at the entrance and along the building sidewalk into
the eastern portion of the site. The parking light levels are low in the eastern portion of
the new parking lot. The north sidewalk and parking lot levels may be addressed with
some exterior building lights.
Landscaping. The applicant's landscape plan addressed City staff concerns by
extending landscape plantings 011 the full length of the Bass Lake Road frontage. The
applicant is using four different species that are hardy for this zone. The plants meet
the City's minimum size requirements and will mature to three to four feet in height.
The plan calls for both the landscaping and irrigation to be installed by the landlord.
The City will require that the landscaping and irrigation be completed prior to building
occupancy. All plants required a part of an approved landscape plan shall be
maintained and kept alive. Dead plants shall be replaced in accordance with the
approved landscaping plan.
New Hope Design Guidelines. The applicant has provided building elevations and
color renderings of the building exterior. The building elevations reveal that after the
demolition of the greenhouse, the new Family Dollar Store facade will consist of scored
CMV with horizontal wood siding near the top of the building. To establish a defined
building base, middle and top, the applicant is proposing a varied color scheme. The
remaining portions of the building will not be altered other than to be painted to match
the Family Dollar Store.
4
Minimum
Footcandles
Maximum
Footcandles
Building Entrance
5.0
Sidewalks
.5
Parkin Lot medium activity)
.6
Adjoining Residential Property
4
Public Right-of-Way
1.0
No information has been provided for the west parking lot regarding light levels. In the
north parking lot, lighting is deficient at the entrance and along the building sidewalk into
the eastern portion of the site. The parking light levels are low in the eastern portion of
the new parking lot. The north sidewalk and parking lot levels may be addressed with
some exterior building lights.
Landscaping. The applicant's landscape plan addressed City staff concerns by
extending landscape plantings 011 the full length of the Bass Lake Road frontage. The
applicant is using four different species that are hardy for this zone. The plants meet
the City's minimum size requirements and will mature to three to four feet in height.
The plan calls for both the landscaping and irrigation to be installed by the landlord.
The City will require that the landscaping and irrigation be completed prior to building
occupancy. All plants required a part of an approved landscape plan shall be
maintained and kept alive. Dead plants shall be replaced in accordance with the
approved landscaping plan.
New Hope Design Guidelines. The applicant has provided building elevations and
color renderings of the building exterior. The building elevations reveal that after the
demolition of the greenhouse, the new Family Dollar Store facade will consist of scored
CMV with horizontal wood siding near the top of the building. To establish a defined
building base, middle and top, the applicant is proposing a varied color scheme. The
remaining portions of the building will not be altered other than to be painted to match
the Family Dollar Store.
4
The Family Dollar Store will have an entrance that varies the building height and creates
some visual interest in the building. Awnings and windows are used to break up the
building width and create some relief from the flat walls.
The roof top equipment has been located near the center of the building to reduce
visibility from the street. This equipment shall be painted an earth tone color to match
the top of the building.
Signage. Within the CB District, the following signage is permitted:
Freestanding Sign: One freestanding sign not to exceed 100 square feet in area and
30 feet in height is allowed per lot. The applicant is proposing a single freestanding sign
that is 79 square feet in area. This is a change on sign face of the existing freestanding
sign. Other freestanding signs will be removed.
Wall Sign: In a CB District, buildings may have up to two signs not to exceed 15
percent of the wall area or 250 square feet, whichever is less. The applicant is creating
a canopy entrance that is accented with the tower sign. The total sign area of this sign
is approximately 148 square feet on a tenant wall face of 1,380 square feet. The sign
represents only 10.7 percent of the front facade.
The Family Dollar Store only occupies a portion of the total building. The applicant
should demonstrate how the balance of the building will be used and accessed. The
building elevation shows a potential wall sign location for the second tenant. This
location will have limited visibility from Bass Lake Road. No provision has been made
for the second tenant on the freestanding sign.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed application changes a single occupancy building into a multiple tenant
building. Little detail or consideration has been given to the second tenant bay with
regard to use, building access, signage or deliveries. In approving the Family Dollar
Store application, the City must recognize how this site will need to function with two
tenants. In this regard, we would recommend that the approval be subject to the
following conditions:
Outdoor storage within the fenced area of the site shall be removed. If this is
integral to the site, then a new conditional use permit may be pursued.
2. All parking must be properly dimensioned and striped on site (8 feet 9 inches by
19 feet). All parking lot improvements, paving, striping, and curbing shall be
completed prior to building occupancy.
3. Snow storage shall not interfere with delivery vehicles maneuvering and shall not
damage the existing trees.
5
4. The applicant shall demonstrate how the delivery vehicles shall access the
second tenant bay. Staff recommends the removal of the fence and gate across
the parking area to provide improved access to the back of the building.
5. Exterior trash enclosures shall be constructed to match the building and serve
both tenant bays.
6. The applicant provide an exterior lighting plan for the entire site that complies
with City requirements with regard to pole heights, required light levels, and light
locations.
7. The approved landscape plan is installed prior to building occupancy. All plants
shall be kept alive or replaced according to the approved plan.
0
,
1
Stantec
February 16, 2012
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
2335 Highway 36 West
St. Paul MN 55113
Tel: (651) 636 -4600
Fax: (651) 636 -1311
Mr. Curtis Jacobsen
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Ave N
New Hope, MN 55428 -4843
RE: Family Dollar — Initial Plan Review
Dear Mr. Jacobsen:
We have reviewed the initial redevelopment plans for the Family Dollar as submitted by Fabo Enterprises,
Inc. on February 10, 2012. Following are our comments and /or recommendations.
Sheet C -1.0 - Site and Landscaping Plan
1. The new asphalt pavement parking area does not identify any barrier curb other than at the building
entrance. Concrete curb and gutter needs to be installed at the edge of all new pavement.
2. It is recommended to install pedestrian ramps in the sidewalk at the driveway entrance in efforts to
maintain adequate access to the site.
Sheet C -2.0 - Grading & Drainage Plan
1. The existing 15" reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) serving the property to the west does not align with
the easement as shown. Both the location of the easement and storm sewer needs to be verified,
and if adjustments are warranted now would be an appropriate time to consider these adjustments.
2. The condition of the existing 24" RCP storm sewer pipe which conveys storm water from the property
south and west of the site to the north to the ponding area in St. Theresa, should be reviewed to see
if the storm sewer is in adequate condition. The recent improvements on the school property provide
significant drainage to this storm sewer, and drainage issues do exist on the adjacent property to the
west. If improvements are required they could be coordinated with the parking lot improvements.
3. Storm water ponding has been discussed in the past for this property, however, has never been
required. The proposed impervious area is not increasing and the disturbed area is less than
approximately 10,000 SF. This property is located in the Shingle Creek Watershed and does not
require their review.
General Comments
1. The property line shown on the north side of the property is approximate and needs to be verified.
As currently shown, the Hennepin County right of way is not identified. There are also no easements
shown for the concrete sidewalk, sanitary sewer, or water main. Consideration of adding these
easements along with the possible redefining of the storm sewer easement may be necessary.
2. One access to the site is provided from Bass Lake Road (CR 10). The existing access and right of way
requirements shall be reviewed with the City and Hennepin County.
3. The sanitary sewer service and water service connections are located on the north side of the
property and should be reviewed prior to improvements.
Page 2 of 2
Reference: Family Dollar - Initial Plan Review
If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at (651) 604 -4808.
Sincerely,
STANTEC
Christopher W. Long, P.E.
cc: Eric Weiss, Roger Axel, Pam Sylvester - City of New Hope
Alan Brixius - NAC Planning
Mark Hanson, File - Stantec
DESIGN & REVIEW COMMITTEE
February 16, 2012
Committee: Anderson, Houle, Nirgude, Onadipe, Svendsen
The Development Review Team met on February 16 to consider a request for a site plan review for
Family Dollar at 8001 Bass Lake Road.
Staff: Axel, Coone, Weiss
Consultants: Brixius, Long
PLANNING CASE: 12 -01
PROJECT:
Site Plan Review
ADDRESS:
8001 Bass Lake Road
ZONING:
CB, Community Business
PROPERTY OWNER:
Garden Ad Agency
APPLICANT:
Brian Fabo / Fabo Enterprises / Family Dollar
DESCRIPTION: The applicant desires to remodel the exterior of this building and change it to a multi
tenant building. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing greenhouse portion of the building.
A portion of the building would be utilized for a second tenant.
The Development Review Team was supportive of the request, however, had many concerns in many
areas and recommended requesting additional information. They leaned toward deeming the
application incomplete due to the number of items that must be submitted.
