050604 PlanningPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Tuesday, May 4, 2004
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONSENT BUSINESS
4. PUBLIC HEARING
· 4.1 Case 04-12
Request for front yard setback variance, 8233 39th Avenue North,
Loren Stegman, Petitioner
· 4.2 Case 04-13
Request for side yard setback variance, 6024 Hillsboro Avenue North,
Derrick Slagle, Petitioner
· 4.3 Case 04-11
Request for conditional use permit for outdoor sales and services,
3564 Winnetka Avenue North, Frattallone Ace Hardware, Petitioner
· 4.4 Case 01-09
Discussion of neighborhood issues regarding 9220 Bass Lake Road,
Tharp Family Partnership
· 4.5 Case 04-10
Request for preliminary plat, rezoning, site/building plan review, sign
variance/Comprehensive Sign Plan, and administrative permit for
drive-through facilities and outdoor dining, 7901 Bass Lake Road,
Bear Creek Capital and CVS Pharmacy, Petitioner
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1
5.2
Report of Design & Review Committee - May 13, 7:30 a.m.
Report of Codes & Standards Committee - May 19, 7 a.m.
6. OLD BUSINESS
6.1
Miscellaneous Issues
Science Center Drive LLC, (Northland Mechanical) - Approved.
AC Carlson - Approved.
Science Center Drive final plat - Approved on 4/26.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7.1
7.2
7.3
Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of April 6, 2004
Review of City Council Minutes of March 22 and April 12, 2004
Review of EDA Minutes of March 22, 2004
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
· Petitioners are required to be in attendance
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The
Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the
Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code
and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the
surrounding neighborhood.
The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn,
first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your
questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the
Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission
will utilize the following procedure:
1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal.
2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the
Planning Commission.
3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer
questions from the Planning Commission.
4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by
raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large
number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer
period of time for questions/comments.
5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give
their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your
questions.
7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity
to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal.
8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
A~ If the Planning'Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the
'planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this
meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting.
B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next
Commission meeting.
Planning Case:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: April 30, 2004
Report Date: May 4, 2004
04-12
Loren Stegman
8233 39th Avenue North
Front Yard Setback Variance
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting a 13 foot variance to the 25 foot front yard setback requirement to allow
construction of a garage addition, pursuant to Sections 4-5(f)(4) and 4-36 of the New Hope Code of
Ordinances.
II. Zoning Code References
R-l, Single Family Residential - Lot Requirements - Setbacks
Administration - Variances
Section 4-5(0(4)
Section 4-36
Property Specifications
· Zoning:
Location:
Adjacent Land Uses:
Site Area:
Building Area:
Lot Area Ratios:
Planning District:
Specific Information:
III.
R-l, Single Family Residential
Southeast comer of the intersection at Xylon and 39th Avenues
R-l, single family homes in all directions
Irregular rectangle lot contains 11,066 sq. ft.
Existing building: 1,565 square feet
Proposed addition: 264 square feet
Green area: Current - 81.24% Proposed - 77.61%
Building area: Current- 14.14% Proposed - 16.53%
Hard surface area: Current - 4.62% Proposed - 5.86%
No. 12; The Comprehensive Plan indicates that homes in this district are in
good to excellent condition. The city will promote housing maintenance and
upgrades through encouraging private reinvestment in the single family
homes.
The subject single-family home is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential.
Although the home fronts onto 39~ Avenue North, according to the zoning
code, the front yard is on Xylon Avenue North. By definition, the shortest
street frontage, in this case along Xylon Avenue, is considered the front yard.
The home has an existing two car garage. The attached garage currently
encroaches three feet into the front yard setback at the rear corner.
Planning Case Report 04-12 Page I 4/30/04
IV. Background
The owner is requesting a 13 foot variance to the 25 foot front yard setback to
allow for the construction of a third attached garage space,
Loren Stegman has submitted a request to expand an existing two-stall attached garage on the
property at 8233 39th Avenue North. The existing garage is 440 square feet. The proposed expansion
will create an additional 264 square foot garage stall for a total of 704 square feet of garage space. The
addition will match the existing home in building material and style. The applicant has provided a written
narrative, existing lot photos, site plan, and structural sketched of the building.
