The URL can be used to link to this page

100212 PlanningMeeting Date: October 2, 2012 Report Date: September 28, 2012 Planning Case: 12 -09 Petitioner: Matt Houston Owner: Sergei and Ella Selyukov Address: 3957 Winnetka Avenue North Project Description: Variance to Minimum Lot Size and Lot Split Planning Request: Approval of a variance to the minimum lot size requirement and lot split I. Type of Planning Request A variance is a way that a city may allow an exception to part of a zoning ordinance. It is a permitted departure from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a particular piece of property. A variance is generally for a dimensional standard (such as setbacks or height limits). A variance allows the landowner to break a dimensional zoning rule that would otherwise apply. A city exercises so- called "quasi- judicial" authority when considering a variance application. This means that the city's role is limited to applying the legal standard of practical difficulties to the facts presented by the application. The city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the legal standard. If the applicant meets the standard, then the variance should be granted. II. Zoning Code References Section 4- 5(f)(1) Single Family Residential, lot requirements Section 4 -36 Administration - Variances Chapter 13 Subdivision and Platting III. Property Specifications Zoning: R -1, Single Family Residential Location: East side of Winnetka Avenue at the 51St Ave. N intersection Adjacent Land Uses: Residential land uses on the north, west, and south sides; Industrial to the east Planning District: Planning District 12: Comprehensive plan guides this site for residential land uses IV. Background In 2008, a variance to the lot size was approved for a lot spilt on this property, however the plans were not finalized and a lot split did not occur. The current property owner has requested a variance to the lot size requirement for a similar lot split. In 2008, the variance was approved with the finding that the lot split would create two functional and acceptable lots while also achieving the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan which are "to maintain and strengthen the character of New Hope's single family neighborhoods." This proposed variance and lot split attempts to uphold the same principals that were basis for the 2008 approval. However, staff has indentified some issues with the proposed plans. V. Zoning Analysis Subdivision Review Section 13- 1(g)(1)b Minor subdivision: the following land divisions are exempted from the other procedural requirements of the New Hope Subdivision Ordinance. Simple division of a single lot which is part of a recorded plat to create no more than two lots provided the newly created property line will not cause the remaining portion of the lot or any structure thereon to be in violation with the New Hope Zoning and Subdivision Code. To qualify, the parcel of land shall not have been part of a minor subdivision within the last five years. Lot Area /Setbacks Required East Lot (Corner) West Lot (Interior) Lot Area 9,500 SF 8,980 SF 6,960 SF Lot Width 75/90 Feet 95 Feet 75 Feet Front Yard 25 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet Corner Side Yard 25 Feet 25 Feet N/A Interior Side Yard 10/5 Feet 10/5 Feet 10/5 Feet Rear Yard 25 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet Planning Case 12 -09 2 September 28, 2012 The proposed survey and site plans illustrate that the variance is only being requested for the minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet. Both proposed lots will meet the R -1 lot widths and setbacks. Demolition The existing home and garage will be demolished and removed from the site to accommodate the subdivision of the lot. The applicant has provided a pre demolition survey of the home which identified hazardous materials within the home. The applicant shall safely remove all hazardous materials found in the pre demolition study as recommended within this study. After demolition the new lots shall be graded in accordance with the proposed site plan. Overhead Utility Lines The applicant has noted that he met with Xcel Energy on (09/20/12) at 3957 Winnetka Avenue and discovered that moving the existing power pole to the southwest corner of the lot would create a new aerial trespass for the power lines serving the property to the west of the proposed parcel A. Due to this discovery, the, applicant has proposed an additional easement on the southwest corner of the proposed parcel A to accommodate the existing service line feeding the property to the south. The applicant has noted that they will be providing underground power within the utility easements to service both new homes. The applicant shall remove the overhead utility line over parcel A. Utility and Utility Easements The applicant has denoted installation of a new service connection to the proposed parcel A. The existing service to parcel B shall be inspected. If it is found to be in a deteriorated condition, it must be replaced at the applicant's expense. All utility service installation costs will be at the expense of the applicant. The applicant has acknowledged that they will be subject to a single SAC/WAC fee at the time of issuance of a building permit for the new lot (Parcel A). The applicant has provided the necessary utility easements as regulated in chapter 13 section 5(d)(1). The applicant is compliant. Fencing; & Screening The proposed plans show existing chain link fencing around both lots that will be removed. Planning Case 12 -09 3 September 28, 2012 As per Design and Review Committee recommendations, the applicant has submitted fence details and narrative indicating a proposed six -foot fence to be placed along Winnetka Avenue N with plantings along the base of the fence. The applicant must submit plans that illustrate the location of the proposed fence. Additional information is needed regarding the plantings (Size, species, number, and location). Curb Cuts and Site Access The applicant has indicated that they intend to remove the existing curb cut on Winnetka Avenue and replace it with a city specified curb cut upon approval of the lot split. The applicant has also revised the plans to accommodate for all curb cuts to be set back 40 feet from the intersection as well as each other. The removal of the curb cut along Winnetka Avenue shall be a condition of approval. Park Dedication The applicant has acknowledged that they shall be subject to a park dedication fee for the creation of a new lot. A park land dedication fee of $1,500 shall be paid to the city at the time of the subdivision recording. Grading & Drainage The applicant has submitted revised plans that detail the grading plan and drainage patterns for city engineer review. House Design The applicant's split entry house designs are generally consistent with the existing single family homes in the surrounding neighborhood in size and exterior wall finishes. Variance The applicant is requesting consideration of a variance from the R -1 district minimum lot size (9,500 Square Feet) for both of the proposed parcels. Section 4 -36 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance outlines the following review criteria for variances: Practical difficulties. As used in connection with granting an application for a variance, 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; Planning Case 12 -09 4 September 28, 2012 (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 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; (5) Practical difficulties 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. This specific variance application is unique in that it represents an opportunity for the redevelopment of a blighted home in an otherwise stable single family neighborhood. The current lot is conforming to the R -1 Zoning District standards and is comparable with the lot sizes in the neighborhood. The variance request does not strictly follow the aforementioned criteria; rather it is a mechanism to facilitate proposed redevelopment. The New Hope Comprehensive Plan outlines the following goals and policies that should be considered in relation to this variance request. Goal 3: Aggressively improve substandard and /or blighted areas. Policies: • Aggressively continue housing redevelopment programs throughout the city. • Encourage the private redevelopment of substandard, obsolete or blighted properties. Public assistance may be applicable where the redevelopment is consistent with the Planning Case 12 -09 5 September 28, 2012 goals of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan and within the financial capabilities of the city. Goal 4: Implement cohesive land use patterns that ensure compatibility between land uses and strong functional relationships among activities. Policies: • Maintain and strengthen the character of individual neighborhoods. • Prevent over - intensification of land use development, that is, development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services and facilities (utilities, parking, access, etc.). • Investigate remedies to correct or eliminate existing land use compatibility problems. .Examine requested land use changes in relation to adjoining land uses, site accessibility, utility availability, and consistency with the city's Comprehensive Plan and policies. • Examine, re- evaluate, and promote proper infill development on under- utilized parcels to insure full land utilization. Residential Goals Goal 2: Maintain and enhance the strong character of New Hope's single family residential neighborhoods. Policies: A. Promote private reinvestment in the city's single family housing stock. B. Examine city development regulations to provide greater development flexibility for single family homeowners. C. Prevent the intrusion of incompatible land uses into low density single family neighborhoods. D. Aggressively and proactively enforce the city's housing maintenance regulations. E. Provide community education resource information, plan book and /or programs to local property owners on home maintenance, repair, renovation, expansion, and assistance opportunities. F. Pursue the redevelopment of substandard single family homes when it is judged not economically feasible to correct the deficiencies. Planning Case 12 -09 6 September 28, 2012 Variance Findings In reviewing the requested variance against the aforementioned criteria, staff has identified the following findings to support the variance to the minimum lot size: 1. The proposed lot split would create two single family lots and eliminate a blighted home. This redevelopment and new investment in the neighborhood represents a reasonable use for this property. 2. The introduction of two single family homes, that are consistent in size and design to surrounding homes, will not alter the essential character of the locality or permit a use not allowed within the R -1 zoning district. 3. The proposed subdivision will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public street, or increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety. 4. The proposed variance will allow private investment in the city's R -1 single family residential housing stock which is supported by the aforementioned Comprehensive Plan's goals and polices. VI. Notification Property owners within 350 feet of parcel were notified by mail and a legal notice was published in the SunPost newspaper. Staff has not received any comments. VII. Recommendation Variance and Subdivision The Comprehensive Plan goals state: "to maintain and enhance the strong character of New Hope's single family residential neighborhoods." This goal is supported through policies that promote the removal and redevelopment of blighted homes as well as protecting neighborhoods through compatible land use relationships. The application provides the opportunity to redevelop a blighted property through its replacement with two new contemporary homes. The lot split, however, introduces two significantly smaller lots within the existing neighborhood that will require lot area variances from the R -1 District minimum. In consideration of the variance and subdivision request, the city needs to promote the benefits of the proposed redevelopment, while insuring a compatible land use relationship. Planning Case 12 -09 7 September 28, 2012 Staff recommends approval of this variance based on the findings of this report and recommends approval of the lot split subject to the following conditions: 1. The house design and site plan demonstrate full compliance with required R -1 setbacks. 2. The existing curb cut on Winnetka Avenue shall be removed by the developer. 3. The developer shall be responsible for all costs for installation of utilities. The existing utility service shall be inspected to determine the need for replacement. Replacement shall be determined by the city engineer. 4. The applicant shall safely remove all hazardous materials from the site in the manner recommended in the pre - demolition study. 5. The overhead utilities shall be removed from over the proposed parcel A and all power utilities shall be placed underground, within easements, to accommodate both parcels. 6. The applicant shall submit plans that detail the location of the proposed fence along Winnetka Avenue and provide information on the location, number, and species of all proposed plantings. 7. The applicant shall be responsible for one SAC unit. 8. The application is subject to a park dedication fee of $1,500. Attachments: Application and maps Plans and detail (09 /07/12) Surveys (original and revised) Resubmitted Plans (09/21/12) Application Log Planning Case 12 -09 8 September 28, 2012 PLANNING APPLICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428 Case No. Basic Fee Deposit Date Filed ,VV6 940 Receipt No. NO 2 azv, 1519 5 Received by /1" Name of Applicant: I IVA77 OWNER OF RECORD: Name: M Se-L K ga Address: PC) 35OX � *'117 PX/mc szi!4 Home Phone: Work Phone: Applicant's nature of Legal or Equitable Interest: Type of Request: (pertaining to what section of City Code) Fax: Z Please outline Description of Request: (use additional pages if necessary) 'I - IEZ FN rh,C Why Should Request be Granted: (attach narrative to application form if necessary) 1-09 Applicant acknowledges that before this request can be considered and /or approved, all fees, including the basic zoning fee and any zoning deposits (as outlined in the attached application materials) must be paid to the city and that, if additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by the city, the city manager has the right to require additional payment. The city hereby notifies the applicant that state law requires that the development review be completed within 60 days from the city's acceptance of this application. If the development review cannot be completed within 60 days, regardless of the reason, the city shall extend the review completion deadline an additional 60 days as also permitted by state law. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant in writing. The Community Development Departme will nptify you of all meetings. Signed: Fee Owner print or type name) Applicant Other than Owner (print or type) FOR CITY USE ONLY Evidence of Ownership Submitted: Certified Lot Survey: Legal Description Adequate: Legal Ad Required: Date of Design & Review Meeting: Date of Planning Commission Meeting: Yes ✓ No Required Yes �' No Required Yes V' No Required, Yes v" No Required, Approved: Denied: By Planning Commission on: Approved: Denied: By City Council on: Subject to the following conditions: 7909 3957 ► " G 3948 3949 rt 3940 3941 G 141 q 3932 3933 033 i 3924 3925 HOLY 3925 ATMTM 3916 3917 3900 3917 3908 3909 3909 3900 3901 3901 3874 3675 867 3866 3867 i9 3858 3859 CD m In AVE N 7916 7900 7924 7908 i N ! P 1917 7909 7901 '009 3709 4210 4211 4200 7820 7700 4000 4148 YMCA SCHOOL 7P9 7701 DISTRICT ADMIN. I OFFICES SCHOOL BUS 4124 3943.3961 7600 7601 3940 BETH EL MEMORIAL PARK APATH CHESED SHEL EtdES CEMETERY 7300 i AYE N tA� Q a,, O O M N �i� 6049 8008 cld co 8016 3 r * 4215 7520 y 7516 7512 2 7508 4 7500 7300 7401' KF,, 4124 4125 n 4119 4120 4121 4116 4109 4110 4111 4108 4103 4104 4103 4061 4058 4059 4055 4052 4053 4449 4046 404T 4100 4045 4042 4043 4039 4036 4039 4033 A 4024 4031 4427 z 4022 4025 4021 4020 4021 4015 z 4016 4017 4009 4008 4009 4002 4003 4003 7351 7301 3964 3925 3980 t3951 3956 3911 3948 390 3940 39t 39 11 3927 w 3917 �' 3909 3916 0 ` 318 7 0 , 3903 3849 3841 3835 3825 3817 3811 3803 7300 i AYE N tA� Q a,, O O M N �i� 6049 8008 cld co 8016 3 Why Should Request Be Granted? The application for the request to grant a lot split for lot 1 Block 6 Hope wood Hills should be awarded for the following reasons: After meeting with the Pre Application staff on Friday August 31 2012, it was brought to my attention that there is a need for new construction single family homes in the city of New Hope. Statistics show that there is a near balanced ratio of Single Family Homes versus Multi Family homes in the city today, and due to the central location of the city and its proximity to Minneapolis and the West Metro, there should be more Single Family homes available for current home buyers and newcomers to the city. The City's recent involvement with purchasing large commercial parcels for re development would be enhanced by offering newcomers to the city the option to purchase a new construction home. Assuming the goal of said commercial re- development is to create a thriving business market place within the city, then it is obvious that there will be a demand for new construction single family homes to accommodate a vast home buyer group. The existing house located on the property is dangerous and currently un- inhabitable. Granting the request would expedite demolition of said house and detached garage, and allow for two attractive homes to be put in its place. There are 3 Trees on the property that would also be removed that are currently posing a liability to neighboring properties and water /sewer utilities. The tree in the boulevard along 40 is currently causing strangulation to the existing utility services and potential root intrusion on the sewer. The tree closest to the South lot line is hollowed out and poses a threat to a neighboring property. There are also numerous unattractive scrubby trees and brush on the center of the lot that would be eliminated if the Proposal is granted. Thank you for your consideration Description of Request. To split the lot located at Lot 1 Block 6 Hopewood Hills in accordance with the attached "Proposed Lot Split" drawing. The request is made in an effort to create two, new, single family building lots for the purpose of providing two, new construction, single family, owner occupied homes. !J�Cl /N/t Proposed Lot Split Utilities shown from are For information provided by city MATT HOUSTON Property located in Section g s a 4C Mrc th A rtue No th 18, Township 118, Range 21, rvs, 1" Hennepin County, Minnesota sn.o wArc i rx� 77 I L = i 3 ,33 ° " ° i ce 1 i se,.m R= 889 82 arnn °27'23' Fig L�3B.67 e nz °I9'S8" p�8 - — 0 .____- _- _____n �' - - - - -- v� No. 7909 O z 1 ; 5li { j 1 �ry axrce h N Existing Legal Description j \W Lot 1, Block 6, HOPEWOOD HILLS Proposed Legal Description Parcel A - (6,960 sq ft ±) That part of Lot 1, Block 6, HOPEWOOD HILLS according to the recorded plat thereof situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies West of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest Corner of said Lot 1; thence South 89 degrees 35 minutes 30 seconds East; assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 1 a distance of 75.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be herein described; thence North 05 degrees 29 minutes 44 seconds West 97.15 feet to a point on the North line of said Lot 1 and there terminating. Parcel B - (8,980 sq ft ±) That part of Lot 1, Block 6, HOPEWOOD HILLS according to the recorded plat thereof situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies East of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest Cotner of said Lot 1; thence South 89 degrees 35 minutes 30 seconds East; assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 1 a distance of 75.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be herein described; thence North 05 degrees 29 minutes 44 seconds West 97.15 feet to a point on the North line of said Lot 1 and there terminating. f p =06 °07'01' is 1 0 5' ..�, 5 aw°a 1 w r sr°'T 25' ' 1 Pa ne.eawH N a T 15 85.45 160145 ads`, _ N 89 35'30" W , /r W� No. 3949 Zoning - R -1 Single Family Residential I Y+ I � rror ( I s IZ I� I� if I I Setbacks Front: Local Street - 25 Front: Communit} or Collector Street - 30 Rear - 25 feet House Side - 10 feet (Interior Lot Line) Attached Garage Side - 5 feet (Interior Lot Line) Side Comer..Local Street - 20 feet Side Comer: Community or Collector Street - 25 feet INVOICE NO. 80545 F.B.NO. 1037 -78 SCALE: 1" = 30' • Denotes Found Iron Monument O Denotes Im m n Monuent 0 Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation ony x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation The Gregory Group d.b.a. LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. Established in 1962 LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue Nosh (763) 560.3093 Minneapolis, Mine— 55428 Fax No. 560 -3522 uruezjurs arrttfir - at The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. I certify that this plan, specification, or report was:prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota Surveyed by us this 15th day of January 2008 Signed 4 �`, " _ Greg . Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 ) IV/ .j G- >( l INVOICE NO. 80545 Proposed Lot Split F.B.NO. 1037 -78 Utilities shown from are For information provided by city SCALE: 1" = 30' MATT HOUSTON w. « • Denotes Found Iron Monument O Denotes Iron Monument smvsy�.l x942.9 Denotes Existing Spot Elevation Property located in Section IS, Township 118, Range 21, I ,° 40th A nuB N' or'th I i / 1 3 s,vsrs,�co.sn.. ° 93 ry , - Denotes Existing Contour Hennepin County, Minnesota sz>.oz ' y°z..w _ 9 ' 9 ° �., I rz•rn �/Z.•� Denotes Proposed Contour R= 889.8 uwynro 1 K -659.8 � Z = _ _ SyS f;�{( -•— Detrotes Surface Drainage az.n L =3 .67 i 1 cyrum 6= 8.27'23" wz.r - ,�� , R =949:,2 '1, _e, _,1,_ _ The Gregory Group 02 °19'58' ` —`— ______�n�___= 4- -'- sroa� d.b.a. 9 s,ze .2.5 r ----- 4 . — < � -r o_o6,s7'oi- LOT SURVEYS COMPANY INC. J I. _ N - - ., .�•- Y'a'- LTG�ZQ'Z 1 r,fce Lx I N ' �gpOSed rnnage `1 unr',ty as LAND SURVEYORS e,>reot- F , , o,2u�e sr,n, Established in 1962 ^ O �, ' -; -- _ I U - - I ' �� s c. i ` REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA / -5 -Fr I r I Mionea M ota P 7601 73rd Aoue ve Noah (763) 5fi0 -3093 olis, nne 55428 Fax No. 560 -3522 \ r I•+ . ` huh I No. 395/ i r I r �' �'� 4 y 9i3.1 I•ll l: is '` ; o �'� ll s'r t i ti " 9Fy ) 94A Zoning - R -1 Single Family Residential No. 7909 o \ r r aY I Q 5 ` \ l w i 2 r Setbacks r Front: Local Street - 25 s r or =maw 4 9 , Front: Communi or Collector Street - 30 `J Rear - 25 feet • s +z.° XW o �, � o�,e w,m n � ° jGara9c v""a h -� 1 ,5 i House Side - 10 feet (Interior Lot Line — - --' az - g - `"°""" "� � - � Attached Garage Side - 5 feet (Interior Lot Lute) Existing Legal Description g g ; r w i 6o.as ?' A %z f Side Corner: Local Street - 20 feet r ° I PROF05ED �W N 89`35'30' W1 r 7 �^` ^'t Side Comet: Community or Collector Street - 25 feet Lot 1, Block 6, HOPEWOOD HILLS I unmrea5Emmr - "— I s+ae a Proposed Legal Description s' r No. 3949 r 7 Parcel A - (6,960 sq ft±) Y `,' i � i The only easements shown are from plats of record or information That part of Lot 1, Block 6, HOPEWOOD HILLS according to the recorded plat provided by client thereof situate in Hennepin County Minnesota which lies West of the kowing t certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or described line: Commencing at the Southwest Corner of said Lot 1; thence South 89 / under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Licensed land degrees 35 minutes 30 seconds East; assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 1 Proposed Utility Easement Description: surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota a distance of 75.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be herein described; That part of Lot 1, Block 6, HOPEWOOD H ILLS according to Surveyed by us this 15th day of January 2008. thence North 05 degrees 29 minutes 44 seconds West 97.15 feet to a point on the North the recorded plat thereof situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota line of said Lot 1 and there terminating. which lies Southwesterly of the following described line: Commenting at the Southwest Corner of said Lot 1; thence N Parcel B - (8,980 sq ft ±) Easterly along the South line of said Lot i a distance of 35.00 feet That part of Lot 1, Block 6, HOPEWOOD HILLS according to the recorded plat to the point of be ginnin g of the line to be herein described; thence signed thereof situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies East of the following northwesterly to a point on the west line of said Lot 1 said point described line: Commencing at the Southwest Corner of said Lot 1; thence South 89 being 19.00 feet northerly of the southwest comer of said Lot 1 Grego rasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 degrees 35 minutes 30 seconds East; assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 1 and said line there terminating. a distance of 75.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be herein described; Rev 23 -08 n Drawn By g q m r equ i red thence North 05 degrees 29 minutes 44 seconds West 97.15 feet to a point on the North ed additional mformabo line of said Lot 1 and there terminating. o , uir X �6'" v C11"4-1 jf The following is a response to the design and review committee findings dated September 13, 2012 from the applicant, (Matt Houston) for the purposes of a lot split proposal and lot size variance request for the property located at 3957 Winnetka Ave N. 1. Applicant has provided and is including a pre demolition survey for the materials findings for the existing house located at 3957 Winnetka Ave S. Applicant agrees to re grade lot at time of completion of house demolition in accordance with attached revised survey including grading plan. 2. Applicant met with Stephen Anderson, (Electrical Designer), with Xcel Energy on 9 -20 -12 at 3957 winnetka Ave N. and discovered that moving the existing power pole to the South West corner of the lot would create a new aerial trespass for the power lines servicing the property to the West of Parcel "A ". These findings were shared with Roger Axel Chief Building Official on 9- 20 -12. Due to this discovery, applicant has requested Lot Surveys Company, Inc. create an additional utility easement on the South West Corner of Parcel "A" to accommodate the existing service line feeding the property to the South of 3957 Winnetka Ave N. Applicant will provide under ground power within the utility easement to service both new construction homes. 3. Applicant has provided and is including a noise and site buffer along Winnetka Ave consisting of a 6' privacy fence with salt tolerant shrubs and perennials, (hostas, vibernum, lilies, and potentilla) and a maintenance free ground cover,(mulch), up to the existing sidewalk along Winnetka. 4. Applicant has provided and is including a revised survey drawing including drainage /grading plan. 5. Both proposed homes will be 5 course basements with sump pump discharge to work in accordance with the grading plan 6. Applicant will build both homes with garage right, accommodating the necessary set back from the stop sign at the intersection of 40 and Winnetka and create a separation from curb cut to curb cut at a minimum of 40' 7. Applicant understands and acknowledges that a SAC fee in the amount of $2365 for 2012 will be owed to the city at the time of permit approval for Parcel "A ". 8. Applicant understands and acknowledges that a park dedication fee in the amount of $1500 will be owed to the city at the time of permit approval for Parcel "A ". 9. Applicant will remove the existing curb cut on Winnetka and replace with city specified Curb upon approval of lot split. 