REQUIRED INFORMATION:
• Provide narrative and plans with description of how the re mainin g portion of the building
(second tenant bay and basement) will be used, along with access and parking
• Parking stalls should be striped to 19 -foot length (minimum 83 stalls)
• Parking at northeast corner in front of second tenant bay — eliminate 6 stalls directly in front of
building and add sidewalk, properly stripe stalls along Bass Lake Road
i Curbing around all parking areas
• Provide snow removal plan for northeast parking area
• Discuss 8 stalls on west side of building — possibly install a sidewalk along west wall
• Illustrate location of truck deliveries and truck maneuvering on site
• Provide details on location of trash enclosure — if outside, it must be enclosed
• Lighting plan should indicate location of all exterior parking lot lights and building lights -
provide details on light fixtures and photometric plan
• Code limits light pole height to 25 feet and plan shows pole height at 30 feet
• Provide additional landscaping along Bass Lake Road (west of driveway) bet Teen existing trees
and along west property line to screen parking lot
• Provide details on irrigation plan
• Provide additional detail on elevation plans — all sides of building
• Possibly provide some contrasting color details on building
• Identify location /screening of mechanical equipment on second tenant bay
• Demonstrate sight lines for roof equipment /parapet
• Consider utilizing a contrasting material for the painted sidewalk from the front of the building
to the street
• Site plan indicates portion of curbing/fencing outside property line at northeast corner and along
east side of property
• Existing chain -link fence at southwest corner of property by outside storage area - indicate if
fence will stay and, if so, provide details on fence material and what will be stored in that area
• Signage - provide comprehensive sign plan for multi tenant building
• Provide detail on wall signage for second tenant
: C `/g a signs - plans show 3 sites along Bass Lake Road
C l a rify number of ���or�ui��er ►� r�.;:� - �.
• Private storm sewer on west side of property does not align with easement - city to possibly
provide new easement description
• Provide concrete pedestrian ramp on access points along Bass Lake Road
• Clarify width of sidewalk in front of building (in front of Family Dollar)
• Clarify front entrance /tower location to front of building
• Current sprinkler riser room on north wall of existing building is not shown - label door as
"sprinkler riser access"
• Provide system notes for current fire alarm system - may need to upgrade current system
• Building fully sprinklered - may need to alter to accommodate wall addition/removal
• Show second stair from basement on plans
COMMENTS:
• Customer access provided on northwest front of building
• 32 -foot driveway access from Bass Lake Road is acceptable size for commercial property
• Potential for future Bass Lake Road improvement and right - in/right -out to site
• Freestanding sign - change out sign face only
• Wall sign for Family Dollar to be 148 square feet
• Public Works to check condition of 24" city storm sewer pipe running through property
• No additional storm water ponding required
• Removal of stair and lift area to become break room area
ATTACHMENTS:
• Application
• Northwest Consultants (planning) notes
• West Metro Fire notes
• Stantec Consultants (engineer) notes
• Maps
NOTE: REVISED PLAN DEADLINE is Friday, February 24, by 3 p.m.
Planning Commission, Tuesday, March 6, 7 p.m.
City Council, Monday, March 26, 7 p.m.
February 23, 2012
Mr. Christopher W. Long, P.E.
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
2 335 Highway 36 West
St. Paul, MN 55 1
�f�
RE: Family Dollar - initial Plan Review
Dear Mr. Jacobsen:
111 11%
AMP
C
LU
Pursuant to your review letter dated o2/o6/12, we offer the following comments.
Refer to C -t t Curbing has been added as requested.
2. As this is only a recommendation, this item will not be included.
Refer to C -2: i. Easement will be aligned to match city documents.
2. No improvements were required by district. Storm to remain as is.
3. No response required.
General: 1. No work along street. No changes required.
2. No changes to access.
3. Sanitary will be cleaned out to 250'. No other work required.
All above work shall be permitted, bid and constructed by landlord.
Please advise if you have any questions or comments.
Architecture • Interior Design • Planning
Real Estate Development Consulting
Fabo Enterprises, Inc.
Corporate Office
419 University Road
Production Office
The Ferrum 77 Office Building
a
Cleveland, OH 44113
3100 E.45th Street, Suite 506
T. 216.241 6150
F. 216.395.0053
Cleveland, OH 44127
T 216.341.5940
February 23, 2012
Mr. Christopher W. Long, P.E.
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
2 335 Highway 36 West
St. Paul, MN 55 1
�f�
RE: Family Dollar - initial Plan Review
Dear Mr. Jacobsen:
111 11%
AMP
C
LU
Pursuant to your review letter dated o2/o6/12, we offer the following comments.
Refer to C -t t Curbing has been added as requested.
2. As this is only a recommendation, this item will not be included.
Refer to C -2: i. Easement will be aligned to match city documents.
2. No improvements were required by district. Storm to remain as is.
3. No response required.
General: 1. No work along street. No changes required.
2. No changes to access.
3. Sanitary will be cleaned out to 250'. No other work required.
All above work shall be permitted, bid and constructed by landlord.
Please advise if you have any questions or comments.
Architecture • Interior Design • Planning
Real Estate Development Consulting
Fabo Enterprises, Inc.
February 23 , 2012 O F Fa�
Design & Review Committee
City of New Hope
New Hope, MN 554
Corporate Office
419 Unwersity Road
Production Office
The Ferrum 77 Office Building
Cleveland, OH 44113
3100 E.45th Street, Suite 506
T 216.2416150
Cleveland, OH 44127
F. 216.395.0053
T. 216.341.5940
February 23 , 2012 O F Fa�
Design & Review Committee
City of New Hope
New Hope, MN 554
Architecture -, Interior Design o Planning
Real Estate Development Consulting
RE: Family Dollar - Design Review Comment Letter Date: 2116/2012
U
C
Adjacent tenant is future and unknown. Exiting walls and stairs are added to
=
plans. Family Dollar will not be using basement.
•
New stalls will be shown at 19'.
Six (6) stalls eliminated as requested and sidewalk extended. Additional
sidewalk shall be permitted, bid and constructed by landlord.
Curbing around new parking will be added where none exists. This work
''
shall be permitted, bid and constructed by landlord.
•
Snow removal plan added.
4 +
Eight (8) stalls discussed. No sidewalk to be added.
Truck path added to civil drawings.
i
No trash enclosure required. Dumpsters will be behind existing fenced area
behind building.
•
lighting specifications and photo metrics added. Site lighting shall be
permitted, bid and constructed by landlord.
o
Pole height will be a maximum of 25'.
Mo
Additional landscape added along Bass Lake parking spaces. This work shall
M
be permitted, bid and constructed by landlord.
Irrigation spec added. Contractor will submit plans prior to installation for
city review. This work shall be permitted, bid and constructed by landlord.
•
All sides of building have been shown.
e
Contrasting color added to rendering.
e
Screening or painting added as required. This work shall be permitted, bid
and constructed by landlord.
•
Site line study added to plans.
e
Striped walk to entry agreed to in meeting. This work shall be permitted, bid
and constructed by landlord.
Architecture -, Interior Design o Planning
Real Estate Development Consulting
g�
jj
a
u
c
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION
scams: us• . r -m•
S
1
t
e �9
s
e
e
•qs« r
s ST EET SIGN DETAIL
P-! N.TA.
KSF
_urwss�wr ,a.. roil... +u — mN
!7J LITNONIA KBF3NM5U40DIU METAL HALIDE LK.Nf FIX0M
W ON
79' BMQC WN TAPEI® POLE. PINSH TO BE DARK BFWNZL
1 . _w-
TOWER SIGN ELEVATION
J Km
4
�^
p
z
z
0
z
5
s
s
DATE 0 9 - 3 0 -11
JOB N0, FE111
5 P -1
B UT N0
# SIGN PLAN SITE PNOMETRIC PLAN
+ SCAL T . 70' -®•
. _ M RODMA1L oWRw GEND
7 to MATW F8R91
MME NMO �1lanN
\ wTNIN 1• BE oRneM bu 085WC CWTdw LINE
Q9 om�
• \ PROPOSED UNCSCAM ]• DEPM MI1LM •, O!S Dii" w emmxn Mellal ba _qeT—� iiNo oW,,nt LK
('. AMWOR emm . 9ff AND
I. SPAo A PFA MFR& D owlPt.A
sDE sAUfER RECpLeErtDRTwxe a DaNee -t Into rlrR gmvluEO III aawE ee
"- •1' ;^ F ti, _ -!�_, Mx ' I. .r d oat lo = RIMER PROPOSm onto sti E D Do h
j„1 -�•/ r Y 9- •� I' O�.�o ft— Ma°A'a. PRCPO¢D TOP W MIND a1ME
'fORIMRBm Moll PF 0.nota 11°MN n.w
- o-e 9trs ...o m c oE'rut �' �i �r an w s odmnox of vROPOSm oRAxAa
W D8n8eP. SR• mm '',' Ruaaxo MAr p q
•n___.._ s r E � E pR U . � L � L L� - x % :' 'y ��•°:;._ ' ;':.' H o°�..ema MOIEC
e P t . °.R:d Ru vazx X58
na D— Ivi P O INLET Ra1 g E
i ° o i -tu' k-t
f. T� ! �r CONpAT AND ANC1wR BDLT U Da1Rt� Imbs°py aY PRDPMM ASPN&T YAMNC
• i - - \ "l PRoiandts As PER ID DPnm ImYny d°A CD
- •' ~ MAn1FACRdGS REODMENoRrW& UP PA
o 1 PROPOSED eaNfAEre NMo
. e=e ,.Q •'I'..`' ' • axu o.1A1: ,t� ri N tre1s a RneY
RID
rl.