The city manager reviewed the proposal and was supportive of the request.
The following approvals are necessary for this project to proceed:
1. Variance for front yard setback encroachment.
2. Administrative permit for front yard setback encroachment.
Petitioner's Comments
Correspondence submitted with the application stated that they desire to build a third stall onto their
garage. The applicant submitted a sheet of signatures of surrounding neighbors who are in favor of the
addition (noted on location map). The objective of this project is to make the home functional for their
family and to develop their property in a way that is pleasing to their neighbors and the city.
The applicant feels the variance should be granted because:
"1. We need additional storage space. We have four small children, ages, nine, eight, five and three.
Along with small children come bicycles, wagons, etc. During the summer, at least on of our
vehicles is parked outside so that our children can access their toys. We also store our garbage
cans in the garage because, living on a corner, no matter where we put them outside, one or more
of our neighbors would be able to see them.
2. Future need for additional parking space. In a relatively short amount of time, our children will be
driving and most likely having cars of their own. It would look a lot nicer if the driveway was not so
cluttered with cars. We are currently adding on to our house by building above the current garage. It
would be logical to do both additions at the same time.
3. This is the best option. We have spoken to each of our surrounding neighbors about our intentions
to add a third stall to our garage. Each of our neighbors has said that adding the garage in the
requested location would be their first choice. Putting a garage on our property any other place
would make our house look out of place within our neighborhood.
4. The shape of our lot makes us a unique situation. The whole west side of our lot is unusable
because the street angles back. This cuts off the back portion and using the front portion would
make the house look out of place in our neighborhood.
5. The customary objections of decreased visibility at the corner and what if the street were to be
widened do not apply in this case. First you can see, from the attached pictures, that visibility is not
a concern. In the attached pictures, my wife is standing where the front corner of the proposed
garage would be and I am standing where the back corner would be. SeCond, by viewing a diagram
of our neighborhood, you can see that there is no foreseeable reason to widen the street. There are
only three driveways on it, and it could not be used in any other manner than it is today because of
the way the neighborhood is designed.
Neighborhood improvement. Just as a poor house in a neighborhood diminishes the value of all the
surrounding houses, so too, a more desirable house increases the value of the surrounding houses
and the neighborhood. A third stall has become almost automatic with new construction. Most lots in
Planning Case Report 04-12 Page 2 4/30/04
our developed neighborhoods are not set up in such a way that a third garage stall could be added.
Our lot could support a third stall without negatively affecting the aesthetics of the neighborhood or
becoming a problem with visibility at the corner."
Correspondence submitted with revised plans states, "The following items have been done according to
what was requested at the April 15 Design and Review Committee:
1. Verify the location of the existing structure: I located one of the surveying pegs in question but not
the corner peg. I was told by one of my neighbors that many of the corner pegs in this neighborhood
are missing. So I measured the distance from the peg that I found to the curb (15 feet). I then went
30 feet down the street and measured 15 feet and drew a line between this point and the peg that I
found. I measured from this line to my existing structure and it was 22 feet. This has been noted on
the attached site plan.
2. Proposed addition to not encroach on site triangle area: I was told that the site triangle is 20 feet
each way from the corner. I did not think to ask if it was 20 feet from the street corner or the corner
surveying peg, so I used the location where the corner surveying peg is supposed to be and drew in
the line. This has been noted on the attached site plan. This doesn't even come close to being a
problem.
3. Show 25-foot setback line on site plan: I drew in a dashed line and noted the 25-foot distance to the
setback line.
4. Confirm building materials to match existing structure: The whole house has been reshingled. The
whole house will have new vinyl siding except for the front of the lower portion, which will have
vertical wood siding to match what is already there. See attached front elevation drawing."