10. Applicant understands and acknowledges that the city will require one 2" caliper tree per lot prior to issuing certificate of occupancy on either Parcel. )F h 'I M K o =0a ID K 0 r* • K CA A A D .p N x .A o to 3 0 C ? Q a O CL s b tTQ CD O N w 3957 WINNETKA AVENUE N NEW HOPE, MN TECHTRON ENGINEERING 640 E MAIN STREET ANOKA, MN 55303 PH. (763) 712 -9502 ANDY TURBITT # All 0482 TECHTRON JOB #: F 12 -2737 �. SERGEI SELYUKOV P.O. BOX 46417 PLYMOUTH, MN 55446 DATE OF REPORT: 4/12/12 Pre - Demolition Asbestos Survey Techtron Engineering Inc. 3957 Winnetka Ave. N, New Hope, MN TV Job W12 -2737 Page #2 April 12, 2012 INTRODUCTION Techtron Engineering, Inc. was retained by Sergei Selyukov to perform a pre - demolition survey of the home located at 3957 Winnetka Avenue N in New Hope, Minnesota. The home and detached garage were planned on being demolished in the near future. The survey was performed on April 5, 2012. Scope of Study The purpose of this study was to identify asbestos - containing materials in the building so they can be removed prior to the demolition. In addition, hazardous materials were inventoried in the building for proper removal and disposal prior to the demolition of the building. Destructive sampling was performed and specific locations of asbestos - containing materials were identified. Every accessible material in the facility was neither sampled nor analyzed. Rather, materials were grouped homogeneously based on date of application, color, size, etc. Samples of each homogeneous group were then taken and analyzed for asbestos. Further destructive sampling will need to be performed prior to the demolition. Standards The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the state of Minnesota, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) all have promulgated regulations governing asbestos in buildings and /or asbestos exposure in a working environment. OSHA Standards State that personnel asbestos exposure must not exceed 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter of air based on an 8 -hour time weighted average. Minnesota regulations state that any damaged, friable asbestos must be repaired and that asbestos must be evaluated prior to any planned renovation. The Minnesota Department of Health also has rules governing asbestos abatement. These rules govern worker training, abatement notifications, licensing, methodology, etc. The EPA governs the disposal of asbestos, air emissions, and notification procedures for abatement. The EPA also governs asbestos in schools and asbestos in demolition projects. Pre - Demolition Asbestos Survey 3957 Winnetka Ave. N, New Hope, MN Page #3 Bulk Asbestos Sampling Techtron Engineering Inc. TEI Job #F12 -2737 April 12, 2012 Bulk samples were collected by wetting the material in question with amended water. A small portion of this material was then removed and placed directly in a sealed container for transport to Techtron Engineering's in -house laboratory. Bulk Asbestos Analysis Analysis was performed by Techtron Engineering in accordance to EPA methodology. This method detects asbestos in volumetric concentrations of I% or greater. Bulk samples were checked for the following asbestiform minerals: chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite, and tremolite- actinolite. The lab sample results can be found in appendix II. F) ! Bulk sample results and visual observations were used to identify and homogeneously group materials within each area. Generalizations were then made on the types of materials that do or do not contain asbestos. Bulk Sample Results Bulk samples results are located in Appendix I sorted alphabetically by "Sample Type ". Appendix II contains sample results from the lab. Appendix III contains a site map with floor plans of the home. Summary of Asbestos- Containine Materials The survey of the subject property found asbestos - containing materials in multiple locations throughout the home: Ceiling Texture 600f1 total White popcorn ceiling texture • Main Floor Living Room Main Floor Bedroom 1 Window Glazing 150 lineal ft total Gray /off -white window glaze • Main Floor Den Tan window glaze Upstairs Attic /Loft level Pre - Demolition Asbestos Survey 3957 Winnetka Ave. N, New Hope, MN Page #4 ACM Summary cont.... Mudded Thermal 10 ft total System Insulation Gray mudded insulation, at furnace burner box hatch • Basement Furnace Room, furnace cavity Duct Paper Thermal 200 ft total System Insulation Gray paper insulation, on HVAC duct work • Basement Furnace Room ducts • Main Floor Bedroom I Closet wall cavity duct chase Transite Gray transite siding • Home Exterior Tar Base flashing tar • Den Exterior 1200 ft total 30 ft total Caulk 3001ineal ft total Tan caulk • Home Exterior windows • Home Exterior doors Vermiculite 1000 ft total Gold /brown vermiculite insulation • Throughout main floor ceiling cavity (except in Den) • Upstairs attic /loft ceiling cavity Summary of Hazardous Materials Techtron Engineering Inc. TEI Job #F12 -2737 April 12, 2012 Several hazardous materials were found on the property during the pre - demolition survey. Multiple chemical containers were present t throughout the site. Two mercury - containing thermostats were found in the home. Found scattered throughout the site were roughly seven fluorescent bulbs containing hazardous mercury gas. In addition, one compact fluorescent light bulb was also present. A fire extinguisher was found in the building containing CFC's. Also, a window A/C unit with possible freon was found on the site. Lastly smoke detectors with radioactive battery materials are present in the building and they will need to be removed prior to the demolition. Flaking paint was XRF tested for lead content at the home to determine if stabilization would be necessary prior to the demolition. Several items were found to have lead -based paint which was flaking off the substrate materials at the time of the survey. The XRF results database with the full inventory of components with flaking lead -based paint can be found in appendix I. Pre - Demolition Asbestos Survey Techtron Engineering Inc. 3957 Winnetka Ave. N, New Hope, MN TEI Job #F12 -2737 Page #5 April 12, 2012 Asbestos - containing materials were identified during the survey of the subject property. The paper duct insulation, mudded furnace insulation, ceiling texture, window glazing and vermiculite insulation are friable, regulated asbestos - containing materials. The exterior transite siding is a category I non - friable material. The exterior caulking and the base flashing tar are category II non- friable materials. The removal of all friable and non - friable materials is required by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency due to the plans to demolish the building. All proper rules and regulations should be followed during the asbestos abatement. Removal of friable materials in residential dwellings is regulated for the vermiculite insulation, paper duct insulation, and mudded furnace insulation. If any of the materials not listed as regulated become friable during their removal then work needs to be performed following regulations for the remainder of the abatement. The hazardous materials listed above and identified during the survey need to be removed prior to demolition of the buildings. These materials will need to be disposed of properly according to regulations. If asbestos - containing materials in the building are to be abated a Minnesota licensed asbestos abatement contractor must perform the asbestos - related work. There is no guarantee, implied or otherwise, that all asbestos - containing materials have been identified. If suspect materials are encountered during renovation and/or demolition that have not been addressed in this report, the material must not be disturbed until the suspect material is positively identified. Under no circumstances is this report to be used as a bid document. OSHA 1926.1101 requires that personnel who may come into contact with asbestos containing materials must receive annual 2 -hour asbestos awareness training. If you have any comments or questions pertaining to this report, you can contact me at 763 -712- 9502. Prepared by: Techtron Engineering Andy Turbitt Asbestos Inspector AI #10482 �2 TECHTRON engineenrig inc. environmentol solu ions Pre - Demolition Survey 3957 Winnetka Avenue New Hope, MN Techtron Job # F12-2737 640 East 'Main Street Anoka, MN 55303 Phone 763.212,9502 Fox 763.71 .9504 wwwtechtron.biz Following are the results of XRF lead testing performed on April 5, 2012 at the subject property listed above. The building was planned on being demolished in the near future. Methodology Sampling of painted surfaces was performed utilizing a NITON XL -300 Series Lead Analyzer. This equipment is a direct -read analytical device that does not require substrate correction and does not report inconclusive readings. Paint /coatings are considered to be lead - based, as defined by HUD/EPA guidelines, if they contain greater than one milligram per square centimeter of lead. Paint whose lead levels were less than one milligram per square centimeter was reported as negative (no lead detected). Scope of Work A complete lead -based paint inspection was not performed. Rather, XRF testing was performed on any surface where paint was flaking from the substrate material. The building was planned on being demolished. Sides of the building were labeled with letters A -D starting at the side facing the Winnetka Avenue and continuing clockwise. Results Results of samples are as follow: Sample Location Structure Sampled Results* 1 Calibration N/A N/A 2 Calibration NIA N/A 3 Calibration N/A N/A 4 Main Floor Living Room, Side A White wood window sill Negative 5 Main Floor Living Room, Side A White wood window trim Negative 6 Main Floor Living Room, Side A White wood door Negative 7 Main Floor Living Room, Side A White wood door frame Negative 8 Main Floor Living Room, Side C White metal vent grate Negative 9 Main Floor Bathroom White sheetrock ceiling Negative 10 Main Floor Kitchen White sheetrock ceiling Negative 11 Main Floor Kitchen, Side D White sheetrock wall Negative 12 Main Floor Kitchen, Side C White wood window sill Negative 13 Main Floor Kitchen, Side A White wood door to basement Negative 14 Main Floor Kitchen, Side B White wood window sash Negative 15 Main Floor Bedroom 1, Side D Green wood window frame/trough 3.2 *results reported as milligram per square centimeter Pre - Demolition Survey 3957 Winnetka Avenue N New Hope, MN XRF Testing Sample Location Structure Samnled Techtron Engineering, Inc. TEI Job# F12 -2737 April 12, 2012 Results* 16 Basement Furnace Room, Side A White block wall Negative 17 Basement Furnace Room, Side B White block wall Negative 18 Basement Furnace Room, Side C White block wall Negative 19 Basement Furnace Room, Side D White block wall Negative 20 Basement Middle Room, Side A White block wall Negative 21 Basement Middle Room, Side B White block wall Negative 22 Basement Middle Room, Side D White block wall Negative 23 Upstairs Loft /Attic level, Side B White wood window sill 4.3 24 Upstairs Loft /Attic level, Side B Green wood window trough/frame 4.1 25 Upstairs Loft/Attic level Bedroom 2, Side B White wood window sash 1.7 26 Upstairs Loft/Attic level Bedroom 2, Side B Green wood window trough/frame 4.9 27 Exterior, Side A Tan transite siding Negative 28 Exterior, Side A Tan metal gutter/downspout Negative 29 Exterior, Side A Green wood door 4.3 30 Exterior, Side A Green wood door frame 5.1 31 Exterior, Side A Green wood door trim 1.7 32 Exterior, Side A Green wood window casing 4.7 33 Exterior, Side A Green wood window frame 3.2 34 Exterior, Side A Green wood window sash 6.4 35 Exterior, Side B Green wood door 3.7 36 Exterior, Side B Green wood door casing 4.2 37 Exterior, Side B Tan metal gutter/downspout Negative 38 Exterior, Sides B & D Green wood window sills 2.4 39 Exteri Sides B & D Green wood window casings 2.2 40 Exterior, Sides B & D Green wood basement window sashes 5.6 41 Exterior, Sides B & D Green wood window sashes 1.2 42 Exterior, Sides B & D Tan wood fascia/molding Negative 43 Exterior, Side C Tan wood window trim/casings Negative 44 Exterior, Side C Tan wood soffit Negative 45 Garage Exterior, All Sides Tan wood siding 2.5 46 Garage Exterior, All Sides Tan wood soffit 3.1 47 Garage Exterior, All Sides Tan wood fly rafters 2.9 48 Garage Exterior, Sides B & D Green wood window sills 1.5 49 Garage Exterior, Sides B & D Green wood window sashes 1.7 50 Garage Exterior, Sides B & D Green wood window casings 1.8 51 Garage Exterior, Side A Tan wood overhead door 1.7 52 Garage Exterior, Side A Green wood overhead door trim Negative 53 Calibration N/A N/A 54 Calibration N/A N/A 55 Calibration N/A N/A *results reported as milligram per square centimeter Pre - Demolition Survey Techtron Engineering, Inc. 3957 Winnetka Avenue N New Hope, MN TEI Job# F12 -2737 XRF Testing April 12, 2012 Conclusions Flaking lead -based paint was identified during the pre - demolition XRF testing. The majority of the flaking lead -based paint was found on the exteriors of the home and garage. Flaking lead -based paint was found on the home's exterior green window components, green basement window components, and the exterior green doors and door components. The garage exterior was found to have flaking lead -based paint on all the surfaces tested with the exception of the green overhead door trim. The tan siding, soffit, overhead door and fly rafters as well as the green window components were all found to have flaking lead -based paint. Flaking lead -based paint was also present on the interior of the building on the upstairs attic /loft level white window components. Flaking lead -based paint should be scraped prior to demolition and disposed of properly as hazardous waste. Any paint which remains adhered to the component substrate should be sealed to the surface using a primer or other surface coating prior to the building being demolished. Prepared by: Techtron Engineering Andy Turbitt Lead Inspector /Risk Assessor Pre - Demolition Asbestos Survey 3957 Winnetka Ave. N, New Hope, MN Page #1 Techtron Engineering Inc. TEI Job #F12 -2737 April 12, 2012 Pre - Demolition Asbestos Survey 3957 Winnetka Ave. New Hope, MN 31 Home Exterior, window frames Caulking Tan caulk 34% Chrysotile 32 Home Exterior, front door frame Caulking Thick, tan caulk 34% Chrysotile 12A Main Floor Kitchen, floor Flooring 12 "xl2" Light brown vinyl floor tile, NAFD top layer 13A Main Floor Kitchen, floor Flooring 12 "x12" Light brown vinyl floor tile, NAFD top layer 12C Main Floor Kitchen, floor Flooring Browns /tans square pattern linoleum, NAFD 2nd layer 13C Main Floor Kitchen, floor Flooring Browns /tans square pattern linoleum, NAFD 2nd layer 9 Upstairs Loft/Attic Toilet Room, Flooring Creams /light browns square pattern NAFD floor linoleum *NAFD = No Asbestos Fibers Detected " <" denotes a "less than" value Asbestos types are chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite. 1 Pre - Demolition Asbestos Survey 3957 Winnetka Ave. New Hope, MN 17A Main Floor Bathroom, floor Flooring Gray w/ red /white /blue specks linoleum NAFD 18A Main Floor Bathroom, floor Flooring Gray w/ red /white/blue specks linoleum NAFD 20 Throughout Main Floor, Insulation Gold/brown venniculite insulation NAFD ceiling cavity 21 Throughout Main Floor, Insulation Gold/brown venmiculite insulation <I% Tremolite ceiling cavity 22 Throughout Main Floor, Insulation Gold/brown vermiculite insulation NAFD ceiling cavity 23A Throughout Upstairs Attic/Loft Insulation Gold/brown vermiculite insulation NAFD level, ceiling cavity 24A Throughout Upstairs Attic/Loft Insulation Gold/brown vermiculite insulation NAFD level, ceiling cavity *NAFD = No Asbestos Fibers Detected Asbestos types are chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite. 2 " <" denotes a "less than" value Pre - Demolition Asbestos Survey 3957 Winnetka Ave. New Hope, MN 24B Throughout Upstairs Attic/Loft level, ceiling cavity Insulation Light brown cellulose insulation NAFD 12B Main Floor Kitchen, floor Mastic Clear mastic from sample 12A NAFD 13B Main Floor Kitchen, floor Mastic Clear mastic from sample 13A NAFD 26B Basement Room 1, furnace duct work Mastic Clear- yellow mastic from sample 26A NAFD 28B Main Floor Bedroom I Closet, wall cavity duct chase Mastic Clear- yellow mastic from sample 28A NAFD 17B Main Floor Bathroom, floor Mastic Yellow -tan mastic from sample 17A NAFD 18B Main Floor Bathroom, floor Mastic Yellow -tan mastic from sample 18A NAFD *NAFD = No Asbestos Fibers Detected Asbestos types are chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite. " <" denotes a "less than" value 3 Pre - Demolition Asbestos Survey 3957 Winnetka Ave. New Hope, MN 35A Home Exterior, walkway from Roofing Materials Shingle w/ gray rock, top layer NAFD garage 36C Home Exterior, roof Roofing Materials Shingle w/ green/blue rock NAFD 36D Home Exterior, roof Roofing Materials Shingle w/ green/blue /red rock NAFD 36A Home Exterior, roof Roofing Materials Shingle w/ green/white rock NAFD 36B Home Exterior, roof Roofing Materials Shingle w/ green/white/black rock NAFD 37B Garage Exterior, roof Roofing Materials Tar from top of