0 _t'•�' B Coollo, IED w 511M IC P D�An818R P
M AMMAL OE90fEN. PM] Da1oIeE PMTM°1kNaNA r4R $Iff EAi6
'A V •�, O NOT m 5i RD Dwwte - F f d h °mom PMM SM 1040e411, &F. (24I2 ROME) ■
I — `• . %�/ 1� ` SW S D snita'/ m R°M WstdO nNDMC . 14Ma SF. (trA1R) eR
�� 5411 oarotr .tam w. wfDPO9D PAYpFNT - 84614 M W. (e 747)
ro y,
DP u s DR R w mm REer i2 E
_ onslm tw b w.aw mrb PRIM OP GPM 9MLE - 144]B SF. {Ir.eslg
PRWm CMNiEE atM Tcs Daa .
MP . °a M tlP DmN wm A EA - 9.7 8P.
1 .• i ` - - SEE NOTE) 1155 a .Ilu marpaRltl rAllenuitpPlloll Itm ro ' �
UME PAoPO9D LRI PoLE VLP pawiw
B MbekJ°� pPIM Dle Ih. �_ PMXINe PROMOm - Sl >PA�G.BP &P.,. -.8= BPAfL4
•' - • AXO ARE Lo"vW N Oe1PW ae[r IIn
\ �_._. _ 1 ,• }-� .' "`� `� r , xotE T EYS DNlatr wla mlm `•ARESlE• WAl2&•IE atiss `4's ikEE
DY ° ^ bO° Aas>51B1E BEAMS PRmED - a mACm
O PRDPoSEll sDERAUf Mat D.re1 McPN e.. ..
RIE NO2 T M
1.
LAFascArea ALL aAIENBWS ME M PACE W CURB, BURVE C WALL. Moos of PAVEMENT. oR PROPERTY UM
• � \ -: • A 0 RM AL) 2 PARg1C SPNES ME 9'R1C. ACCESRME PNg16 srNl.g Aft ACCmmu NSES ME NE 67Lte'.
& PAVEYmT SwMet6 91Ny eE {' 1UL" PRMT.
y. A
cm RMR wEL BE F. a4Ee6 onENRMM : twasto m.
& 111E PROPO9D MdfT PME M .;jMN INURED W MPaBEARW PRMIED BY tot; LLO
uolr
n y Yi WIT OF RSPNALT PA RND/ / tE atRB p NNR mdNC VdE ILGRW eXN1 BE CWRDMArm SHOW m w1N RE PI oTc mC PIAt/.
cTrPA:AL� fbR vilx - a TP E "" D r
N 4 iMOPOSEO lldlT PaE BNN1 BE ]o' PoIE wIN M kilo N METAL mEE 910E BD'f'I E CUT I
D W si L BE CDGRDRU FL W P181gEmM qAN am mat, LLnNA Rx PqE ANO eRSE
s
/E�/ _ `e ): i+Rted siAd'4E 6ERMZrt� elz Hmiuism Sc rriil€ iivlo L'bRlirm sGifiar -
d_- �? \ R 1. TIE IONIRACIOR 91 .�- :•_•�-• - •- w !•r,
W AEL eE ro x�\E MARRID Pan uTn'iir LounWS PnaR ro ANr ¢�¢
J • ` J _ :� A , z WN11UCtoR 91AU YENB1' NL PLwr Gumves most W Pvw HINT MD MIRY wM PLAN. ° a
3 S A R6PORr Mr dRRFPMN1Eg 1M EL AIELr To FHWE9 AW/M Offis L CON72 CT00.
AL PLkNiM m gY ww STANOAROS M DF3a�o M NIWCM srAtgMO of mINSFRI' g
./� 4 ANd zeal M� CgA 9WL RE D ER$ REST U D. MWT ro MEPECf Mo IIF.FCr ANY
;y u ry i -_ 1 / " \\ l! •: r � - :. �..f_ V` *' . } COMM. 0�R M�F98 CwFRORRD. LINwEA�D. dRAem. SPRpPEALY RiM9•QOFD. NSOWID
c _ _ _ O✓ ENRfaAE 9W V. ',.... ' .'J \` . �� C J A 10PSaL 91NL ee PLAN ro "MIN r of mum 4RADE W fmADMC CWM,, OR IMd1C ENRON
MCm1ECNRAI \� _ .� afAOMC 1 oPERATW& R1E IANDmME oWtMWOR SNNL BE RMMW FOR RIE MME aMwlC M ALL L�
)' 4 B PIAt4 FOR xrAns \ - ,` � NANtMC BEM as UwR AREAS
_ :-'� I — /4 - "• O �. \ '. N ]ID S. 91RItes 9461 K PoatET PLANIm 111111 A m/5o Not M MRYE roPmlL AM pLAtR u. M7C
* - - V� i , `.�� - y� e. Au PLlN1Rp AIDS sifNL fE07'E A S t1FEP UYFA a xNRI oI1Nm 9wmpEp IIAIwBODp PLANr
RUN, DUN
4 ® ' / MIAW. mum sNRU. WT BE ALLOIm TO CONTACT siFl6 /!a REE TNNR& NAM.
BE
Y /' Ca7 RAfFD DYER A NOD BNwB]L
/ 1,. • s'` ). NUUD ED PLAN"No DONS III EE EDOED s1R1 A CMa MAL-
$' / tE1aRw I•elsr tASP. luw mtAOE Ywn DO
FN0.
tl ° .} SEE N T9oENNlf 6 LANOSDAP[ WNiRRCiM WNL APRY R PRE-0EIw]1T xrlmaDE M
♦ {_ .� J ".'v'._ ^!�"'. v^r.,_t...Y' _..-`` �ti MAMIFACRAER'S SPEC61CAlIWB AF1P11 PIAMOpq NE MSrNEm.
IIpII \ ACmRDANtE NIIN WE
1' t I�gx4wo m iml y `' r DIM"'NOR w AaE9 '� / , f- UND ARG �M A PntloD a eo�OAYB MFA PROL�[R Ctll act M 9W� E1�4MO�F Au
I' we8,. 9wu94 PFAQRfIAl4, aIeTAL gA99EE, RmF UGSS, zoo NOmMC, EDldlq MUIp1814 Q,
4 % FmeLm1D. wew11D, GOD
DW4Mp, PRUXM4 AND OFMIFADN6 Q
to. Lvftxx�
c N Rf DwER Q aNntM•wR m WESnat14 "iflOJECT. um
D N Fmo NSwuCrIW4 ti
"O TNA sPEDNCTANMS xRYE eGN MET.
ti. iL PIANIMfA SMNL BE NUNUNN D PoR RERACFWrt TOLL WE tEIR A101 RK DAIE of PR0.ECT 'V
'' § / / L •- `_. �. . _ /! ! y CWIPIEIIW. RE IR1MwACloR wIN1 eCPPLY RIF Ow1ER MIFWNC Alm MAMENw10E Mew11 P" o
•\ - S CO(,/ a TSE PBD'SCr. �,.,.�..p ._ .. __ "� ;.OR
`. -
{ l,
11 { 7 {e Y mditARW PIAN lIAIL eE GFSIdI -wRD. ft.Nt ALL 8E adwTtm tC tm FOR APPNOYAL . r . f
a IM. NwCllmer� ...'_
1 ' / :..., .. - /vy. h - •'F v .�Y u�� Nt 41P r
Via. a ai�tt.en aeas..t �
r �� F _I 5uen 1gMIL rswlw Ie1a Ilai �� Arfuwlw �� ndr tlu f 1M y ® ■
.. - t, ' -_ -�.. ,NN�Aw u• ror P1Ml NAPIC PaR Mldd ° - -- ! �! t
pNwBE 9wE r . sc -
PRnEDr MM/AtfR n r]wtR9nRE INc N RF
R6
AssWE& O SPat�eutr
: tiJ • 51 Amml PA14 M RNLLID,B IM, o son No. OR CfO iviest
it Ix (490) INeA - Ztez PINt att our ]ec °4 E> 5 aTmt
° FA1D (SON) rJt -56a] 6 OP ENONEFRN& Ma Pms
C -1.0
umillus
Sal
OG
i a
.� �' �' __ � \� . �` � / � � �\ � � � / ♦ . �� � , .,. -maw
L T� - - --
.«11., sl T xlxous 'IC�.��
":� -•; -- ecru nnDUS �� / �r' _
1'
'
r'
BE
LEGEND
DEmms pules. NN
E*TRMG CoxrolM UK
resort en piRerea br me s una: mr Mel
wEmx. wa Mae 1 °x adr Iseavr
vmm.I.a1 Frph.n I.Idr leA el IM1.
A
plrome w[N bam
RnAR NINE
MeM wh a!
D.OI. wmwmiwasn b. —RB P— PROPOSED CG ar
PrM1le name Pad u.Ae+ aM1.
w
Irneme ae.e Aa van
*; PRmOY,D sp GIAOE
DD
OP
D.eme bah wet.
Oenma Hex. wn pbe
>s PRO—ED — GAME
EM
Cm
D.nahe ..W. m.lr
D.el. a.We m.M1Ne
DElatn AGSa na e.ean
p -R PROPaSFD T'P OF GIIR GRADE
AM: PAUL M.