VI. Notification
· Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments,
however the property owner submitted signatures of seven surrounding properties owner in support of the
variance.
VII. Development Analysis
A. Zonin.q Code Criteria
Variance
The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code
to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a
specific parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under
consideration and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent
of this Code.
An application for variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the
variance will result in undue hardship on the applicant, and, as may be applicable, the following criteria
have been met:
1. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property and results in
exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of this
Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic
or similar conditions unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardship also includes inadequate access to
direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute an undue
hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code.
2. The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not
generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district.
Planning Case Report 04-12 Page 3 4/30/04
3. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner
or any previous owner.
4. Additional Criteria. The application for variance shall also meet the following criteria:
1. It will not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially
increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the
public safety.
3. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship.
4. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district.
The planner's report addresses these criteria, as related to this request as follows:
1. Does hardship exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property that results in
exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot?
Comment: Due to the existing location of the home and garage, expansion of the garage must
occur to the west. While it may be possible to shift the third garage stall to the north to lessen
the setback encroachment, such modification would result in a staggered north building line
and is not the most desirable from both an aesthetic and functional standpoint.
While the home and garage placement present a hardship in that the construction of a third
garage stall is not possible without the granting of a variance, the planner states that the
property owner has no "entitlement" to an additional garage stall. The ordinance simply
requires that single family homes provide a two stall garage.
Thus, in the planner's opinion, it cannot be stated that the subject property has a unique
physical hardship that justifies approval of the variance. Staff believes that the original
placement of the house on the lot facing the side yard could be considered a hardship.
2. In order for the city to approve the necessary variance, a finding must be made that the
proposed action will not adversely affect the site or surrounding area.
Comment: As shown on the submitted building elevations, the addition is to match the finish
materials and rooflines of the existing home. While the addition is considered well designed, it
should be noted that the home in question will lie approximately 13 feet closer to Xylon Avenue
than the neighboring residences to the north and south. The Planning Commission must
determine if such a setback is in character with other neighboring residences.
Also to be noted however, is that the goals of the city's Comprehensive Plan promote re-
investment in the city's housing stock. This type of reinvestment would add value to the
neighborhood and increase livability of the home. In this regard, the proposed third stall
addition is considered positive.
3. Would such a vadance allow the property owners any special privilege which would be denied
to other lands and structures?
Comment: Some concem exists in regard to the precedent that could be established by
approving this variance request. Of key issue is whether of not an entitlement exists for a three
stall garage. Most likely, many homeowners in the area would welcome a three stall garage
but simply do not have the land area (within the required setbacks) to construct such an
improvement. A 13 foot encroachment into a required front yard setback is, in the opinion of
the planning consultant is a significant deviation from the ordinance standard.
If the city wishes to allow three stall garages as a property right, the planning consultant
believes that a re-evaluation of the ordinance requirements be considered.
Planning Case Report 04-12 Page 4 4/30/04
4. Is the variance being requested, the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship?
Comment: The necessary width of single car garage addition (12 feet) dictates the proposed
front yard setback (12 feet) along Xylon Avenue North. While an opportunity to shift the third
stall to the north (resulting in a staggered north building line) is possible, it would compromise
the proposed building design.
The New Hope Comprehensive Plan encourages residential reinvestment. The applicant plans to
upgrade their home with additional garage space. With respect to the variance, the applicant must
demonstrate that the proposal meets the hardship criteria of the zoning code.
Development Review Team
The Development Review Team met on April 15 to review the plans and discussed the following
items: an as-built survey should be provided, addition not to encroach in site triangle, show 25-foot
setback line, confirm building materials to match existing, and discuss tree removals (the owner
removed the tree to the west of the proposed addition - see attached photo).
Desi.qn and Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner on April 14 and discussed the same
issues. Revised plans were submitted as a result of those meetings.
Plan Description
Per Design and Review comments the applicant made the following changes to the plan:
1. The applicant attempted to verify the location of the existing structure. The building official has
noted that an "as built" survey be completed.