sample 37B NAFD *NAFD = No Asbestos Fibers Detected Asbestos types are chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite. 4 " <" denotes a "less than" value Bulk Sample Results -- Sorted by Sample Type Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Number Location Type Description Results* 35B Home Exterior, walkway from Roofing Materials Fiberglass tar paper, 2nd layer NAFD garage 37A Garage Exterior, roof Roofing Materials Shingle w/ gray rock NAFD 35A Home Exterior, walkway from Roofing Materials Shingle w/ gray rock, top layer NAFD garage 36C Home Exterior, roof Roofing Materials Shingle w/ green/blue rock NAFD 36D Home Exterior, roof Roofing Materials Shingle w/ green/blue /red rock NAFD 36A Home Exterior, roof Roofing Materials Shingle w/ green/white rock NAFD 36B Home Exterior, roof Roofing Materials Shingle w/ green/white/black rock NAFD 37B Garage Exterior, roof Roofing Materials Tar from top of sample 37B NAFD *NAFD = No Asbestos Fibers Detected Asbestos types are chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite. 4 " <" denotes a "less than" value Pre - Demolition Asbestos Survey 3957 Winnetka Ave. New Hope, MN 4 Main Floor Living Room, wall Sheetrock White sheetrock NAFD 8 Upstairs Loft/Attic Bedroom 2, wall Sheetrock White sheetrock NAFD 5B Upstairs Loft/Attic level, ceiling Sheetrock White sheetrock, 2nd layer NAFD 7B Upstairs Loft/Attic Bedroom 2, ceiling Sheetrock White sheetrock, 2nd layer NAFD 2C Main Floor Bedroom ],ceiling Sheetrock White sheetrock, 3rd layer NAFD I l Main Floor Kitchen, sink Sink Coat Black sink coating NAFD 34C Home Exterior, Den wall base flashing Tar Black flashing tar, 3rd layer 6 -8% Chrysotile *NAFD = No Asbestos Fibers Detected Asbestos types are Chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite. 5 " <" denotes a "less than" value Pre - Demolition Asbestos Survey 3957 Winnetka Ave. New Hope, MN 34B Home Exterior, Den wall base flashing Tar Flashing tar /cellulose, 2nd layer NAFD 1B Main Floor Bedroom ],ceiling Texture Cream texture, 2nd layer NAFD 2B Main Floor Bedroom 1, ceiling Texture Cream texture, 2nd layer NAFD 6 Upstairs Loft/Attic level, ceiling Texture Thin, white texture NAFD 5A Upstairs Loft/Attic level, ceiling Texture Thin, white texture, top layer NAFD 7A Upstairs Loft/Attic Bedroom 2, ceiling Texture Thin, white texture, top layer NAFD 3 Main Floor Living Room, ceiling Texture White popcorn texture 2 -3% Chrysotile *NAFD = No Asbestos Fibers Detected Asbestos types are chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite. " <" denotes a "less than" value 6 Pre - Demolition Asbestos Survey 3957 Winnetka Ave. New Hope, MN 2A Main Floor Bedroom 1, ceiling Texture White popcorn texture, top layer 2 -3% Chrysotile 25 Basement Room 1, furnace Thermal System Insulation Gray mudded insulation 40 -50% Chrysotile cavity /burner box 26A Basement Room 1, furnace duct Thermal System Insulation Gray paper insulation 50 -60% Chrysotile work 27 Basement Room 1, furnace duct Thermal System Insulation Gray paper insulation 50 -60% Chrysotile work 28A Main Floor Bedroom I Closet, Thermal System Insulation Gray paper insulation 50 -60% Chrysotile wall cavity duct chase 29 Home Exterior, siding Transite Gray transite siding (painted peach) 10 -12% Chrysotile 14 Main Floor Den, window Window Glazing Gray /off -white window glaze 1 -2% Chrysotile *NAFD = No Asbestos Fibers Detected Asbestos types are chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite tremolite antho h llite and actinolite. " <" denotes a "less than" value PY ' 7 Pre - Demolition Asbestos Survey 3957 Winnetka Ave. New Hope, MN Bulk Sample Results - -Sorted by Sample Type Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Number Location Type Description Results* 15 Main Floor Den, window I* Window Glazing Bills Gray /off -white window glaze 1 -2% Chrysotile 19 Upstairs Attic/Loft level, window Window Glazing 33 Garage, windows 16 Main Floor Living Room, window Window Glazing Window Glazing Tan window glaze 1 -2% Chrysotile White glaze NAFD White window glaze NAFD *NAFD = No Asbestos Fibers Detected Asbestos types are chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite. 8 " <" denotes a "less than" value Pre-Demolition Asbestos Survey 3957 Winnetka Ave. N, New Hope, MN Page #2 Techtron Engineering Inc. TE/Job #1 April 12, 2012 t MM April 9, 2012 Techtron Engineering 640 E Main St. Anoka, MN 55303 Project Location: 3957 Winnetka Ave, New Hope Techtron Job #: F12 -2737 Techtron Lab #: PLM -12 -15039 Surveyed by: Andrew Turbitt Samples Collected: 4/5/12 Samples Analyzed: 4/9/12 Analyzed by: Melissa Cook Number of samples submitted: 55 Number of samples analyzed: 60 Test Report: Asbestos Bulk Materials Identification by PLM 640 East Main Street Anoka, MN 55303 Phone 763.712 9502 Fax 763.712.9504 www.techtron.biz Following are the results of material samples obtained for asbestos identification analysis. Samples were observed at 30X and suspect fibers were picked from the bulk samples and observed under polarized light microscopy. The fibers were then evaluated under crossed polars for extinction angle, sign of elongation, and morphology. Dispersion staining techniques using different Cargille liquids and observing colors at two different orientations of the crystal were then performed. Analysis was performed according to EPA method 600 /R- 93/116. This method detects asbestos in volumetric concentrations of 1% or greater. Bulk samples were checked for the following types of asbestiform minerals: chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite, and tremolite- actinolite. Laboratory Manager, - �Z� Melissa Cook Limit of Detection: 1 %. Some samples may contain asbestos fibers in quantities below the PLM detection limit of 1 %. Results are based on field sampling information provided by the client and are only valid for samples tested. Samples are stored for 30 days unless other arrangements are made by the client. Samples received in good condition unless otherwise noted. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of Techtron Engineering. Page 1 of 4 3957 Winnetka Ave, New Hope Techtron Job #: F12 -2737 Techtron Lab #: PLM -12 -15039 Client Lab ID Sample Location Sample Description Asbestos Results 1A 36677 Main floor bedroom 1, White popcorn texture, top 2 -3% Chrysotile ceiling layer 1B 36678 Main floor bedroom 1, Cream texture /paint, 2n NAFD ceiling layer 2A 36679 Main floor bedroom 1, White popcorn texture, top 2 -3% Chrysotile ceiling layer 2B 36680 Main floor bedroom 1, Cream texture /paint, 2n NAFD ceiling layer 2C 36681 Main floor bedroom 1, White sheet rock, 3 rd layer NAFD ceiling 3 36682 Main floor living room, White popcorn texture 2 -3% Chrysotile ceiling 4 36683 Main floor living room, wall White sheet rock NAFD 5A 36684 Attic /loft, ceiling Thin, white texture, top NAFD layer 5B 36685 Attic /loft, ceiling White sheet rock, 2 nd layer NAFD 6 36686 Attic /loft, ceiling Thin, white texture NAFD 7A 36687 Attic /loft bedroom 2, ceiling Thin, white texture, top NAFD layer 7B 36688 Attic /loft bedroom 2, ceiling White sheet rock, 2 nd layer NAFD 8 36689 Attic /loft bedroom 2, wall White sheet rock NAFD 9 36690 Attic /loft toilet room, floor Creams /light browns NAFD square pattern linoleum 10 36691 Attic /loft toilet room, floor Creams /light browns NAFD square pattern linoleum 11 36692 Main floor kitchen, sink Black sink coat NAFD 12A 36693 Main floor kitchen, floor 12x12 Light brown vinyl NAFD floor tile, top layer 12B 36694 Main floor kitchen, floor Clear mastic from sample NAFD #12A 12C 36695 Main floor kitchen, floor Browns /tans square pattern NAFD linoleum, 2 nd layer 13A 36696 Main floor kitchen, floor 12x12 Light brown vinyl NAFD floor tile, top layer 13B 36697 Main floor kitchen, floor Clear mastic from sample NAFD #13A 13C 36698 Main floor kitchen, floor Browns /tans square pattern NAFD linoleum, 2 nd layer 14 36699 Main floor den, windows Gray /off -white window 1 -2% Chrysotile glaze NAFD = No Asbestos Fibers Detected Limit of Detection: 1 %. Some samples may contain asbestos fibers in quantities below the PLM detection limit of 1 %. Results are based on field sampling information provided by the client and are only valid for samples tested. Samples are stored for 30 days unless other arrangements are made by the client. Samples received in good condition unless otherwise noted. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of Techtron Engineering. Page 2 of 4 3957 Winnetka Ave, New Hope Techtron Job #: F12 -2737 Techtron Lab* PLM -12 -15039 Client Lab ID Sample Location Sample Description Asbestos Results 15 36700 Main floor den, windows Gray /off -white window 1 -2% Chrysotile glaze 16 36701 Main floor living room, White window glaze NAFD windows 17A 36702 Main floor bathroom, floor Gray w /red, white, blue NAFD speckled linoleum 17B 36703 Main floor bathroom, floor Yellow -tan mastic from NAFD sample #17A 18A 36704 Main floor bathroom, floor Gray w /red, white, blue NAFD speckled linoleum 18B 36705 Main floor bathroom, floor Yellow -tan mastic from NAFD sample #18A 19 36706 Attic /loft, window Tan window glaze 1 -2% Chrysotile 20 3670 Main floor, ceiling cavit Vermiculite NAFD * 21 36708 Main floor, ceiling cavity Vermiculite < 1% Tremolite 22 36709 Main floor, ceiling cavity Vermiculite NAFD * 23A 36710 Attic /loft, ceiling cavity Vermiculite NAFD * 23B 36711 Attic/loft, ceiling cavity Light brown cellulose NAFD insulation 24A 36712 Attic /loft, ceiling cavity Vermiculite NAFD 24B 36713 Attic /loft, ceiling cavity Light brown cellulose NAFD insulation 25 36714 Basement room 1, furnace Gray mudded insulation 40 -50% Chrysotile cavity 26A 36715 Basement HVAC duct work Gray paper insulation 50 -60% Chrysotile 268 36716 Basement HVAC duct work Clear yellow mastic from NAFD sample #26A 27 36717 Basement HVAC duct work Gray paper insulation 50 -60% Chrysotile 28A 36718 Main floor bedroom 1 Gray paper insulation 50 -60% Chrysotile closet, chimney chase 288 36719 Main floor bedroom 1 Clear yellow mastic from NAFD closet, chimney chase sample #28A 29 36720 Home exterior, walls Gray Transite siding 10 -12% Chrysotile (painted peach) 30 36721 Home exterior, window Tan caulk 3 -4% Chrysotile frame 31 36722 Home exterior, window Tan caulk 3 -4% Chrysotile frame NAFD = No Asbestos Fibers Detected "Less than" values are denoted by the " <" symbol. * Vermiculite: MDH and MPCA strongly recommend assuming vermiculite contains asbestos. There is no dependable way of determining the asbestos content of vermiculite. Limit of Detection: 1 %. Some samples may contain asbestos fibers in quantities below the PLM detection limit of 1 %. Results are based on field sampling information provided by the client and are only valid for samples tested. Samples are stored for 30 days unless other arrangements are made by the client. Samples received in good condition unless otherwise noted. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of Techtron Engineering. Page 3 of 4 3957 Winnetka Ave, New Hope Techtron Job #: F12 -2737 Techtron Lab #: PLM -12 -15039 Client Lab ID Sample Location Sample Description Asbestos Results 32 36723 Home exterior, door frame Thick, tan caulk 3 -4% Chrysotile 33 36724 Gar age, window White windo glaze NAFD 34A 36725 Home exterior, den wall base flashing Tar, top layer NAFD 34B 36726 Home exterior, den wall base flashing Tar /cellulose, 2n layer NAFD 34C 36727 Home exterior, den wall base flashing Tar, 3r layer 6 -8% Chrysotile 35A 36728 Home exterior, walkway Shingle w /gray rock, top layer NAFD 35B 36729 Home exterior, walkway Fiberglass tar paper, 2 nd layer NAFD 36A 36730 Home exterior, roof Shingle w /white, gre r ock NAFD 36B 36731 Horne exterior, roof Shingle w /white, green, black rock NAFD 36C 36732 Home exterior, roof Shingle w /green, blue rock NAFD 36D 36733 Home exterior, roof Shingle w /green, blue, red rock NAFD 37A 36734 Garage exterior, roof Shingle w /gray rock NAFD 37B 36735 1 Garage exterior, roof Tar on top of sample #37A NAFD 37C 1 36736 Garage exterior, roof Tar paper NAFD NAFD = No Asbestos Fibers Detected Limit of Detection: 1 %. Some samples may contain asbestos fibers in quantities below the PLM detection limit of I %. Results are based on field sampling information provided by the client and are only valid for samples tested. Samples are stored for 30 days unless other arrangements are made by the client. Samples received in good condition unless otherwise noted. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of Techtron Engineering. Page 4 of 4 Pre-Demolition Asbestos Survey 3957 Winnelka Ave. N, New Hope, MN Page #3 Techlron Engineering Inc. TEIJ,ob W12-2737 April 12, 2012 Me 3957 c New Hope,, MN Storm Cellar/ Storage Basement Room 2 Basement Room 1 Hope, New LITOM 3957 Winnetka Aveneu N New Hope,, MN Pre-Demolition Asbestos Survey 3957 Winnetka A ve. N, New Hope, MN Page 44 Techtron Engineering Inc. TE[Job #F12-2737 April 12, 2012 LICENSES & "O cy,"VROKM 3101�0 LEAD _ .,. Risk Assessor Licensed by: State of Minnesota Department of Health License No. LR3166 Expires 03/0512013 Di' ce'tor, 2H-,,lth Div. Andrew D Turbitt 11948 London 5t NE Blaine, MN 55449 ASBESTO Dr c� — '....✓ Health Div. Certi�e,t Y :. SfateW Minnesota '¢ , De'- Vttment pf Health E Cpares -10/14/' Affilrew ) Trifb itt ,. A 1194 oniltSh St NE F Btaine !t J 55449 No. A110482 `° 15sired` 9 X412011 CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG A B C D E F G H I J Appli- Applicant Date Deadline for Date 60- Date 60- Date Deadline Date city Date city cation application required day time day Applicant for city approved or sent response number Name received information limit extension was notified action denied the to Applicant Date Applicant Address by city expires expires of under application Phone sent notice of extension extension information or waiver was missing 12 -09 Matt Houston 9/7/12 3957 Winnetka Ave N 11/6/12 1/5/13 New Hope 55427 18- 118 -21-41 -0055 Matt 17575 73rd Ave N Maple Grove, MN 55311 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 15 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60 -day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 60 -day extension, begin counting from the day following the first 60 -day limit, include all calendar days. G. The city will notify the Applicant by mail that a 60 -day extension period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver. I. The city must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) J. List the date that the city sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the city not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. City of New Hope Meeting Date: October 2, 2012 Report Date: September 28, 2012 Planning Case: 12 -10 Petitioner: Steven Tharp; Tharp Family Partnership Address: 9220 Bass Lake Road Project Name: Adult Daycare Center — Millennium Center for Performing Arts Project Description: Addition of an Adult Daycare Facility tenant to the existing office building. Planning Request: Conditional Use Permit I. Type of Planning Request Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A conditional use is a land use designated in a zoning ordinance that is specifically allowed in a zoning district so long as certain standards are met. The zoning ordinance details both general standards that apply to all conditional uses, as well as specific standards that apply to a particular conditional use in a given zoning district. A conditional use permit is a document a city issues to grant a conditional use when the general and specific ordinance standards have been met by the applicant. The use is allowed by permit only if the special concerns are addressed as set forth in the zoning ordinance. A city exercises so -called "quasi- judicial" authority when considering a CUP application. This means that the city's role is limited to applying the standards in the ordinance to the facts presented by the application. The city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the standards. If the applicant meets the standards, then the CUP should be granted. II. Zoning Code References Section 4- 10(e)(3) R -O, Residential Office - conditional uses - daycare facility Section 4 -33 Administration- Conditional Use Permit III. Property Specifications Zoning: R -O, Residential- Office District Location: Adjacent Land Uses: Site Area: Building Area: Lot Area Ratios: Planning District: IV. Background Northwest of the Bass Lake Road and Gettysburg Avenue North intersection Residential land uses to the north and east. Commercial to the south Approx. 