ATm( PAUL K PN
IT
si
Fx
onal. NaNl.a 9en
oa ses rt. aaewP
� OIRECIIOR aF PRGOSm oRAmaG
m (9501 a5a -5862
2
DE TO
FRGI WAM473 at ALIERATDNS MAD[ ro 1185
ON ALI
GO
D.N. 9 msmr
;w"$:; mAGQN6 MAT
rM' (92I) 731 -5573
pp aSINEAy p W aw
GO
Dw
Mal. puma Ped
D.et. pur ape
OLT FENCE
$
HER
° o: N n M1 ! v
0 T R
1W
LD
O.° slmc hM
Oansl. lanhwpsa ar.
N
U
onol. baHlp Qatlt
Dnsl. Brill pals
QxNT OF ASPHN.T MW1ND
- .
mA
RS
O.d. asariwaa r m.
t. Pslkh9 o
PP
PuD
ADP
Dnel. Pea. Peh
ON,
Onalw Pa7+nYai°Nae Poe
Duel. rdasM w+vab Pa.
�
RD
BAN
Dnets wl amh
DnaW e.Hwr mands
P
wrNGNE1E A. RF510YAL
SANS
0new a.Nar7 ewer
�
SRN
sr s
a.et. ebm nmeMh
D.�.l. ewm .wr
w 5 ' 1
ro
lm
Dndn my a eseaeb alb
Dnoms batik enleoi xpu
w
Az
INSE
Denotes un .YSWe 1 *u" the
D .l.. un
6
Vtp
Dnetn dWAM •mr pas
w
wv
Dndn .er. Iti
Dewl...amr vxx.
Mm
NR
Dend. assrpnn Ins
Dwnme Nsple ha.
Z
,. CO1RAmClI S 09mDINAR REMOVSL OF msnNO ulhx Pam
AAaTIGR 801 AND FACRJM MAT ARE N CMfilaT RM PRGOSFD
5lgmET m
2 RA W Tai EXCAV.10MB SNNl BE M ACComA110E Mlll ME
CEOTFSR m RPGlT: Au. RmDES AHEM SOME' xGx -6 -MY 91YL ME
BA OWED AC MnRD m DIE V s. OF NNmA'S Sll R
M ALL OASED MW SEWCES STIAl1 BE C aR MCGOD AT 1NE MAN
Ox smOLTOx.
a CON'" AG M SMA. MIECT manna STWEr." E. CONTACTOR SALL
R AM AMY DAlAH WISED TO DES M.EMENM AS A.--LT -
CON9RacNGN O'EWATOft
PERFORMED F W U. NO OR EHNL TNGII ML N S
E S PENS PADx lIE OlY 6 tall HOPE
FOR ALL 11019( ■IIIN TE nRET infix -O -MAY.
a AI MAT PAwp67x MAL 5E VaNDO M W x WTH. NBMOS
WY Y ugn Pall BAY CGMY IP mAOATMI NEEIS 111E S•EOICAIGH.
T. ECaDNG ONERDWLGS MW StIOSN x MPMORAI[ 5A9ss W
FRID LOCAICN NIO/dl WPPNa FM INE UMV OxPAMIX THDIMM EEWT
LOCATOR MAY NOT K SIaB6 npa TD oOfBlRwnw aCW6 MmIBC wsr 8E
Dwm FDN RID —m
,. REMOVE EMSTOC YTUTES AS SHORE ABANDON CWDECnON8 M VOSING
UTalES M MIMMN.
S. KNOW COICtENE PAVEMENT.
S Mu. ASPHALT AND flED,OE RWNCS.
a RWIE RIDIMXT -IRDN FENCE
S aPMDY CDNGEY nExT_POST 11aIEs
a KNOME GONOMEW GRID AND GlnElt.
. Ld�OmLPpsIIjG. ?�70 RpuML.
a RENWE GGI.
l S�
u
�y
o$
resort en piRerea br me s una: mr Mel
wEmx. wa Mae 1 °x adr Iseavr
vmm.I.a1 Frph.n I.Idr leA el IM1.
PrM1le name Pad u.Ae+ aM1.
Do�ic
8
OaNMC aavE I• . ZY
AM: PAUL M.
ATm( PAUL K PN
EM A AS OR CG NO R V98p7IT
7DR DAxAG3, 41 Caam E U Ha
m (9501 a5a -5862
2
DE TO
FRGI WAM473 at ALIERATDNS MAD[ ro 1185
ON ALI
•••°
rM' (92I) 731 -5573
pp aSINEAy p W aw
C -11
i - - -- - ell
7.
D ovERNTAD ° w ow O°M0
00011 ON LoaN011
s
w
EE
al
CC
D
DO
NP
EM
EMN
PES
FF
FN
N
NQ
xrD
LD xv
u
w
GN U
PRs
w
PVC
RDv
RD
SIN
SRN S
sA,
M:
n
w N
NPL
bum q strvlc• ....
II bMSI Mb qm. waRwuw. w
npwl .a yPwy by m.. aNr mY dN•U
BU NO CONMR 1!E
PROPOSED OONMR !lam
wq Nen op
+�
PROPOSED SPOT oRASE
Me1E• hn
Mstrk m• Iw P4•
TC
PRCVOOED NN mvJ
•strk mwna.
R.Ri nq ••eOa
o �.N
maPObED mP OF aRm mAOE
II•N,•N ROOT
t
OWECIIM OF PNOPOlFO ORNNACE
M M1mWp
w1M
;.:�
NUQOHC AT
91ad Pal
P �•
� � y0.T EE11oE
FOR —A= OAMITIT 0 COSTS REMLNNo
fROY —.Me. OR AtN]UMONO MADE TO MIS
O
NIEf PROIECNON
�•wMp�d.k
C-72
IIl1A Pa•
P .Nw vMNr oe
patl,p vyn
.N,ro. m.Aa•
�r'
b cmea
w a w� w•
+.
icae Dn�'•
EL a•T ppv
h IF•
Il
Mcq• tra
1. M,MNO lE1PlAlLS lNN ARE NBA, AS OFi,NFp NY ME AYE°CNI ASSOOl11°I OF
STATE NIMINAY ANO TRAMPORTARON OFPIOINS.
3
Q
F
4�
w �
O�
II bMSI Mb qm. waRwuw. w
npwl .a yPwy by m.. aNr mY dN•U
\l
� a�
wIPwVYw ad IM, I mn a AiY llw,sL
PwTmbla DgNar aer tlN la• oT M.
� l�
Pant Nwne ERR
— — N _
PRNECT YANA4ER
RRwNC S ,• _ g
NP ENONFFINNO RTO. ASSIIANS NO OZONE
3 R
ATM: PA M. PWlWS
pk (yp�
FOR —A= OAMITIT 0 COSTS REMLNNo
fROY —.Me. OR AtN]UMONO MADE TO MIS
wm°
PAN: (R10) 731--
PIAN NN,pIT TIE EMIFSEEO _MN Ca54.T
or m UMMMMA No
C-72
III T - • �• w •Y
,
.20142
` �� A 4,', 4 �q,{ � • :' /.� CY 288
R .r- X�
Vw.{1
I /
MA
T-
9
-9
OC
OP
d
F1W
FEa
FF
M
G
OY
W
OW
NN)
u
N
V
OHU
PI6
PP
PVC
ACI
RD
SM
M SM 5
m a
TIm
UGC
UQ
I
m
IM
yo F—
J
Q
.y ..
\"•' `
hmby N Plm. TbRwam. n
1.) Tq N Lq wl N trt M hgmi am! N Ba01
0wR lab Rant Yn Na awN Md. °I ar lain R°°d
Ywlbn - WS]9 hVl
y� Tq N' l N M hy8•ml w Na RY Yh
of � R°° i N NSDI a°n lffi. Rw6
121E .m >qvN by Irn VPNr my YM2!
wpYVUlm and tlwl I ° OJ llwnwU }Y
mum
\,�. ° A '
1. IINLE88 D PA MT oM NW. THE llaTm M MB AIE FlnSIIDT DRMINO FIEVAnON.
lOP DF VddT CEVATON, OR ELOSINE D< WRB EIEaMIIQ.
\• ''� \
L TaPSOIL MALL E PIACED OVFR pSTOEPA MEAS TD A taYYW 0FPT1 Q AT IE.AST
.�,�' '' \
F
-
.W -•
S T]0a1NC RTXaEIlMmYp UTRT ERMYYIDx wB TTECI D FETO
-
•� .
« ,.•
L I Am B
ME uIRRT vO1ES. EIGfdE EDm u0uY1l YRr x0T E
IaCODII FRD/DR YPPIY FRaY D0 loom
YNRR PO2p m rnlmlblaoN 06aERS InNiRE YII£ E DWm i0R FEN IOMIDIL
.r `
'�'• • \
C TIE PRaPOgD lWVMBBFNM W1 E CONSMICIED ACCO W TD ALL STATE AND
. .,, \
/
LOCAL MMNWCEB AND SPECNCAIpNS
5, COMIMMS M Eld D SPUCNRFS STALL BE CORE DRH
y �.
° a ° y
CON BMS 9W1 VERIFY LOCATC! MD ES NE di ALL FYSTVO UTUTY
wxNECnoxs TRTTAE CCSTR TPY NE ARCmTECr MD nRnrae ar MT
S MD xo
asavAxQS.