2. The applicant noted the site visibility triangle on the plan. Some assumptions were made in
regard to the northwest property line pin. Although the site triangle will not be an issue the
property line should be verified by survey as requested by the building official.
3. The applicant noted the 25 foot front yard setback line on the plan.
4. The applicant stated that the home will be resided.
Additional Description
1. Garaqe/expansion Dimensions: The garage/expansion will extend 13 feet toward the west
property line. The owner is requesting a 13 foot variance to the 25 foot front yard setback to
allow for the construction of this third attached garage space. The expansion is proposed to be
12 feet in width and 22 feet in length. The total square footage of the expansion is 264 square
feet.
2. Elevations:
Front (south): An 8'5" x 6'-5" overhead door is proposed for the new garage, consistent with
existing 2 car garage. The garage will be 12 feet in width and 22 feet in length. The owner stated
in the narrative that the siding would be replaced around the entire home.
Rear (north): Siding will be placed on the rear of the addition. No ingress or egress is proposed
for the new addition.
Side (west): Siding will be placed on the west side of the addition. One window is proposed for
the west side of the addition.
Side (east): The garage will open up to the existing double car garage to the east.
Planning Case Report 04-12 Page 5 4/30/04
~ · Ar
E. Plannin.q Considerations
Excerpts from the planning consultant's report have been included in this report and the full report is
attached for reference.
F. Buildinq Considerations
The building official reviewed the plans and requested that an "as built" survey showing location of
the building and setbacks. Final construction plans and building permit will be subject to the building
official's approval.
G. Enqineerin.q Considerations
The city engineer was involved in the review of the plans. No easements are located in the
expansion area (please see attached plat map).
H. Police Considerations
The police department was involved in the review of the plans.
I. Fire Considerations
West Metro Fire-Rescue District was involved in the review of the plans.
VIII. Summary
In examining the requested variance, the City Council is asked to determine whether a variance is
justified based on criteria established by the Planning Commission and the Zoning Ordinance. Attached,
please find a list of previous variances considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. Front
yard variances have been approved in the past on a case-by-case basis.
The subject addition is well designed and consistent with the directive of the Comprehensive Plan to
. encourage re-investment of the city's residential housing stock.
IX. Recommendation
In consideration of the variance request, two options are offered by the planning consultant:
1. Approval of the request based on the following findings:
a. The New Hope Comprehensive Plan encourages reinvestment in the city's residential housing
stock.
b. The necessary garage width dictates the setback along Xylon Avenue. In this regard, the
variance is the minimum encroachment required.
c. The proposed garage expansion will not negatively impact adjoining uses in the area. Seven
surrounding property owners have indicated support for the project.
d. The proposed addition meets all other performance requirements for the R-l, Single Family
Residential zoning district.
2. Denial of the request based on the following findings:
a. There is no physical hardship unique to the subject property.
b. Approval of the requested variance would confer on the applicant a special privilege not granted
to all properties with the same conditions.
c. The variance being requested is not the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship.
Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the following conditions:
1. Exterior building materials to match.
Planning Case Report 04-12 Page 6 4/30/04
2. Review and approval of plans by the building official.
Attachments:
Addess/Zoning/Topo/Aerial Maps
Petitioner Correspondence
Neighbor Correspondence
Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
West Elevation
Floorplan
Siteplan
Photographs
Plat Map
Planner's Report
Previous Variance List
Application Log
Planning Case Report 04-12 Page 7 4/30/04
40TH AVE N
5994
5941
5948
~949
7909 5957
394.3 39¢9
QL
AVE
N
38TH AVE N
5B66
3858
--IWOOD
.3709
Signature Submitted in Support of
Variance
1. 3808 Xylon Ave. N.
2. 3817 Xylon Ave. N.
3. 3825 Xylon Ave. N.
4. 3901 Xylon Ave. N.
5. 8225 39th Ave. N.
6. 8232 39th Ave. N.
7. 8240 39t" Ave. N.