300,500 square feet or 6.9 acres 82,977 square feet gross floor area Building Area: 82,977 square feet (27 %) Paved Area: 90,500 square feet (31 %) Green Space: Approx 127,000 square feet (42 %) Planning District 1: Comprehensive plan guides this site for Commercial Land Uses The Tharp Family Partnership, at 9220 Bass Lake Road, is requesting a conditional use permit for a proposed adult daycare facility. The Millennium Center for Performing Arts wishes to lease a 4000 square foot space in the southeast portion of the existing Mid America Financial Plaza building. They are proposing an initial clientele enrollment of 25 clients with possible growth up to 50 clients. The clients are noted as being between the ages of 60 to 90 years old and the facility will have 7 staff members on an average day. The clients will be bused to and from the site in two 8 -14 passenger vans. The tenant has proposed an approved kitchen within the tenant space to allow for on site food preparation. V. Zoning Analysis Site Zoning: R -O Residential Office Adult daycare facilities are allowed as a condition use permit in the R -O district. The following are the conditions of approval for an adult daycare facility within the R -O district: Conditional Use Permit Adult Day Care Facility Day care facility andlor adult day care. A day care facility (as defined in subsection 44 = 2(b)) andlor an adult day care (as defined in subsection 44 = 2(b)) serving 13 or more people provided that: Planning Report 12 -10 2 September 28, 2012 a. Off - street parking. Adequate off - street parking and access are provided in compliance with subsection 4 -3(e) of this Code. The design and location of the facility drop off area shall not interfere with internal site circulation. Applicant Comments: The applicant has noted that the daycare will host approximately 25 adults daily (maximum of 50 in the future) from 9:00 am to 3:30 pm. The majority of which will be shuttled to and from the building via two 8 -14 passenger vans. The facility will have seven staff members present on an average day. Staff Comments: The adult day care center, as described, will not have a substantial effect on off street parking demands. By city standards the 4000 square foot tenant space used as commercial office would require 18 parking stalls. The applicant has indicated that the parking demand for the adult daycare facility will include seven employees and two passenger vans. This suggests that the adult daycare center will reduce parking demands on the site. Design and review committee raised some concerns for program events that may generate additional traffic to the site. The applicant has indicated that all programs will be limited to enrolled clientele. The design and review committee requested that the site plan illustrate the location of van storage on site. b. Off - street loading. Adequate off - street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with subsection 4 -3(f) of this Code. The loading area size may be reduced or the requirement waived if the site cannot physically accommodate a loading berth to the size required. All deliveries must be received at times that will not conflict with customer or employee building access or peak parking demand. Applicant Comments: The applicant has noted that the daycare will host approximately 25 adults daily (maximum of 50 in the future) from 9:00 am to 3:30 pm. The majority of which will be shuttled to and from the building via two 8 -14 passenger vans. The applicant has indicated that the clients are to be dropped off and picked up 20 feet from the entrance to the space at a handicap accessible sidewalk. The applicant has also indicated that all food preparation will be on site and food delivery is proposed for the northeast side of the tenant space. The delivery will enter the building on the east side and travel through the hallway to the tenant space. Staff Comments: The adult daycare is proposed to be located in the southeast portion of the building. Based on meetings with the applicant, it is unclear if the drop off area is at the main building entrance or the tenant exterior entrance. The site plan must illustrate the location of the client drop off area to determine how this will impact other on site traffic circulation. The loading area on the east side of the building is adequate to handle delivery vehicles. Planning Report 12 -10 3 September 28, 2012 2. The applicant to provide a detailed floor plan that demonstrates adequate recreational /activity area for an enrollment of 50 clients. 3. The applicant to provide details on disability accessibility for client drop off area, curb ramps, building access /egress. 4. Building plans for interior improvements shall be submitted with a building permit application. All plans shall meet building and fire code requirements. 5. Copies of the state license shall be submitted to the city. 6. Copies of Hennepin County Environmental Health approval of the kitchen shall be provided to the city. Attachments: • Application and maps • Narrative and plans (09/07/2012 • Survey • Additional plans (09/19/2012) • Application log Planning Report 12 -10 6 September 28, 2012 Applicant acknowledges that before this request can be considered and /or approved, all fees, including the basic zoning fee and any zoning deposits (as outlined in the attached application materials) must be paid to the city and that, if additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by the city, the city manager has the right to require additional payment. The city hereby notifies the applicant that state law requires that the development review be completed within 60 days from the city's acceptance of this application. If the development review cannot be completed within 60 days, regardless of the reason, the city shall extend the review completion deadline an additional 60 days as also permitted by state law. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant in writing. The Community Development Department will notify you of all meetings. Signed: Fee Owner (print or type name) 1� Applicant Other than Owner (print or type) Evidence of Ownership Submitted: Certified Lot Survey: Legal Description Adequate: Legal Ad Required: Date of Design & Review Meeting: Yes No Required Yes No Required Yes No Required Date of Planning Commission Meeting: Approved: Denied: By Planning Commission on: Approved: Denied: By City Council on: FOR CITY USE ONLY Yes_L No Required Subject to the following conditions: v i „ ... ... _ — 6121 6109 6108 6110 o e o o 6101 6100 9120 9110 6111 6100 °D 9100 6101 61ST AYE N 6049 61ST-CIP- N Q 60fi7 ti 6041 6080 912 9101 6071 6050 o e p O 'r' O M 6061 �O 10 fO 9111 6061 z 6040 MCI °d e°d e 6072 6051 d o 0 0 0 0 0 CD Z 6055 N Sp33 0 6046 6041 t7 6030 40 6049 6048 $ CSR 6040 W 6031 60112 AVE N .� 6043 6042 25 N 6020 6037 �' *'ti dp�11 W� 60t 602 6032 6021 0 o m m e °a8 H!L(S BCRO 6008 6011 6010 e 6031 6025 0 � q; '9� 9130 ,;, 6001 1 6000 $ SIX v. GOTH AVE N 6001 � � a 5965 5964 5985 5964 5965 59 967 � i t; { i 1 5956 5957 5956 5957 59 5946 59 ; ' 5957 5961 > S 5961 C1gE a 5948 5948 5948 5949 Be. � � � i 5949 5938 5955�� 5955 5980 � 5941 5940 5941 5940 5941 59; ARK , 5931 5930 5921 5928 5949 �� 43 5932 5933 5932 5933 z � �� 5933 59; �u 5924 5925- z 5924 5925 5923 5924 5917 5920 5941. 4 a z 5925 z 5916 5911 z 59' 5917 rrJ 5918 5913 �6 5933 5911 Q v SC 16 , 5917 4 o: a 591 5911 5912 5909 5925 ,. "' ��t.: 's: z 5908 5909 5908 5909 5905 w 5906 5905 �1� 5924 5824 5909 H 5900 5901 v 5900 5901 591 W 5908 5917 820 5901 w 5916 5848 5849 ° 5848 58d 5901 z 5800 5901 y N v 5909 5826 c� 5849 5840 5841 5& 5908 5840 5849 5849 0 Sgt AVO O° 5900 5832 5816 5841 5832 5833 5832 5841 58r ., 5833 ry r. c 5836 y 5812 5624 5825 5824 5833 58i 5825 5817 5816 5817 5816 5825 582 5808 5809. $808 5817 58 5809 5808 9220 . 5801 5809 5808 5600 5601 5800 5651 5621 I 0 z 5600 c 5 H - SCIENCE CENTER DR �y To whom it may concern : Re : CUP for Millennium Center for Performing Arts at 9220 Bass Lake Road Tharp Family Partnership is asking for a Conditional Use Permit from the City of New Hope to allow the Millennium Center for Performing arts to occupy our building. We hope that the city agrees the tenant is an allowed user of space at our building with a CUP. They will occupy approximately 4000 square feet at our building. Their plans are spelled out in their description of what they do. They will have several employees that will be driving to the building daily. It is my understanding they are looking to host approximately 25 adults in our building from approximately 9 am to approximately 3:30 pm. Most of these adults will get to the building from one of two small Minivan \small buses. So the parking needs and traffic will be of minimal impact to the building and access road. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Tharp Family Partnership Steven & Shawn Tharp A 15"M • 1w • r I 1w BEL Alterations J� '( 1 { � / /�`E{ IHEREav CEPi6Y iNAi iN6 PLW, 5PE[�IGipK OP PEPpR W33 - c� or IN II CP �{` REPME09Y UE 0R UNDER iLY p�i6fdyP IS Str®ther ARCHITECT JJJLLL SSS VVV LLLLLL AAb JJJ►►► A5CroiECilpaER nRSAw9 of OwiA w z Arts and Wellness Center 1 9220 Bass sake Road New Hoe MN 6TS IM OCp A $ 4 m 2 COIAGNE,MN RH 66133 O 6133//0313 yi RRETROiHEP ®GAWICON m 8 ixEREercmrEV>Nni ma PWI.sPEtlPlGitlµMiRfNMRwFS Apel S yA-�s ®¢��,„ '� '� Alterations for MCP . Paul 6 ++LL (Jl 1 �11tt Ij, f� �li�$IHIfB�ECi V1YlER CAW d' -iAIE �IWL5�1A k Ards and Wellness Center 9220 Kass Lake Road New Hope MIS 6, 1011 i to OC ff MN5 61111] PW %A MOTHER 13129 Pesrnm�necwx..coM l E - tZZ �J '$(' I ll) d EE ii ttlY x i U —J i LLJ r , 'i jj 1 oc 7-2 i l L ` c ED �. j i I 1 car a f < Mr C- z I � � �� M VA- New trope 1C WICn Equipment Schedule Cfrijlr[1i r r 13E`SGTij7iirT __ _ laee afi eations, _ r. €. Hand sink _±and Hand sink Two compartment sink land w�351fif1g only washinE only 1Food preparation sink & drain beard � GS.'Sr -Sink Series: Stainless _tcel type , 20 gatage. Sink bowl_ 9- 3 /4") 1/2'x5- /8, 1 -7/8" drain - see omched GSW - Sink S eries. St ainless Feel tyre 304. Two b9n sink with grass drains -see afiaetrecf Three, corh lrtmerii sink "" _ r Pots.and'pan$ v h'sir:k, GSW - Sink Series: Stainless steel 'type 304. Three iarn ,ink with brass drains -see attgr htd` I i511W35 t r Plates, s ilverware, cups, etc Hobart LX �� FI Dish washer: , tair# e4S steel costructinn. 1 chamb heigh to accept 16 st18` trays - see t ?ttac i t'd Range <& oven Cooking and baking _ Garland Range: Corr rilerciafGas 6 Aurner Range and oven: Manufacturer Co le: M12 - G286, Gas ty pe: natural. NS certif fringe hood Refrigerator Freezer — 4'Jark Tabu: (2) Ventilation Re In ref ig erator 'ear? In freezer rood p erpa ration table Michag Diversified ivletals: S /S Box St yle lixhaust Canapies -see attac Tur Air 304 Stainless Steel, N1odvl:TSR -:19SG -see attached _ Delfield 6125XL -5. 1 door reach in freezer - see attached Adva Tabco: Stainl :.ss Steel Commercial Open Base Work Table 30"x - see attached Prep Utility 1 - able Food perparation table St ainless Stee = Co Preis Utility Table 96 ".04 ". Under ;hell She lve s Spin canes dry food Shcv, 1;3 x 35 x 72" 6-Sh elf C byire Shelving (in cur Plym outh kitchen) Shelves Pla ts, silver cu ps, etc IL!g g�tt € � fiat Ir #tr rrla ]isrra (adjustable) Wire Shelvi - see att crcheri 1. 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 finish Schedule I irsr:r I Famish Kitchen � ,Exrelon Lxcelon C ool White 51899: Vinyl Composition Tile 12 " X12 "x1/8" m S torage Gaol White 51899, Vinyl Composition Tile 1 2"x12 %1 /8 ' IBMi Premium Plus: Hi Ena rriel Ultril Pu re, MFG 4 ft0 500 1 . [ Walk 3 t Ceilings — � Kitchen IS tucco Pro C eiling Tiles ( - whi te): x4 v –gin grade PVC, vinyl Storage lCurrent ceiling tiles (white) 2'x4 standard _ marlite Standard fRP Panel, Smooth Surface - a1i8G Almond/ Stainless Steel Kitchen 1(16 ,gaugej Street behind cooking area Storage IBMi Premium Plus: Hi Ena rriel Ultril Pu re, MFG 4 ft0 500 1 . Ceilings — � Kitchen IS tucco Pro C eiling Tiles ( - whi te): x4 v –gin grade PVC, vinyl Storage lCurrent ceiling tiles (white) 2'x4 standard _ Dear Shawn: Millennium Center for Performing Arts (MCPA) mission is to provide participants of all ages with the strong artistic, intellectual and practical foundations of music and drama. MCPA specialized in providing programming that helps participants to actively explore the beauty, diversity, complexity and challenges of the world around us through the dramatic and musical process. We strive for our artists to develop their own unique creative voice, their imagination and their understanding of music and drama and its role in society. MCPA serves up to 25 seniors per day who qualify for waivered services and benefit from receiving services in a group setting. We offer a place for elderly to come and receive daily practice of professional level music, visual arts and theater program to support their creative growth. The adults we serve are self - sufficient, but need supervision and /or assistance with daily activities. Program Benefits: The services that MCPA offers include social activities, meals and some health - related services in supervised group settings: - Adult enrichment programs - Individualized plan of care - Socialization through group activities and interaction with other participants - Assistance programs for non- English speakers - Memory enhancing activities - Community outreach through participants' showcases & performances - Social work services - Supervised daily living activities - Monitoring of vital signs and medications - Exercise and therapeutic physical fitness programs - Rehabilitative services, including balance and mobility classes (if needed) - Nutritious meals and snacks (breakfast and hot lunch made on site) - Transportation In addition