Q.
\ A'
T. CMVADIDR MALL CD WATE IIIAIN SGMQ (TC ONL CAME "M ElAW.
ETe) TATI LMS1L UTNTY CMPAN6 TIE IACATRS a SUM PAQITES AS S TH M
Ngp`T�t �
PLM ARE APPROfOIAIE DNLY.
•:I'ON ,`
B Sipd BEIIER PPE SHALL IDET ENE iMEDMNO STANDA1Di
A. PVC- M -1a'A B—BMw
E N2PE - TY - BD' AAPITD Y2a{ m AAEFTTD w NIN ASIY DR12 FlTnNBR
RafALLATM MALL CwPLT YAM a. om.
e M ICEfE - CT0 BIN CAVIETED XWm
v PE YAMU sxAU YEET STNnNOS AS USTED N XWNISTBATIVE R {TI%8
aTORII YANNOLE PI E11.U1 eE NY OYYETFR RIECACT COHCEIE MT11 NFFIIM R-TXB
{AAYE AM T1PE D CURE (Q ECFAL}
1M PIPE LETI0111 MBTMCFB 6 FIEVATCN3 ARE ORETI 10 1ME CdTw aY aTRUCTRiES.
IT, nVE PWY B—M w BE 1ESE0 w ACC —m RIM YNNLEOTA R uum
PMT 1715,2020. Tai SHALL RK=E TIE STORY SERER AND MITER SIPPLT M.
WNW 10 FEET Q THE Klfl .
12 ASPHALT MADE 9 WTCI CONCRETE MM AT T ALDNO BM M-
ti'
i
�I
Gil
S
C-2
0
0
.. -. _. .._.. EYSTYB CONTWR L E
hmby N Plm. TbRwam. n
PRDPDRD CQITDIM YNE
121E .m >qvN by Irn VPNr my YM2!
wpYVUlm and tlwl I ° OJ llwnwU }Y
PRDPDEFO SPOT 10V0E
Sorb PI Yrwaol4
PIINWlD OIIGI MADE
PA:t NenN P°W YM NVs
PRQBEID 10P DP WRB MME
DIRECTNW w PWOPO$➢ QAINAOE
QDli'�Z
O
IID 1610 6 0 ID 9D IO
ERFPIRL' SWE 1' - 0Y
PRMCDf MMUCETC
OP INe ASSW6 xD RpPM19YUTV'
ATTx: PAUL Y. PYYPa
PN: (m0) zeA - zzbz
M AMAQS "AGM D UAEIIY OR orals RE9IL1M6
PRw aMQa aR aTnNnas YAQ ro Twa
FAfC (220) TS1 -36'A
PLM WITXIUi TE F2PREaSED NRRIEN CCISDIT
aP oP daNEmrN:, ING
�I
Gil
S
C-2
0
0
.. -. _. .._.. EYSTYB CONTWR L E
°m ..T..rygq. --....
PRDPDRD CQITDIM YNE
tv
PRDPDEFO SPOT 10V0E
p -lg°.V
PIINWlD OIIGI MADE
�•�
m
PRQBEID 10P DP WRB MME
DIRECTNW w PWOPO$➢ QAINAOE
TRA4IWR WT
SST FARE
O
#BET PRDTRTIDII
�'•., R'
-If 40
O ee
I 2f
i -- /.,
Y om{ %� -�� ` ��j�� ' rti ,,
WNME mbn:w
wMn e..Y
EYSWD WNTWR lK
N2 Nl k.q.n evA —o ®T.—
NWmET ODx1aIR WE
l b.n fM1• T
QmY
PAW04D mOT WADE
9.b
lelb Yon 9M1. s-mn
N•.bM mtiv '
PM1P09D MTSI WAGE
N.ehae mmhN. OxaT
aM.a wIQ wNlm
MIWTgT T1P of ma WADE
II.Ymp
OMROW W PRWBgD ORANADE
NN.
T,0.OaI1B MAT
.NUnd pl SLT FENCE
h i•efi�e anp
T. hMrwt O
INLET PRTIECIIW
. d .mlr N,•
9�PI
ftlAk PM1•
MnA•wd PwQnb PM1•
W ENCINElMND a1C AML" ND RFSPWS
.obi RaY
I�P N
m WYAcm umE W LD3TS REWLTNS
R
P M MW�i NT
M m:W
mdNE,w.Q •emm.PYPSw IMa
�co
a.yw.a d.eMe Im.
AMT"iOIM'O rM1•
TNE EE Opl
mbr +Yw
,. WNTRADIOR SHALL Msr ALL ALL fllO9aN Cv1TRaL MEATMLR PRIW m 9E0QMN0
MMVOE�FRMiW� iAGt11 ESN N AR�IPM�TIE IA�P.AL NIINCIPQ�i.�
EROMRI CATRQ NIaNApIL NLiI TIE SIT: 19 8TA8ElgT TIE CENIRACITR WALL
RENOK ALL 1BIPWApY EROMW OONiML MEASURER
2 TAYIE YAIFRML FRWI CTIIMMIC110N ALTNTES WALL 8& PRWpLY NSPD9D OF
TIC OWIRACTN. pIRSE EIGYATW SXALL NOT N RYID'IFD iTDE1 91E WMWT
PERIaSSfl1 W TIE O/MM
]. OTF STE YfAIAaQT 0iD®TS TCMYND A! A A' Y W A S E T WI BE
CIF WED UP W M NWRS aF TIE Em W TIE MT ALL OTE1P MUM
OFP0915 MIA LL GIFXTO W AT WE END
EE aF FAW YTTNAY.
0. CW,RACIW SMALL NmECT ALL PW W C WT10. WA9INET AT (FAST 01", A
RFPNRS !! attLYENT. MW— MT Q 0.6 MWR W YWE AND YAI� NEmEa
W TS RiW I 1NE 8MFT L pSTIIRSIjp ACTN,&.m pmECIW AT IFAST t
OCRI II�A M PMPOW MMIETS � MAMHOM TO K RlMrM
1. MSTALL
XT PETITE AND NET fROTEDIIW ON N ro RFYNN),
i rnraucr DEVVaulnn OPFWATRIL
Y INSTALL TRALTONO PM.
l OSTML WOFRWNMI URITEL WADE SITE ro $4 -WME. NSTALL T1 mP
ammo MO/W MUF]IMD a NE ,..
L NSTALL NET PROTMC (N NETS CMMRWn).
L PLACE TASE DD
T. MAS AmIW.T PAVEMENT.
L 1aa0. aTED, AN] !SLEW ISSTMSm MEM DUINOE W PANETIEMT N
ACCOmM4 MM THE UNDSDANND P .
L MIEN MlE MO.ETATON IS WMUM ro T01L IM nL?Y1Mr oMTan WIIIPOL
YGSYR6 WALL EE RNQOTD Br TM COIMRACTNI.
1 s
7
( R (
s
a
I h.:r P.Yb IN.e M Mo
A:.n A NNet•d by m• .r unM mY dF•.t
Pm f�iiwtl � Yml I eT . dd Umwa
uMr DI. � an
pin.r of
Se.b .I YhnsNla
P,b,l N.a. EaLYteaW3
I� ��
WNNM: scYE ,• _ Er
MIDJOCT YMADER:
W ENCINElMND a1C AML" ND RFSPWS
AYRE PAUL Y. NILPS
MI: (emJ aN -FEaR
m WYAcm umE W LD3TS REWLTNS
R
P M MW�i NT
�co
TNE EE Opl
R
O
•`
P au
Q ®
i
i
/ A yh
i \
� SAO NINNII■
/.
i
%, Ab NINN116 T
\
4
�
!E
8 d
1
-
q !
A
I11 a
�! =8
%, Ab NINN116 T
\
4
-
��
I11 a
�! =8
�
�-
_ / a I III
ism gee
s� cos
�
b -
tlr I ` tl
i
i
, 'bc�9e: �
's;s Ya ' q =
5(y'[C
PEE 9�y
a_ Sd� °.S °58:en'i8s�i�i$8°wn�ty gQS
EE 55 q $$g � x °gg =bb e
��
p °@
\
c �
� ,�
\\ �" 11 � 1
a: as¢ txs�aaoe�go :agaagesaasseaae3aano3Y 3�
�- --
g�g�€ �o�00000000000 ° s ° ° sooe00000eoo °00000 of
ii
%, Ab NINN116 T
\
4
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Report Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2012
Planning Case: 11 -09
Petitioner. Dawn Niess
Address: 8424 46th Avenue North
Project Name: NA
Project Description: Driveway expansion
Planning Request: Variance
I. Type of Planning Request
II. Zoning Code References
Section(s) 4 -3(e) Off - street parking requirements
4-33 Administration - Variances
III. Property Specifications
Zoning: R -1 Single Family Residential
Location: Single family home on 46th Avenue N, mid -block between Aquila and Xylon
avenues.
Adjacent Land Uses: Single family homes to south, east, and west. New Hope Learning Center to
the north.
Site Area: 10,479 square feet or 0.24 acres. Parcel dimensions: 75 X 139.94 feet.