~E-rHSE~ANE
CETdETERY
BETH
CEME
933.8
X 93;.5
925,
27 · ' ',,0
4:3
7<2
,0
928 5
928.9
,, X94!.'
94~ .3 ~
923.
X 918.9
'NISCr.
908.
912 3
X
9!3.3
×
8233 39th Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55427
April 21, 2004
Planning Commission and City Council
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Dear Members of the Planning Commission and City Council:
The following items have been done, to the best of my abilities, according to what was requested at the
April 15 meeting with the Design & Review Committee.
1) Verify the location of the existing structure: I located one of the surveying pegs in question but not the
comer peg. I was told by one of my neighbors that many of the comer pegs in this neighborhood are
missing. So I measured the distance from the peg that I found to the curb (15 -feet). I then went 30 feet
down the street and measured 15 feet and drew a line between this point and the peg that I found. I
measured from this line to my existing structure and it was 22 feet. This has been noted on the attached
site plan.
2) Proposed addition to not encroach on site triangle area: I was told that the site triangle is 20 feet each
way from the comer. I did not think to ask if it was 20 feet from the street comer or the comer surveying
peg, so I used the location where the comer surveying peg is supposed to be and drew in the line. This has
been noted on the attached site plan. This doesn't even come close to being a problem.
3) Show 25-foot setback line on site plan: I drew in a dashed line and noted the 25 foot distance to the
setback line.
4) Confmn building materials to match existing structure: The whole house has been reshingled. The
whole house will have new vinyl siding except for the front of the lower portion, which will have vertical
wood siding to match what is already there. See attached front elevation drawing.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Loren W. Stegman
(763) 545-8117
Enclosures
Request Description
We are requesting a variance which would allow' us to add a third stal!to our garage.
Reason Request Should be Granted
We ask that our request for a variance be granted for the 6 following reasons:
1) We need additional storage space. We have 4 small children, ages 9, 8, 5 and 3. Along with
small children come bicycles, wagons etc. During the summer, at least one of our vehicles is
parked outside so that our children can access their toys. We also store our garbage cans in
our garage because, living on a comer, no matter where we would put them outside, one or
more of our neighbors would be able to see them.
2) Future need for additional parking space. In a relatively short amount of time, our children
will be driving and most likely having cars of their own. It would look a lot nicer if the
driveway was not so cluttered with cars. We are currently adding on to our house by building
above the current garage. It would be logical to do both additions at the same time.
3) This is the best option. We have spoken to each of our surrounding neighbors about our
intentions to add a third stall to our garage. Each of our neighbors has said that adding the
garage in the requested location would be their first choice. Putting a garage, on our property,
any other place would make our house look out of place within our neighborhood.
4) The shape of our lot makes us a unique situation. The whole west side of our lot is unusable
because the street angles back. This cuts off the back portion and using the front portion
would make the house look out of place in our neighborhood.
5) The customary objections of decreased visibility at the comer and what if the street were to be
widened do not apply in this case. First you can see, from the attached pictures, that visibility
is not a concern. In the attached pictures, my wife is standing where the front comer of the
proposed garage would be and I am standing where the back comer would be. Second, by
viewing a diagram of our neighborhood, you can see that there is no foreseeable reason to
widen this street. There are only three driveways on it, and it could not be used is any other
manner than it is today because of the way the neighborhood is designed.
6) Neighborhood improvement. Just as a poor house in a neighborhood diminishes the value of
all the surrounding houses, so too, a more desirable house increases the value of the
surrounding houses and the neighborhood. A third stall has become almost automatic with
new construction. Most lots, in our developed neighborhoods, are not set up in such a way
that a third garage stall could be added. Our lot could support a third stall without negatively
affecting the aesthetics of the neighborhood or becoming a problem with visibility at the
comer.
Neighborhood Response to PropOsed Addition
8233 39th Avenue North, New Hope, MN
Listed below are all of our surrounding neighbors and their responses to our proposed addition. We have
shown them the attached plans and explained to them the problem with the back comer of the additional
garage stall being approximately six feet too close to the street.