to music, arts and drama, MCPA offers a variety of recreational and wellness activities, such as: - Voice & Instrumental lessons - Memory Enhancing Activities - Puzzles & Board Games - Arts & Crafts - Swimming - Cultural & Recreational Field Trips - Boating and Fishing - Shopping Trips (groceries & clothes) - Pharmacy Deliveries - On -site Translation/Interpretation Service - Picnics - Holiday Activities - Fruit an Vegetable Picking (berries, apples, cabbage, etc) I - ♦ T ♦ ! TTTTTXI [+ YTTTITTT T 9:OOam Arrival & I 9:O0am Arrival & News News 9:15- 9:30am 9:15- 9:30am Exercise Exercise 9:15- 9:30am 9:30- 10:00am 9:30- 10:00am Breakfast Breakfast 9:30- 10:00am 10:00- 10:45am 10:00- 10:30am Group Music Music Class 10:00- 10:45am 10:00- 10:45am Art 10:30- 11:00am English Lesson Time 10:00- 10:45am 10:45 -11:30 10:30- 11:30am Memory Activities Games/Free Time 11:30- 1:30pm Pool/ 11:30- 1:30pm Shopping Trips Gym Administrative Day 9:OOam Arrival 19:OOam Arrival & News & News 9:15- 9:30am 9:15- 9:30am Exercise Exercise 9:30- 10:OOam 9:30- 10:00am Breakfast Breakfast 10:00- 10:30am 10:00- 10:45am Group Music Music Class 10:30- 11:00am 10:00- 10:45am English Lesson Art Time 10:30- 11:30am 10:45 -11:30 Memory Games /Free Activities Time 11:30- 1:30pm 11:00- 2:OOpm Pool/ Gym Recreational /Cu Mural Field Trips 1:30- 2:00pm Drama Club 2:00- 3:00pm Lunch & Relax 3:00pm Depart for home 11:30 -2: 00 pm Fruit & Veg. Picking (seasonal) 11:30 -2: 00 pm Lakes /Parks (seasonal) 2:00- 3:00pm Lunch & Relax 3:00pm Depart for home 11:3 0- 2:00pm Physical Therapy 1:30- 2:00pm Games/Free Time 2:00- 3:00pm Lunch & Relax 3:00pm Depart for home 11:00- 2:00pm Special Guest/Activity 11:30 -2: 00 pm Fruit & Veg. Picking (seasonal) 11:30 -2: 00 pm Lakes /Parks (seasonal) 2:00pm Pharmacy delivery 2:00- 3:00pm Lunch & Relax 3:00pm Depart for home NOTE: 1. As desired, participants can forego a class or other activities for paraffin treatment, sit in massage chairs/ lay in massage bed, time to be alone, visit the fitness room. We encourage participation, but do not demand it. Same applies to working on art projects or practicing for a performance can be done whenever works best for participants - during games, activities and/or free time. 2. Classes/ Lessons /Activities that have small level of attendees (fishing, health education club, etc.) are during specified times. 3. There are days that are fully dedicated to the one "main" activity, such as boating. It will be done after breakfast and before lunch. 4. All of the meals are cooked on site, once a week MCPA eats out at am local restaurant The hours of operation are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. On Wednesdays is an administrative day with office hours only. Participants arrive at the center at 9:00 a.m. and depart for home by 3:00 p.m. up to four times a week. We understand the important responsibility we have to our participants and their family members. Our qualified staff members are committed to providing the highest quality services in a safe and caring environment. They are highly skilled and trained staff is comprised of degreed, licensed and /or certified practitioners. Our program consultants include a RN, LPN, physical therapist, an occupational therapist, speech therapist, social worker and a dietician. The MCPA has created a safe and nurturing environment for our clients. We are building an important sense of community; therefore, we will not enroll individuals with conditions such as: - Communicable disease requiring isolation or limited contact with people - History of violence to self or others - Unmanageable incontinence - Uncontrollable wandering - Who have medical conditions that would prevent them from participation MCPA works through referrals contracts with Hennepin, Dakota, Ramsey, Washington, Anoka, Scott and Carver counties. Some of other referring organizations include Geriatric Services of Minnesota, Meridian Services, UnitedHealth Group's Evercare, Columbia Park Medical Group, University of Minnesota Physicians, as well as case manager from Hennepin County. We also receive clients by word -of -mouth done by our participants and case workers of our clients. MCPA is connected with the Minnesota Creative Arts and Aging Network (MnCAAN), Care Options Network and Volunteers of America, and Alzheimer's Association. We are focused on establishing relationships as well as coordinating programs and activities with the senior, disability and arts communities Our mission is to provide participants of all ages with the strong artistic, intellectual and practical foundation of music and drama. MCPA provides the means to actively explore the beauty, diversity, complexity and challenges of the world around us through the dramatic and musical process. We invite you to visit us to disc -over if we are the right fit for you. Beacon Heights Education Building 12325 Hwy 55 Plymouth, MN 55441 Phone: (763) 544 -1109 Email: mcpa.adc @gmail.com The Arts & Wellness Center serves elderly and persons with disabilities who need a higher level of care, but can still benefit from receiving services in a group setting. We offer a unique model of an arts -based alternative social services and enrichment program. We build stronger and more viable communities through inclusion of so often forgotten members of society who are part of the diverse fabric of Minnesota's culture. Beautiful surroundings with walking trails & gardening space Near parks, trails& lakes Massage bed & chairs The Arts. & Wellness Center for Seniors & Adults with Disabilities EXPLORE. CREATE. LIVE. (763) 544 -1109 WHO WE ARE OTHER ACTIVITIES The Arts Center has a unique perspective with a focus on the three areas of artistic growth: Music, Visual Arts and Drama Our staff is comprised of degreed, licensed practitioners; including program consultants such as RN, physical therapist, social worker and dietician. We are ethnically diverse and multilingual The Arts & Wellness Center services include social activities, meals, recreation, transportation and some health - related services in supervised group settings. We also provide: • Adult enrichment programs • Individualized Plan of care • Supervised daily living activities • Socialization, group activities • Assistance for non- English speakers • Community outreach • Exercise & physical fitness activities • Rehabilitative programs • Social work services • Nursing and professional care • Monitoring of vital signs • Pharmacy deliveries • Support groups for caregivers • Nutritious meals and snacks • Transportation The Music program offers the opportunity to experience music through interactive learning. Using the variety of tools, participants will explore music with their bodies, voices and instruments. In the Visual Arts program, the energy and curiosity of arts are captured through visual discovery -- collage assemblage, printmaking, drawing & painting are explored in a joyful, creative environment. r The Drama program will include dramatic play, story enactment, imagination journeys, theatre games, music and dance. Periodically participants will showcase their talents at the scheduled performances. • Voice & Instrumental lessons • Community Performances • Memory Enhancing Activities • Puzzles & Board Games • Arts & Crafts • Swimming • ESL classes • Cultural & Recreational Field Trips • Boating and Fishing • Shopping Trips • Pharmacy Deliveries • Translation /Interpretation Service • Citizenship preparation classes • Picnics • Holiday Activities • Berry picking • Gardening We work through contracts with counties and municipalities. Typical funding options include: • CAC, CADI, DD, MR /RC, TBl or EW, VW waivers • Veterans Administration • Long -term care insurance • HMOs • Private pay ALTA SURVEY FOR N THARP FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP W h E s TO mew F—y I—— PeMmmlp, cmym. Inawmemt 1, n and Cdnmma101 per „O_ 0 50 100 150 nnr SCALE: 1 INCH = 50 FEET y mtlfy Mtlt ah wrny wx prwmed hwn m acted arIM1S -prone Msfwmmt money of ae wA. vrenh<; uat ae mom mtx�y .haws M I_ 0p - a M, w1 t prvnlx, mode a Iwvtim 1 dl sheet ,. Mghwyc ey' m Wblk (oy�mvaatt9 ar llMq .aM W Mat 1 a et Iha Fn'romn<nb NO M a n Z ahem o, am erc Ituotetl m NOT 4� YOD6; aafeae 0-1.— a n are no mmomh Ismmy 9nWOxmenh pwrtmmt to edglnhq prWnl... uwn < wbAet prwmlxa, nm 1am ae aMJes4 M udsn ahem el W ba9dhq, and atrvclurea Ile who9 MMN p plkdN< tuAebq do of Hdate wY reatrlcllen seer racmtled apr<cmenl set IMII M ae , tle eemmllment Mi N bpel emhe, datM Mmeh J1, 2006, bauw bTOO by YIn( Nnar can ntlr Mwrmcs Otl. Cempmy otlmol Cmmmarelni $mxeer, ao1 W e aemm a dghta o L whkF m, appurtenant to > burden as u x « v< hm M f a me a 10, w.ee, —ted m N. wbFct prep MY. and e Me wb}pl Wombea on not h o .paclal 11-d h.- mw. p ee meend Me WOO. I—. Mun ,. �a Nm� —Idol! ,t�mn l •e<er and —,I” smitery soon MdM itha mod tdepM1en., gva and dxhia aesicx ei p.I. OIRt. ore —. N III Iwoxma htllwtatl hxwn. Thb --y ren.aa bwnemy Ihp el ae 11—OlO MGM 'tlwe' by angMeMnq cNpddUm, I Apum -y uet ul. moo er Olt mad ue wrsey m Mld It h —d .ere mods h odeordanp ,1Ih a. "MNbnum u'tmdaN DelpA rewlr.ments im ALTA /AC9M land RIO Sum1a: bInUY e.taMhhM mtl admaEY AGSM. mtl N6r5 h 1999 mod he4da. torte A ameof. 11<wen1 tv 1M Acwrxy emd.,Od NrMs cmtlfl »adoptb by AETA, N9P5. and AC M enrol ae dole Of tats emlincetim, m a proem RNd procedures, • mtoUm�wd ad.wol• wrxy perwnnN wen yM h erdm to a Ra 10 rewib cmnpmada to ihea. 1. L d e d - I u Aryl/. Ohtmee, and tlewro wbemmfa Im Survey C Mea,mammh WNU C-1. Lind Bvntlmk, Ym ALTA /AGSM Lond nUe Survey,.' I � a W E- H m �'zl W RIXwe�iep° �r � i I � I I J ` `4 • •` ��e `�� o ' LEGEN ® = CABLE BOX V ° ELECTRIC BOX m - TELEPHONE RISER ®s UGHT POST = CATCH BASIN 0 HYDRANT • DENOTES FWND IRON MONUMENT 0 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT TO BE SET O e DENDTES HENN. CO. CIM POUNO O . DENOTES HENN. CO. MON. FOUND Surnyon NaU: Th n ,pared u,h� T "1 Commitment NO. )0- 0119ZSJi M1 wrq m elfective tlete of 1. I.... 20a6 ,DO A.M., o xdM by Omerd -I— I th, �Iw Nah R ace ltl 1, (FAR.M.) pond No. 27O53C 0192E, doted DO—, Iol. 2005 ]) ReM yme, _tI and Setback In/am+etlon la per Clty el ... Npe. Mlnneaa a) The .ubbat --y h xmM RO- R<demtld WOO, 5) Sit, Arm.]0],36] , a , tL 6) ?repM to aubpct to .xpptlma IIstM h $dl.dd. 8 0l nll. CammlMml No. JO- 018923Ji. O A 1. E. Nyone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots I and 2. 61gd 1: Ca UOt B; —.1 A:, xcept that pat It— which IHa ,ouawpbrly 9r v the dram wrdld .Ia and ehtmt 5 It loot nma ., el ae Idbdnq tlex . ens: 8whninq It a ooh, m Me weal Ilse er 6e1- 6, ie 10 111. 0-0. ZI dt—I 19}.90 feel more 0 as _._ I_. a a. O__, WOrtm UxwY amp wn <wlAec.tMy al m mgle el 6 I— 56 —k. J] xomtla Ivr d dt, a 60.M (xn aaMe d.nwt left dwq a lengentld wr,e hadnq a rotlW. of 954.9} Ix! (delta mgh J) tlagren 0.S mhptn I1 smmda) la a dhimp el 618.11 het; Meng tangent !v add morn b e tl.1— Of 600 feet mtl thin lmmNaGng Aft h SHA.BN'S AOgnON, attmdhp le Me Dlvl Uaeof m 0< m of retard In ae vinp of ae R.ghtmr of ntln h and M —.1. Cwnly. N4mmela. t-O I. Wb J, SNOWS AOd110N, aeemtlup to a. plat thmeal p 11. m 01 1—d h Ua oMCe of 0,0 R.ghtrm vl To. hand 1m —... Cemty. M... -.. The.. OH.. ar th. Swthemt Qaerlm al th. —.1 W -1 a. Neraw.l O I, el Me 6wawxt Ou. - e, --ly 116 — th. Rmge V Wwt el ae 5th l_l Me<idon. 0 — 1. Mhnawt< dmm�red oa Iv9eec BegMnlnq at ae nmlh...t tamer a Lot n 16. 81— 3, MEADOW — NE-TS 1St ADDT —a amp mrlh sling SHARON amp 11 eat dmg F ..a ;oa'iel -1 ne nee '- a -- M �0.00 het; awe at v dgnt end., to a. naxhMy right -or -say III. of Cwnty Rpd Nv 10. amp ...-y ding wM neraMy rhl- el -wvy III mop/ IMe of MEADOW L to ae ANE ND6xT6 5 AO iT pndi fMnce m y sell weal Ilse W the Polnt of bagNnlnq, Mkh Ilse palmy of a IN. — I T and J II teal On.h Ir one fees q dwWm <tl IN.: wimhq al a peat m Me we,lerly . <imabn oY as mouth Tine or 41 & fi1erA z sNAR -S —T-, mt JS.J6 het wet tram ae xauwmlN corny vi mold let „ Nmw awMw , a —. v 96.N 1 e tl mq a m- tmq.nxd mom cmaew to Ihs .wawpt aMn9 a ratlW. a( 211— 1— e R an. q a h egr.p n A> mhutx OS .wind. mtl a .=,b= �e men 55 mhulx JJ o (mwm q th. .wa Iha oA xW Let 6 hp v b M M1mce awWOO -y tinges( to III aline !•wbw morn, le Me n Wy Oghl -ol -way Ma of Cpnty we N_ 10. an. tame hrmhathp c WA � byNC. LOT i v F r l l\ \l I V v y1 U V I 1 1 V 11 V r Cc 1<, er a a „ tea �� " G � • n `- A 1 x , COt)NTY 9OAD y A l i(& RDAs) OT I 4 FLOCK Vf♦ 1 b I r ... . E Z O _ - Z I � o D W a � $ 2 p x Oq O ig e� i 6j T V\ � $ s �bs � W � $�s f E a 0 n � r N i �m A wN s � as �w �p W� y N r � ma Arm � w z z z Narrative for CUP for Millennium Center for Performing Arts. The MCPA plans on starting with approximately 25 Seniors daily at this location. They do not plan on growing past 50 Seniors at this location. The typical ages of their clients are 60 - 90yrs old. Their plan is to have approximately 7 full time employees. They have a State License which is current and part of the application documents. MCPA plans on cooking all food on site and is acquiring all necessary permits to do so. Their kitchen design has been approved and the City already has that approval. They plan on bringing in the food thru the North East / Side entrance of the building and go directly into the suite from that hallway into the food storage area. MCPA does not plan on having any large signage on the building. They may call for small vinyl lettering above the entrance to their private suite as signage. As for the Citizenship class that was talked about in their pamphlet. They are not actually holding classes on Citizenship. They assist in helping Seniors who do not have citizenship understand what is needed to gain US Citizenship. If from some reason the building looses water. MCPA uses Culligan Bottled water on site. If they are cooking they can use that. If the water is out and their Seniors need to use the rest room they can shuttle them to a public restroom. If we know about it in advance they can also close down for the day. Also once a week they take their Seniors out to lunch. So they could also do that if needed. As for the Building Owner responsibilities. According to our Architect we have sufficient Toilets for our building. His review is attached. We also plan on meeting all building and fire codes including 1 hour fire ratings. Tharp Family Partnership will also meet MN Building Code Chapter 1341 requirements. The space design calls for a 2nd exit for occupants. A 2nd exit is planned for the NW section of the space to a hallway leading out of the building or to the restrooms. The tenants will park their two small Vans \ Bus on site. The seating capacity of these vans are 8 -14 per Van. The Seniors will be picked up every day and they will be dropped off 20 feet from the entrance of the space at a handicap accessible sidewalk. We don't see parking as an issue. Most of their clients are shuttled to the building in one of their vans. And only having 7 employees will mean that they will be a lower use tenant on our buildings parking needs. I hope this answers all the questions that were brought up at the September 13th meeting, if you should have any further questions please let us know. Shawn