Building Area: NA
Lot Area Ratios: Building area: Unknown
Paved area: Unknown
Green area: Unknown
Planning District: Planning District 8. Scattered site single family rehabilitation and
redevelopment needed for select sites. 8424 46th Avenue not included.
IV. Background
The applicant installed an area of pavers and extended it across the property line from the curb to the
back of the garage for parking vehicles beside the garage. No driveway permit was obtained prior to
doing the work. The applicant at times has stated the project was intended for parking while at other
Planning Case Report 11 -09 Page 1 3/6/12
times has stated the project was intended as landscaping. It has been staffs' observation that the paver
area is being utilized as parking. This has been documented in photographs.
At the December 15, 2011, Design and Review Committee meeting the applicant was requested to
submit a registered survey indicating the exact garage, driveway, and paved areas, setbacks, and
property lines, or have the property lines clearly marked. At that meeting, the applicant verbally
requested an extension of 60 days of the planning approval process. Can January 23, 2012, the City
Council extended the review period another 60 days to April 7, 2012. On February 24, 2012, the city
received a narrative from Ms. Niess, explaining that Joshua Schneider, of Acre Land Surveying, Inc.,
had marked the property line. No visual proof of the staking of the property lines was included and the
site is no longer visibly marked per staff's review.
The narrative suggests there is six feet from the driveway to the property line. The pavers extend from
the driveway 7 feet 2 inches, a total of 1 foot 2 inches over the property line. The applicant realizes the
pavers extending over the property line may need to be removed. At minimum, the Planning
Commission should recommend the pavers extending beyond the property line be removed. That
being the case, the Pl annin g Commission is essentially being asked to consider a variance to allow the
driveway to extend to the property line, a variance of three feet. In its review, the Planning
Commission will need to determine if it believes the requirements of a variance have been met.
V. Zoning Analysis
A. Plan Description
1. Setbacks (Building Placement)
Per the applicant's narrative, the concrete driveway is 6 feet from the property line. The
garage is 5 feet 10 inches from the property line. The paved drive area extends beyond the
concrete driveway area a total of 7 feet 2 inches. The paved drive area near the garage
extends beyond the property line but the applicant has not stated to what extent. The
applicant was told uiis il-Lf„i
oratioi. would be required. With the :.*:formation provided, it is
difficult for the city to determine the full impact of the improvements.
2. Curbing, Sidewalk and Pavement
While the applicant has stated the area is intended as a paved landscape area, staff has
observed on multiple occasions the parking of vehicles and trailers. As a result, the
improvements should be considered an expansion of the driveway.
B. Zoning Code Criteria
1. Variance. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms
of the zoning code. Variances may be granted when they:
• Are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code
Findings. The general purpose and intent of the performance and zoning standards in
the R -1 district is to provide for areas of single family homes. Setbacks and
performance standards have been established to provide for a separation of uses and
an amount of privacy. Allowing an improvement up to the property line, especially an
improvement in which vehicles and trailers will be parked, is not in line with the
purpose and intent of the code. Allowing for such an improvement to extend beyond
Planning Case Report 11 -09 Page 2 3/6/12
the property line is definitely out of line with the code, not to mention illegal without
some type of legal agreement or easement.
• Are consistent with the comprehensive plan
Findings. The comprehensive plan outlines the need for rehabilitation and
reinvestment in the city's residential neighborhoods. This includes the proper
enforcement of the city's code, addressing conflicting land uses, and providing
transitions between properties. While improvements to property are encouraged, they
must be done so in accordance with the city's rules and impacts on neighboring
properties must be minim or non - existent.
The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in
complying with the city's zoning code.
Practical difficulties means as follows:
(1) That the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner
not permitted by the city's zoning code
(2) The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the
property under consideration and not created by the property owner;
(3) The variance will not alter the essential character of the of the locality or permit
a use not allowed within the respective zoning district;
(4) The variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or
increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety
The code states a practical difficulty may include but shall not be limited to the
following:
a. A physical condition unique to the property that results in practical
difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the
terms of this Code. Physical conditions causing practical difficulties may
include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic or similar
conditions unique to the parcel or lot.
b. Practical difficulties may also include inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems.
c. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute a practical difficulty if a
reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code.
d. A practical difficulty shall be unique to the parcel or lot for which the
variance is being sought and is not generally applicable to other properties
within the same zoning district.
Findings. The city does not determine the expansion of the driveway beyond the
property line to be a reasonable use. Even if reduced to the property line, staff feels this
will alter the character of the neighborhood and will have an impact on present and
future adjacent neighbors. The applicant's narrative lists the purpose of the paved area
Planning Case Report 11 -09 Page 3 3/6/12
is to enhance the appearance of the property and the adjacent property. It's suggested
the improvements will also limit the growth of weeds. No practical difficulty has been
established by the applicant explaining why the pavers are the only option available to
improve the appearance of the property and limit weeds. Weeds are not a
circumstance unique to this particular property. Additionally, as has been observed,
the area is not being used solely as a landscaping use: No practical difficulty has been
established for the need for additional parking either.
r
C. Design and Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee met on December 15, 2011. At that meeting the applicant
was advised to submit a survey or have the property lines marked. The Committee was not
supportive of the variance request due to the driveway not meeting code and extending into the
adjacent property.
D. Approval
1. Type of Approval
Variance
2. Timeline
a. Date application received: November 22, 2011
b. Date applicant was notified required information missing: December 15, 2011
c. Date 60 -day extension requested by applicant: December 15, 2011
d. End of original 60 -day decision period: February 13, 2012
e. Council approval of 60 -day extension: January 23, 2012
f. Date applicant notified of 60 -day extension: January 24, 2012
g. End of 120 -day decision period: April 7, 2012
VI. Petitioner's Comments
The petitioner's comments are included in two submittals dated November 22, 2011, and February 23,
2012.
Comments from a phone message to the building official, dated September 16, 2011, are also included.
VII. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no written
comments. One neighbor has visited the Community Development front desk a handful of times to
inquiry about the public hearing..The neighbor suggested they were not in support of the variance.
VIII. Summary
The applicant has submitted a request for a variance from the setback requirements for a driveway. The
applicant refers to the improvements as landscaping in her application, but as has been observed, the
improvement is being utilized as parking. The applicant has failed to submit the necessary information
in order for a true determination of the situation to be analyzed.
Planning Case Report 11 -09 Page 4 3/6/12
IX. Recommendation
Without the information requested, staff is unable to make a full determination of the situation. In no
instance would staff recommend approval of improvements being made across a property line without
an easement. It is duly noted that the applicant has suggested the pavers extending over the property
line may need to be removed and they are accepting of the fact. Even so, a variance is still required to
extend a driveway to the property line. The applicant has failed to explain how she meets the
requirements of the variance. All said, staff recommends denial of the variance application based on
the following findings:
1. There is no practical difficulty unique to the property not created by the landowner.
2. That approval of the variance is inconsistent with the city's zoning requirements related to the
location of parking and /or screening of side yard storage.
3. That approval of the variance may establish precedent for similar requests in the uniform
application of the city's zoning.
4. The economic consideration alone is not a basis for a variance.
If the Planning Commission agrees with the aforementioned findings, then a recommendation for denial of
the variance is appropriate.
In the event the Planning Commission finds the proposed project is a reasonable use of the property and
that practical difficulties do exist that justify the variance, the following conditions should be included with
any recommendation for approval:
1. Remove all pavers that extend across the property line.
2. No parking of vehicles shall be allowed on the area of pavers.
3. Installation of a fence or landscaping to screen the outdoor storage area.
Attachments:
• Application
• Applicant narrative
• Plans
• Location maps
• Planning consultant memorandums (December 14, 2011 and February 29, 2012)
• Design and Review Committee notes (December 15, 2011)
• Phone transcript dated September 16, 2011
• Photographs
• Application log
Planning Case Report 11 -09 Page 5 3/6/12
PLANNING
APPLICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL
City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428
Case No. 8-09
Date Filed �' C
Receipt No. �--
Received by
Basic Fee Deposit
Name of Applicant: -r�1
PID 0 113 Y3 — . 0 4 0 160
Street Location of Propert .
A 11- 1p AV-t. t .CMl'
Legal Description of Property:
OWNER OF RECORD: Name: wt9 -sue nl tic
S
Address: L9 '1,2o °,-/ 6 AV . ; N ,t�nJ �?(�
Home Phone 010�� Work Phone: � ()_ - 9 l3 - 'fz o Fax:
Applicant's nature of Legal or Equitable Interest:
o W i'1 2y
Type of Request: (pertaining to what section of City Code) '"`1 ( C'�
Please outline Description of Request: (use additional pages if necessary)
CA t 11 _ _1'N A Wk,-, Gd. tic-", _bf -e
U 1 Fla � euJ � �!. �nl u.� ,i,.1� , t.� v i' e L"3 .
Why Should Request be Granted: 1 u
(attach narrative to application form if necessary)
) 1"-,
1 -09
PC11 -09, Dawn Niess, 8424 46th Avenue
Narrative: (typed from handwritten copy)
Description of request:
My contractor did not feel a permit was necessary as he has done this type of work many times
before without a permit, including in New Hope. This was done mainly for landscaping and to
improve the look of our driveway and property. The only thing different than prior is material
that is in place (please see attached photos).
My should request be granted
I feel this should be granted as I feel the only thing different is the material placed. It was never
a problem when the cement blocks and /or rocks were placed to property line; however as soon
as pavers were placed, this was suddenly an issue. I have enclosed pictures of before and after.
The second reason I feel this should be granted is that Mr. Axel came to my property while
project was being done. He did not stop the work or tell the contractor a permit was required.
He did not contact my husband or I either - he could have called our home. Rather we received
a letter several days later after the work was completed. He should have told the contractor to
stop until he had talked with us. Our contractor could have reached us on our cell phones had
Mr. Axel asked him or told him the issues. I feel a lot of misunderstanding could have been
prevented.
An explanation as to why landscaping etc... must be three feet from property line would be
helpful - again this was not an issue with the material we had there previously.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. I am happy to discuss it with you further.
Sincerely,
Dawn Niess
413 4824
rn 25 L 4818
48!
47
4809
4801
.
4841 4845 73
� 466
4837
4853 485
4833 .
4829 CIR
478 4825 N 480!
4774
�► ,
n114750
'\ a
�4171�
4680
881
4657
�C+,9 460
4741
856 4648
4641
468 � �,
4746
9 4633
4
4621
4620
4632 462
4418
4624 461
4733'
12 4818 9
8821
46 4608 4601
4744
4725
4401
4800
!00 `�
e rr
4�601H
4531
4316
4723
4724
4317
4520
4742
4717
4309 Z 4300
4711
4712 4788
4740
•
4109
L 4701w
4301
4300
4619
e
4613
�4171�
4680
4651
4657
�C+,9 460
4610
856 4648
4641
468 � �,
4630 4631
9 4633
4
4621
4620
4632 462
4418
4624 461
4610 4611
12 4818 9
4600
46 4608 4601
4601
46
4401
4800
!00 `�
e rr
4�601H
4531
4316
4317
4308
4317
4520
4611
T -..
4560 I (� � � � x �
4309 Z 4300
4309
457H pb � iY
4308
4300
4301
4424
4425
j 4424
8801
.
4424
4416
4417
4416
4417
z
4418
4408
4409
I 4408
4409
W
=
4408
4400
4401
4400
<
4401
`
4400
4316
4317
4308
4317
4318
4308
4309 Z 4300
4309
4308
4300
4301
a 4232
4301
4300
A 1^.
4841 t 4840 4841
48u 4833 4632 4833
8616 g 4824 4825
48TH AVE N 4816 4817
4808 4809
4801
4800
4789
HOUSE Of 4781
HOPE 4n3
LUTHERAN
CHURCH 4765
4757
4741
HIGHMEW
SCHOOL 4
N
4654 8601
4648 4649
8301
4
461/2 AVE
N
4240
4225
4224 4219
4232
4217
4216
4224
642
4643
4216
4209 4200
4217
4208
m
00
8910 8830
8610 8640 4201
A 1^.
4841 t 4840 4841
48u 4833 4632 4833
8616 g 4824 4825
48TH AVE N 4816 4817
4808 4809
4801
4800
4789
HOUSE Of 4781
HOPE 4n3
LUTHERAN
CHURCH 4765
4757
4741
HIGHMEW
SCHOOL 4
N
4654 8601
4648 4649
8301
4
4
4
4
4
COOPER 4
HIGH SCHOOL
8230
I
41
3 47
47
47
47
411
47TH AVE N
8275 g
8267
8259
825 DEL DR z
Fe
e $ C
e °
461/2 AVE
N
461
642
4643
m
NEW HOPE
o
m
ELEMENTARY
463s
4637
SCHOOL
4630
4631
I z
4624
4625
IV
4
4618
4619
4612
4613
4606
4607
_g
�
4660Ca
4600
4601
3
4M AVE N
4
4
4
4
COOPER 4
HIGH SCHOOL
8230
I
41
3 47
47
47
47
411
47TH AVE N
8275 g
8267
8259
825 DEL DR z
Fe
e $ C
e °
461/2 AVE
N
461
m
o
m
IV
,'J���
_' � �' � _
.
I,> �� .nom
� �� i
i!, ,. F
�;
'�
•�` ' ; ' r ��) �J.J ^ � �/' �. —� 1rS, xV�c� I j"y � - v'1/ � �.` ..}' �� L
— 77
w t. -
.
" I AF ' rA
-
•""CC '4
Y. c
Y
i•• � , �� - °`.....'�- err...
RUT
•A.■
^' � - • � a yam; �' �� -�'� _ � - _ :� _ , '
A5 f
+:� v " , �. - �' ti ►� ICI
ti . R,
+ a " A
+•� -�- ems �' �. _
i
titi.r
- C w
x;
F. C . , -JACKS ON
LAND SURVEYOR
REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
LICENSED BY ORDINANCE Or CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
t�L -
;o r
I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THE ALOVE 18 A TRUE AND OO1`RCCT PLAT OF A SURVEY OF
w fft O �
g�
BUILDING INSPECTCR
VILLAGE OF NEW HOIr E
DATE
Lot 8 Block 4. Dal Heights 2nd Addition.
Hennepin County j t:irinesota.
,! ,.� 1/ A-4
AS SURVEYED BY ME rH,s - -2 5th DAY OF 6 _I 7 -t 0 —A. 0 3
SIGNED__...
F. C.
w, No. 3600
3616 EAST 55TH STREET PA. 4 -4681
Ourt*cpor "o �trtifica�tc
DESIGN & REVIEW COMMITTEE
December 15, 2011
Committee: Anderson, Houle, Nirgude, Onadipe, Svendsen
The Development Review Team met on December 14 to consider a request for a variance to the side
yard setback requirement to allow an expanded driveway up to and across the property line at 8424 46-
Avenue North.
Staff. A l xc r' oont . Fournier, n W eiss
i inu, �- vviic, i•vuliller, Mader, ,7l,lrratt, VVe1SS
Consultants: Brixius
PLANNING CASE:
PROJECT:
ADDRESS:
ZONING:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
11 -09
Variance
8424 46th Avenue North
R -1, single Family Residential
Dawn Niess
Dawn Niess
DESCRIPTION: The applicant replaced driveway material with pavers and extended it across the
property line from the curb to the back of the garage for parking vehicles beside the garage. No
driveway permit was obtained prior to doing the work.
The Development Review Team was not supportive of the request due to the driveway not meeting code
and encroaching into the adjacent property.
Comments:
• Locate side property line
• Provide registered survey indicating exact location of garage /driveway and setbacks
• Curb cut appears to be wider than 24 feet
• Curb cut to be located three feet from property line
• Driveway extends over property line, per applicant
• No vehicle parking within three feet of property line
ATTACHMENTS:
• Application
• Narrative
• Northwest Consultants (planning) notes
• Maps
• Portion of voice mail message from Dawn Niess, 9/16/11
• Photos of site
NOTE: REVISED PLAN DEADLINE is Friday, December 23, by 3 p.m.
Planning Commission, Tuesday, January 3, 7 p.m.
City Council, Monday, January 23, 7 p.m.
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 7e3.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2581 plan ners@nacpla nni ng. corn
MEMORANDUM
TO: Curtis Jacobsen
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: December 14, 2011
RE: New Hope — Niess Variance
FILE NO: 131.01 —11.06
BACKGROUND
Dawn Niess is requesting a side yard setback variance for an expanded driveway and
parking space at her property located at 8424 46 Avenue North. The driveway and
parking improvements have been installed without permits and the variance is after the
fact application.
ISSUES
The site is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential District. The following standards apply
to driveway and parking within an R -1 Zoning District:
Section 4 -3(e), Off - Street Parking Standards
(4) General provisions.
h. Stall, aisle and driveway design.
6. Curb cut maximum. No curb cut access shall exceed the following
width dimensions measured at a point setback 20 feet from the
property line:
Residential ............................ 24 feet
Residential single - family
with a three car garage ............ 28 feet
Comment. The applicant has provided no scaled plan or narrative
description illustrating driveway width and proposed setbacks.
7. Curb cut minimum. Curb cut openings shall be located at minimum
five feet from the side yard lot line in all districts except the R -1 and
R -2 districts. In the R -1 and R -2 districts, curb cuts may be three
feet from the side yard lot line. Further, there shall be no set -back
requirement from a shared lot line for dwellings defined as "zero lot
line" Twinhomes by subsection 4 -2 (2) of this Code.
Comment. The applicant has indicated that the new driveway extends
through the required setback onto the adjoining lot.
(6) Location. All accessory off - street parking facilities required by this Code shall be
located and restricted as follows:
a. Same lot. Required accessory off - street parking shall be on the same lot
under the same ownership as the principal use being serviced, except
under the provisions of subsections 4- 3 (e)(11) and 4- 3 (e)(12) of this Code.
Comment. The applicant's driveway, based on her testimony, extends onto the
adjoining property. This parking is not eligible for Section 4 -3(e) i 1, Joint Parking
or Section 4- 3(e)12, Off -Site Parking.