Tharp 763 - 443 -9502 Paul Strother Architect September 19, 2012 MidAmerica, Financial Plaza 9220 Bass Lake Road New Hope, %.IN 55428 Attn Steve Tharp RE: MCPA Space, Mid America Financial Plaza Dear Steve, As requested I have prepared an occupant load count and toilet fixture requirement count for your INUdAinerica Financial Plaza property. Business Areas at 100 SF/Occ: Lower Level Area A has 3443 square feet 34 occupants Area B has 8775 square feet 88 occupants Upper Level Area C has 33,350 square feet 334 occupants Area D has 30,519 square feet 305 occupants Area E has 3,705 square feet 37 occupants Area F has 414 square feet 4 occupants Area G has 1,314 square feet 13 occupants Total business Areas: 815 occupants 7675 Inwood Road Cologne, MN 55322 6122170332 1'Jj6iTot17cT@gmai1.coj-n From IBC Chapter 29 the first 50 occupants require 2 toilet fixtures. The remaining 765 occupants require 16.3 fixtures. Total business area requirement 18 fixtures Daycare Area (net) at 35 SF/Occ Area H has 1,739 square feet 50 occupants Total Daycare Area 50 occupants From IBC Chapter 29 a toilet fixture is required for each 15 occupants, a requirement of 3.33 fixtures or 4 toilet fixtures. Total building requirement: 22 toilet fixtures Total toilet fixtures present in the building: Toilet T1: 6 toilet fixtures Toilet T2 8 toilet fixtures Toilet 'l 3 2 toilet fixtures Toilet T4 8 toilet fixtures Total Toilet fixtures present in the building: 24 fixtures. Sincerely, 4 1 Paul Strother Architect MN Registration 13229 CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG A B C D E F G H I J Appli- Applicant Date Deadline for Date 60- Date 60- Date Deadline Date city Date city cation application required day time day Applicant for city approved or sent response number Name received information limit extension was notified action denied the to Applicant Date Applicant Address by city expires expires of under application Phone sent notice of extension extension information or waiver was missing 12 -10 Steve Tharp 9/7/12 Tharp Family Partnership 11/6/12 1/5/13 9220 Bass Lake Road New Hope 55428 06- 118 -21 -23 -0078 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 15 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60 -day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 60-day extension, begin counting from the day following the first 60 -day limit, include all calendar days. G. The city will notify the Applicant by mail that a 60 -day extension period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver. I. The city must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) J. List the date that the city sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the city not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 4, 2012 City Hall, 7 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chair Houle called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Paul Anderson, Jim Brinkman, Jeff Houle, Sandra Hunten, Roger Landy, Christopher McKenzie, Tom Schmidt, Steve Svendsen Absent: Ranjan Nirgude, Sunday Onadipe Also Present: Curtis Jacobsen, Director of Community Development, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Case 12 -08 Item 4.1 Chair Houle introduced Item 41, request for text amendment to Section 4- 3(1)(3)h "personal wireless service antenna towers" pertaining to tower separation distance, conditional use permit for the construction of a personal wireless antenna tower, and site plan review, 3980 Quebec Avenue North, Verizon Wireless, petitioner. Mr. Curtis Jacobsen reported that the applicant was requesting a text amendment to section 4- 3(1)(3)h pertaining to tower separation distance, a conditional use permit for the construction of a personal wireless service antenna tower, and site plan review at 3980 Quebec Avenue North. The property is zoned industrial and is surrounded by industrial land uses to the north, west, and south along with residential properties across the railroad tracks to the east. The entire site contains 3.16 acres. The total leased area would be 2,500 square feet and include a 360- square foot equipment building. The site is located in planning district 9S, which is guided for industrial uses. Mr. Jacobsen explained that Verizon Wireless was requesting a conditional use permit to install a 120 -foot wireless antenna tower (monopole) along with a 12 by 30 foot equipment shelter and generator inside a 50 by 50 -foot leased area. A text amendment would be necessary to accommodate the tower spacing. Currently, city code requires 1,000 foot spacing for towers and the proposed spacing would be 350 feet. The proposed amendment would create an exception if specific conditions are met. The tower may be allowed by CUP if it meets certain conditions: The land and tower must be under same ownership; written authorization was provided. The antenna tower is in compliance with Minnesota building code. Documentation was provided stating the structural design would be compliant with manufacturer's specifications. The tower also requires approval from a construction engineer. Licensing documentation was provided from the Federal Communications Commission. Documentation was provided regarding the 60 -foot collapse zone. The tower is more than 60 feet from the on -site building. An existing large diameter water main requires the tower base to be 30 feet away. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the proposed tower does not meet the separation requirements, which necessitates the request for a text amendment. The text amendment must be approved so the tower can be built. The proposed tower would be 120 feet in height and would provide space for three antennas. The tower would not be lit and no advertising would be allowed. One identification sign would be posted giving emergency contact information. The tower would be painted silver or have a galvanized finish. The security fence was proposed to be seven feet in height which would need to be increased to a minimum of eight feet, per city code, with barbed wire at the top. New trees and shrubs were proposed as screening for the site, but due to the fact that the proposed tower site is quite a distance from residential properties, the Design and Review Committee was not requesting a great deal of additional screening. Mr. Jacobsen commented that the petitioner had indicated they were unable to utilize the tower to the south due to height limitations. The applicant indicated he had pursued other possible options to meet the 1,000 -foot separation requirement to no avail. Mr. Jacobsen showed maps illustrating current and proposed coverage areas. The need for greater coverage is due to increased cell phone usage and the use of cell phones to access the internet, watch movies, etcetera. Property owners within 350 feet were notified by mail and a notice was published in the city's newspaper. Staff did not receive any comments. Mr. Jacobsen summarized that the applicant was proposing to construct a personal wireless service antenna tower requiring a conditional use permit. The applicant also was requesting a text amendment pertaining to the separation requirement between towers. The amendment would be necessary so the applicant could fill a service hole in its network area. The language in the proposed text amendment would allow an exception to the 1,000 -foot spacing if certain conditions are met. The amendment would not remove the separation requirement from the ordinance. An applicant would have to try to find a collocation or meet the 1,000 -foot separation, but if not, the applicant could move forward to meet the conditions in the amended ordinance. Those conditions include: 1) if new antennas are not able to collocate on existing towers, documentation must be provided; 2) new tower is a minimum of 120 feet in height and able to accommodate at least three service providers (initial and 2 collocations); 3) tower has a minimum service area of 1/2 mile; 4) tower is located within the industrial district; and 5) tower meets all other conditions of approval. Mr. Jacobsen stated that if the text amendment was approved, staff Planning Commission Meeting 2 September 4, 2012 recommends approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the conditions in the planning report. Commissioner Schmidt inquired as to what districts antenna towers are allowed and whether four antennas could collocate on one tower. Mr. Jacobsen replied that towers are allowed in industrial districts only and the maximum height would be 165 feet. A 165 -foot tower could potentially have five antennas. Commissioner Brinkman wondered whether the reception was better the higher on the tower the antenna was located. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the volume an antenna could handle would be composed of the type of usage. Commissioner Brinkman initiated discussion on the appropriate separation distance for towers might be and whether or not the ordinance should be changed to lower the separation spacing rather than providing an exception to the 1,000 -foot requirement. Mr. Jacobsen responded that the Design and Review Committee had discussed this issue at great length. When the 1,000 - foot distance was established, it was done for aesthetic reasons. At that time, cell phone usage was not as extensive as today. Chair Houle added that the committee could not determine an appropriate distance. Commissioner Svendsen suggested the city review each request on a case -by -case basis. This is the first request for an exception to the separation requirement. Mr. Alan Brixius, city planner, stated that he drafted the text amendment based on the discussion at the Design and Review Committee meeting. The 1,000 -foot rule was originally drafted when the technology was first coming out. The city's biggest concern was the appearance of tall towers in prime locations along Highway 169 and other major thoroughfares. Also, the tower height had a larger coverage area because there was less demand at that time, and the 1,000 -foot spacing was adequate. Mr. Brixius stated that an applicant must first see if they could meet the collocation requirement of 1,000 feet. If not, then the other requirements must be met. The service area of 1J2 mile is standard for the industry. Currently, towers can only be located in the industrial districts. Approximately a year ago, the city reviewed the antenna ordinance as far as location, setbacks, and expanding to other zoning districts; however, the ordinance did not move forward. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, stated that a city must have a governmental reason for the spacing and separation, such as aesthetics. Towers are limited to the industrial district. The exception may be problematic for staff in determining the appropriate documentation. He agreed that the spacing requirement in the ordinance may be somewhat out of date for today's technology. Limiting the towers to the industrial district would be the aesthetic governmental interest. Mr. Jacobsen added that towers are also allowed in municipal parks, such as the tower located at Victory Park. Antennas are currently located on the city's south water tower. Mr. Sondrall pointed out that antenna towers and antennas are two different items. Antennas are allowed on existing structures in other zoning districts. St. Therese Home has several antennas erected on top of the building. Mr. Jacobsen reported that the city had renewed the lease for the antenna tower at Planning Commission Meeting 3 September 4, 2012 Victory Park for another 20 years. Commissioner Brinkman inquired what adjacent communities are doing with regard to towers. Mr. Jacobsen responded that every community has different regulations. One community allows up to three towers on one property. In answer to a question, Mr. Sondrall explained that the exception to the code, if amended, would apply to all properties. Mr. Brixius noted that a variance would require that the applicant establish practical difficulties and reasonable use of the property. Commissioner Hunten commented that the exception would provide flexibility for the future. Mr. Sondrall stated that staff would have to determine whether the applicant had satisfactorily proved they could not collocate on another tower and make a finding that would hold up in court if the tower was denied. He suggested the city consider adopting this text amendment with the thought that it may need to be revised depending on technology changes in the future. Mr. Jacobsen suggested that another condition be added stating that towers could be no closer than 350 feet. Commissioner Brinkman wondered whether the city could regulate who an individual tower owner could lease space to for collocation of antennas. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the ordinance specifies that a tower must have space for collocation. It would be much less expensive for a company to lease space on an existing tower than to construct a new tower. Mr. Rob Viera, Buell Consulting on behalf of Verizon, came forward to answer questions. Mr. Viera stated that when he is given a map by the Verizon engineers to search for a tower site, it is about a quarter or half mile search radius. The engineers desire a collocation, if possible. The cost to build a tower is approximately $500,000 for this type of tower. He talked to Crown Castle, owners of the tower at 3940 Quebec Avenue, and was told he could collocate at 55 feet; however, that height did not provide the coverage Verizon required. There also was not enough area for the shelter at the base of the tower. He met with Paddock Laboratories about expanding the lease area, but Paddock could not eliminate the five parking spaces that would be required to expand the lease area. Mr. Viera stated he talked to several other businesses along Quebec and 42nd avenues. One property met the setback requirements, but was not interested in leasing the land. Chair Houle questioned the market rate for leasing space and was told approximately $20,000 per year. Mr. Sondrall interjected that due to the cost to construct a tower versus collocation, there was not a need for aggressive language in the ordinance. Commissioner Svendsen stated that at the Design and Review meeting it was mentioned that the generator would be powered by natural gas and he wondered whether there would be accommodations for spill containment. Mr. Viera stated he would check and report back to staff. Svendsen clarified Planning Commission Meeting 4 September 4, 2012 that the applicant was in agreement with constructing an eight -foot fence with barbed wire at the top, as well as the 12 -foot anti -climb locking device. Chair Houle inquired of the decibel level for the generator. Mr. Viera stated that the generator ran at 50 db when not housed in the building. This generator would be located in a shelter and the decibel level would be much less. The generator would be tested for an hour about once a month. Chair Houle pointed out the 30 -foot setback to the water main. He inquired if there was any concern with the transformer and electric lines in close proximity. He also inquired of the depth of the eight -inch water line. Mr. Jacobsen replied that the water line was probably seven to eight feet deep. The 30 -foot setback was required in the event of a large washout in the area. Commissioner Brinkman asked for clarification on how Verizon determined where to place the antenna and if the best reception was received at the top of the tower. Mr. Viera stated that in theory higher is better, but not always. It depended more on the coverage needed. This particular site would be for a larger coverage area and Verizon antenna would be located at the top of the tower. Brinkman wondered if there would be reception interference among users if towers were placed closer together. Mr. Viera replied that antennas need to be at least five feet away from each other. Commissioner Schmidt interjected that different frequencies are utilized as well. Commissioner Schmidt clarified that Verizon would be putting LTE (long term evolution) on the tower. He heard that LTE does not carry voice, so would LTE and CDMA (code division multiple access) go on the tower. Mr. Viera stated Verizon would be fully covered on the tower. Commissioner McKenzie inquired of the lighting required and was told that no lighting was required below 200 feet. There was no one in the audience wishing to speak at the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy to close the public hearing. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Brixius stated that due to discussion at this meeting, he would suggest revising the proposed text amendment by adding to condition #1 "...new antennas are not able to collocate on existing towers 'due to tower and broadcasting functions, such as capacity, height or coverage. Financial interests alone shall not be the sole purpose for not collocating. "' Also add #6 "minimum antenna tower separation of 350 feet" and #7 "maximum of one tower per lot." Commissioner Svendsen stated that one discussion point at the Navigating the New Normal workshop was the fact that many people do not have a landline and use cell phones only. They use their cell phone for internet access and need adequate coverage at their residence. He stated he was agreeable to one tower per lot, but did not know if minimum spacing was required. Commissioner Landy was agreeable to specifying 350 feet as the Planning Commission Meeting 5 September 4, 2012 minimum. Commissioner Anderson inquired if the applicant was in agreement with the 350 -foot requirement and Mr. Viera stated he was. He added that most providers had adequate coverage in the city. Motion #1 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 12 -08, request for text amendment to Section 4- 3(I)(3)h "personal wireless service antenna towers" pertaining to tower separation distance, Verizon Wireless, petitioner, subject to the following criteria: All antenna towers shall maintain a minimum separation of 1,000 feet from existing towers at the time the conditional use permit is approved. An exception to this requirement will be made when the following conditions have been met: 1. New antennas are not able to collocate on existing towers due to tower and broadcasting functions, such as capacity, height or coverage. Financial interests alone shall not be the sole purpose for collocation. Documentation must be provided that illustrates the attempt to consider existing towers as alternative locations for new antennas. 2. The antenna tower is a minimum of 120 feet in height and is able to accommodate at least three service providers (the initial service provider and collocations for two additional service providers). 3. The antenna tower has a minimum service area of 112 mile. 4. The antenna tower is located within the Industrial District. 5. The antenna tower meets all other conditions of approval. 6. Minimum antenna tower separation of 350 feet. 7. Maximum of one antenna tower per lot. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, McKenzie, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Nirgude, Onadipe Motion approved. Motion #2 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 12 -08, request for a conditional use permit for the construction of a personal wireless service antenna tower and site plan review, 3980 Quebec Avenue North, Verizon Wireless, petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 1. The text amendment is made to Zoning Ordinance Section 4- 3(1)(3)h creating an exception to the 1,000 -foot separation requirement given certain conditions. 2. The applicants demonstrate that a minimum 60 -foot setback from the outside perimeter of the monopole to all adjacent property lines has been attained in the design of the monopole site. 3. The applicants demonstrate that a minimum 30 -foot setback from water main has been attained in the design of the monopole site. Planning Commission Meeting 6 September 4, 2012 4. The applicants provide a sign on the fence surrounding the monopole site which identifies the owner of the tower, emergency and maintenance contact information. 5. The applicants provide information explaining the color and make of the proposed tower. 6. The applicants provide evidence that the height of the fence surrounding the monopole site will be increased to meet the eight - foot fencing requirement for antenna towers, and that a 12 -foot locked anti -climb device will be installed on the tower. 7. The proposed project undergoes a building permit review. Voting in favor: Anderson, Brinkman, Houle, Hunten, Landy, McKenzie, Schmidt, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Nirgude, Onadipe Motion approved. Chair Houle stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on September 24, 2012, and requested that the applicant be in attendance at that meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design and Review Commissioner Svendsen stated the Design and Review Committee met with Committee the petitioner in August. Item 5.1 Mr. Jacobsen reported that two pre- application meetings were conducted and staff was expecting at least one application to be submitted by the deadline at the end of the week. One application is for a lot split with variances requested for two undersized lots, and the second would be for a conditional use permit for an adult daycare in the Tharp building on Bass Lake Road. Staff will contact committee members if a meeting is necessary. Codes and Standards Mr. Jacobsen stated that a committee meeting will not be scheduled for Committee possibly a couple more months. Item 5.2 NEW BUSINESS Planning Case 12 -03 Due to a conflict of interest with this planning case Chair Houle turned the Item 6.1 meeting over to Commissioner Schmidt. Commissioner Schmidt introduced Item 6.1, continuing discussion of City Center zoning revisions. Mr. Brixius stated in August a number of changes were presented to the text of the draft City Center ordinance. A lot of text has been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and the Design Guidelines. The architectural standards were moved to the Comp Plan as guidelines. The city has an opportunity to be more flexible in the application of the architectural standards as guidelines. Wording was incorporated that adopts the Visioning Study as a document in the Comp Plan. The goals and objectives of the Planning Commission Meeting 7 September 4, 2012 Visioning Study become the city's established goals. In the metropolitan area, the Comprehensive Plan is the superior document toward zoning, allowing the city to impose the City Center design intentions as policies, recommendations, and guidelines, rather than hard and fast zoning standards. The city's zoning must follow suit with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mr. Brixius stated he looked at the physical constraints of the City Center site. There are 34 individual parcels and how do all those individual parcels fit into a larger block arrangement. For example, the Sunshine Factory would be a business the city would want to keep, however, redesigning their lot and changing setbacks would be impractical. The city must determine if the streetscape configured for the block from Walgreens to the east with established businesses would be the same as what may be proposed for a block that could be totally redeveloped. Mr. Brixius stated the land uses should be those that fit within the context of a tight urban environment, both residential, entertainment and commercial. Some of the uses he suggested removing include medical research or biotechnology, which are allowed in the industrial district. Administrative uses were combined to fit in the context of the City Center. The conditional uses were outlined with measurable performance standards, such as live /work units with commercial on the first floor. Veterinary care in a multi - tenant building must be regulated to eliminate odors for other residents. With regard to bulk and building placement standards, Brixius explained some of the constraints of the site, such as access points. The super block, from 42nd to 45th avenues and Xylon to Winnetka avenues, would probably be divided into four 600 foot blocks. He suggested that the build -to line would protect the corners and allow flexibility internally for parking lot design, access, circulation, and service vehicles. Brixius pointed out that the ordinance would allow for greater flexibility for a private developer to devise a plan that would work for the site and community. The densities were not changed. Mr. Brixius stated that the city was seeking a vital City Center. Something that would provide compact living space and also an area that would draw people from outside the community to a destination in City Center. The text was revised with regard to minimum and maximum parking standards. The maximum is now more lenient than current parking standards, but for minimum standards a developer must demonstrate criteria such as proximity to shared parking or a ramp, and other performance standards that would allow them to reduce their required parking on site. The current standard for bicycle parking was thought to be too aggressive. A graduated parking arrangement was established with minimum and maximum standards based on building size. With regard to pedestrian access, the build -to line for corner units would provide an exception where there may be a plaza, an entry, archway or some feature that would introduce pedestrians to the site and allow a variety of Planning Commission Meeting 8 September 4, 2012 travel modes. Loading and trash enclosures were not changed from the current standards. Indoor open space would be allowed. Landscaping requirements mimic current standards. Architectural components were moved to the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Brinkman agreed the main access points would probably remain from 42nd and Winnetka avenues. He wondered whether or not there could be a couple access points on Xylon and Mr. Brixius stated that the same rules would not apply to the local streets versus the county roads. On the local streets, the access points should match up with an access point across the street and the county would dictate the access locations on 42nd and Winnetka. Adequate stacking at the intersection on Xylon at 42nd Avenue should also be a consideration. Another consideration would be the pedestrian crossing on Xylon at the swimming pool. A question was raised whether the county would allow an additional access point mid block on either street. Mr. Brixius answered that the county reviews all plats that abut county roads, at which point the county may dictate different terms. There is a fairly large grade separation between the back of the Kmart site and the back of the shopping center. Commissioner Hunten initiated discussion on the layout of the buildings and whether the buildings would face the county road or the internal street. Hunten stated she felt there should be some parking near the street to draw patrons into the site and stressed that adequate parking be provided. With regard to residential /mixed -use, Mr. Brixius stated the idea was to keep the first floor as a retail use, and the second floor or above would be residential. Office uses could be on the second floor, but residential would never be placed on the first floor in City Center. Free- standing residential would have specific areas where it could be located. Mr. Brixius commented that he tried to bring flexibility into the code so a developer would not have to request variances to develop the property. There would be certain requirements for a mixed use building, such as keeping the first floor as commercial. The build -to line was established to protect the corners and give more flexibility internally as to building orientation. Parking may be allowed adjacent to the street, but must be landscaped. Commissioner Svendsen commented that the vision study was not hard set plans. Mr. Brixius added that the Zoning Ordinance would be hard and fast. He reiterated that he removed some of the requirements from the draft ordinance and put them into the Comprehensive Plan and Design Guidelines to allow more flexibility. He kept the land use components in the ordinance. Commissioner Anderson stated that it would be helpful to see projects that had been completed. Planning Commission Meeting 9 September 4, 2012 Mr. Brixius suggested adopting the Vision Study as an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan, approve an amendment to the City Center land use map, and approve changes to the Design Guidelines. The city should also establish the City Center zoning district, which would define the uses allowed and the performance standards. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the next step would be the public hearing. Discussion ensued on whether or not an open house should be conducted prior to the public hearing. The consensus was to wait until a developer was ready to present a proposal. Mr. Sondrall stated that the adoption of the zoning ordinance was not for the public in general, but an invitation to the professional developers. The developers would study the ordinance to determine what could be built on the site within the established parameters. At the end of the City Center discussion, Commissioner Schmidt turned the meeting back to Chair Houle. OLD BUSINESS Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to Item 7.1 approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 8, 2012. All voted in favor. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Svendsen stated that the commission was to present a positive spin on what was being presented. Once a motion was made, the entire commission would vote on the motion. Commissioners could vote against a motion if they did not agree. Mr. Jacobsen mentioned that the City Council had requested that the Codes and Standards Committee study parking standards city -wide. Mr. Jacobsen stated that Ron Clark Construction would be conducting another open house for its Compasse Point project at 62nd and West Broadway on Tuesday, September 18, from 5 to 7 p.m. at New Hope City Hall. They intend to discuss the project with neighboring property owners. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 10 September 4, 2012