C. Parking distance from property line. There shall be no off - street parking
within three feet of any property line. This prohibition shall not apply to
zero lot line parcels in any residential zoning district containing adjacent
garages that share a common wall on the zero lot line when the driveway
is shared by the dwelling units and the driveway curb cut also abuts the
shared or zero lot line.
Comment. The applicant has built through the required three foot setbacks
beyond the property line.
Section 4- 3(d)9, Exterior Storage
b. Recreational equipment and vehicles.
3. Side and rear yard storage of recreational equipment or vehicles
shall meet the following standards:
Storage of all recreational equipment or vehicles shall
maintain at least a three foot setback from the side or rear
yard property lines except for canoes, kayaks and other
small boats stored at the shoreline of Meadow Lake and
Northwood Lake as provided in section 4-3 (d)(9)b. 1. iii. of this
Code.
2
ii. Storage must be partially but adequately screened to break
up the visual appearance of the exterior storage from
adjoining properties through landscaping or fencing.
iii. Fences shall not exceed eight feet in height.
VARIANCE CRITERIA
Section 4 -36 outlines the criteria for evaluating the variances as follows:
Practical difficulties in the use of the lot.
The lot is a standard R -1 lot. It does not present any physical conditions unique
to the property that prevents its reasonable use.
2. The variance request is being created by the property owner.
The property owner constructed the driveway without a permit. Its location
violates required setbacks and encroaches into the adjoining property.
3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The expanded driveway creates a condition that is not supported by City Code
and encroaches onto the adjoining property. Both of these features changes the
character of the locality.
4. The variance being sought is not generally applicable to other properties in the
same zoning district.
The driveway and exterior storage setback is universally applied to all R -1
lots.
• The applicant's lot is not uniquely different from other R -1 lots throughout
the City.
The City has enforced its driveway setback on other R -1 lots requesting
expanded driveways.
• Approval of this variance without demonstrated practical difficulties will
establish precedent for future variance considerations.
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Curtis Jacobsen
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: February 29, 2012
RE: New Hope — Niess Variance
FILE NO: 131.01 — 11.06
BACKGROUND
The Niess family installed pavers along the side of their garage at 8424 46 Avenue to
create a parking space for their trailer. The house is located six feet from their property
line. Their pavers were installed seven feet, two inches from their garage wall onto the
side yard. This resulted in an illegal encroachment onto the neighboring property and
into the required side yard setback. The Niess' are proposing to remove pavers from
the adjoining property but have requested a side yard setback variance to allow the
pavers to remain within the side yard setback area up to the property line.
REQUIREMENTS
The following standards regulate side and rear yard storage of vehicles:
Section 4- 3(d)(9)b.3:
3. Side and rear yard storage of recreational equipment or vehicles shall meet the
following standards:
i. Storage of all recreational equipment or vehicles shall maintain at least a three
foot setback from the side or rear yard property lines except for canoes, kayaks,
and other small boats stored at the shoreline of Meadow Lake and Northwood
Lake as provided in section 4- 3(d)(9)b.1.iii of this Code.
ii. Storage must be partially but adequately screened to break up the visual
appearance of the exterior storage from adjoining properties through landscaping
or fencing.
iii. Fences shall not exceed eight feet in height.
VARIANCE CRITERIA
In 2011, the State of Minnesota changed the criteria for considering a variance.
Variances may be granted where practical difficulties exist in complying with the Zoning
Ordinance. Practical difficulties means that property owners' proposed to use the
property in a manner not permitted by the zoning. Practical difficulties include:
Condition or plight of the landowner are due to circumstances unique to the
property and not created by the landowner.
Comment In this instance, the City established the rules for side yard and rear
yard storage for their uniform application throughout the City. The Niess property
is consistent in lot area and width with other lots within the same zoning district
and neighborhood. In this respect, the conditions on the lot are not unique
specifically to this property. The house location is a difficulty not unique to this
property. The installation of the pavers was created by the property owners'
contractor.
2. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Comment. The proposed storage location not only fails to meet setback, but it
does not provide adequate space for the required screening that is required by
ordinance. The condition of the Niess property is not unique to their property.
Other lots throughout the City may have similar setbacks between garage and
side lot lines. If the variance is approved, concern is raised in uniform and
equitable treatment of other similar properties and the practical enforcement of
the current regulations.
3. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty.
Comment: In this instance, the installation of pavers is not a basis for variance
approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on our review of the regulations for granting a variance, we find:
There is no practical difficulty unique to the property not created by the
landowner.
2. That approval of the variance is inconsistent with the City's zoning requirements
related to the location and screening of side yard storage.
2
3. That approval of the variance may establish precedent for similar requests in the
uniform application of the City's zoning.
4. The economic consideration alone is not a basis for a variance.
If the Planning Commission agrees with the aforementioned findings, then a
recommendation for denial of the variance is appropriate.
In the event the Planning Commission finds the proposed project is a reasonable use of
the property and that practical difficulties do exist that justify the variance, the following
conditions should be included with any recommendation for approval:
Remove all pavers that extend across the property line.
2. Installation of a fence or landscaping to screen the outdoor storage area.
3
Portion of transcript of Dawn Nelss' phone message 9/16/2011 C@ 9;12 am
... "I am currently having some pavers put down alongside our driveway for some additional parking
space and I was told by one of the workers that you were here taking some pictures yesterday. I would
like to know what that is about as my understanding is we don't need a permit for that. If it's a question
regarding the property line, we have talked with the neighbors and they gave their approval so if it is
over the line a little bit they are aware of that, have given approval and in fact they're probably going to
be doing something like that themselves." ...
BUILDING OFFIICIAL
PHOTO
1
r wI 4"
a• „
x _
.
I
a
if
_
c R um
i
I
�� -
.
:•Y
- �!
-.M
i
~y+_
x a
•fit -. r .,{
+•�
BUILDING OFFIICIAL
PHOTO
f���\
1 j .1.11 J j j
.�\ / �§ \ 2 »)
} \62 � `�
� �
)
}�
|
\�� �
\ \��°
.�\ / �§ \ 2 »)
} \62 � `�
� �
CITY OF NEW HOPE
SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG
A B C D E F G H I
J
Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 60- Date Deadline Date city Date city
cation application was sent day time day Applicant for city approved or sent response
number Name received notice limit extension was notified action denied the to Applicant
Address by city that required expires expires of under application
Phone information extension extension
was missing or waiver
12/15/11 the 2/13/12 4/7/12 PC 3/6/12
11 -09 Dawn Niess 11/22/11 applicant was
8424 46th Ave N informed at Deadline to
New Hope MN 55428 the Design meet
763- 531 -0255 Review planning CC3/26/12
612 - 813 -8430 Committee schedule
meeting that 12/22/11
their
application
was
incomplete. 60
extension was
requ
Boxes A -C and E -F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the city's procedures and the date of a specific application.
A. Assign each application a number.
B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
C. List the date the city received the application.
D. List the date the city sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the city gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the
date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line.
E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
F. To calculate the 60-day extension, begin counting from the day hollowing the first 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
G. The city will notify the Applicant by mail that a 60 -day extension period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
I. The city must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.)
J. List the date that the city sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the city not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the
time limit expires.
a
't t
t f -•-
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development
Cc: Al Brixius, Planning Consultant
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
From: Eric Weiss, CD Assistant
Date: March 1, 2012
Subject: PC 12 -02 Amendment to Sec. 4 -32 Administration - Amendments
Staff is proposing to amend the language in Section 4-32, which outlines the requirements for
amendments to the zoning code text or zoning district boundaries. Currently, there are three criteria for
an amendment. Staff is proposing to remove the first requirement that "the zoning amendment is
necessary to correct a past zoning mistake."
The definition of a "zoning mistake" is rather nebulous and subjective and a difficult criteria to make a
determination on. As times change, so should the zoning to reflect those changes. To qualify past
decisions as "mistakes" doesn't give due credit to past decisions and attitudes towards zoning or allow
for change without dete there was some sort of error.
Staff believes the other two requirements are more than enough to ensure zoning amendments are
carefully considered. Those criteria include:
• 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.
Zoning amendments are considered to be legislative actions. The state and courts have granted cities the
most latitude in their decision - making for legislative actions. Therefore, removal of this criterion will not
diminish the city's ability to make future decisions, rather it will likely make future zoning amendments
more legally sound by removing the hard to judge term "mistake."
Because the change is so minor, staff does not plan on bring the issue forward to the Codes and
Standards Committee. If the Planning Commission is accepting of the change, the issue would move
forward to public hearing on April 3, 2012.
1
Sec. 4 -32. - Administration — Amendments.
(a) Amendments, initiation. The city council or planning commission may, upon its own motion, initiate
a request to amend the text or the district boundaries of this Code. The procedural requirements of this
section shall not apply to such proposed amendments except to the extent required by state statute.
Any person owning real estate within the city may initiate a request to amend the district boundaries on
their own property or text of this Code so as to affect the said real estate.
(b) Procedure. An application for an amendment requires a public hearing and shall be processed
pursuant to the provisions outlined in subsection 4 -30(c) of this Code.
(c) Criteria. The planning commission and city council shall consider possible effects of the proposed
amendment. Its judgement shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors:
(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.