For Against Sig~p~re /
Anthony& Debra Wessel x/
3808 Xylon Avenue North ~' i ....
Dale & Bonnie Mendenhall
3817 Xylon Avenue North
Doug & Erica Pozanc
3825 Xylon Avenue North
John & Cherie Thompson
3901 Xylon Avenue North
Ron & JoAnn Brown
8240 39t~ Avenue North
Wallace & Thelma Bruning
8232 39th Avenue North
Karen Grande
8225 39th Avenue North
Comments:
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952,595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595,9837 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Bob Kirmis / Alan Brixius
April 28, 2004
New Hope - Stegman Front Yard Setback Variance
131.01 - 04.11
Background
Loren Stegman is has requested a variance from the required 25 foot front yard setback
requirement to allow the construction of an attached third garage to his home located at
8233 39th Avenue North. Specifically, a variance of 13 feet has been requested
resulting in a front yard setback of 12 feet.
The subject site is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential.
Attached for Reference:
Exhibit A - Site Vicinity
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Project Description Narrative
Exhibit D - Site Photographs
Exhibit E - Floor Plan
Exhibit F - Building Elevations
Analysis
Existing Conditions. The subject site is a corner lot bounded on the north by 39th
Avenue North and on the west by ×ylon Avenue. By definition, the shortest street
frontage, along Xylon Avenue, is considered the front yard.
The existing two stall garage measures 440 square feet in size. Presently, the garage
encroaches 2 feet into the required front yard setback.
With the proposed 264 square foot (12' x 22') addition, the garage would measure 704
square feet in size.
Two significant trees presently exist on the west side of the home. The trees would not
be impacted by the proposed garage expansion.
Setback Requirement..As previously indicated, the Xylon Avenue frontage is
considered the front yard. With this in mind, a minimum 25 foot setback requirement is
required. It is the applicant's intention to simply extend the existing north and south
sides of the existing garage walls to the west to accommodate a third garage stall.
As shown on the submitted site plan, the proposed third garage stall would encroach 13
feet into the required front yard setback resulting in a 12 foot setback along Xylon
Avenue. To accommodate the proposed setback, the processing of a variance is
necessary.
Variance Evaluation Criteria. Section 4.36 of the ordinance establishes that the
applicant must satisfy the following criteda for hardship:
Does hardship exist be reason of physical condition unique to the property
that results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot?
Comment: Due to the existing location of the home and garage, expansion of the
garage must occur to the west. While it may be possible to shift the third garage
stall to the north to lessen the setback encroachment, such modification would result
in a staggered north building line and is not the most desirable from both an
aesthetic and functional standpoint.
While the home and garage placement present a hardship in that the construction of
a third garage stall is not possible without the granting of a variance, it is important to
note that the property owner has no "entitlement" to an additional garage stall. The
ordinance simply requires that single family homes provide a two stall garage.
Thus, it cannot be stated that the subject property has a unique physical hardship
that justifies approval of the variance.
2. In order for the City to approve the variance, a finding must be made that
the proposed action will not adversely affect the site or surrounding area.
Comment: As shown on the submitted building elevations, the addition is to match
the finish materials and rooflines of the existing home. While the addition is
considered well designed, it important to note that the home in question will lie
approximately 13 feet closer to Xylon Avenue than the neighboring residences to the
2
north and south. The Planning Commission must determine if such setback is in
character with other neighboring residences.
Also to be noted however, is that the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan
promote re-investment in the City's housing stock. This type of reinvestment would
add value to the neighborhood and increase the livability of the home. In this
regard, the proposed third stall addition is considered positive.
3. Would approval of the variance confer on the applicant any special
privileges that would be denied to other lands?
Comment: Concern exists in regard to the precedent that could be established by
approving this variance request. Of key issue is whether or not an entitlement exists
for a three stall garage. Most likely, many homeowners in the area would welcome a
three stall garage but simply do not have the land area (within required setbacks) to
construct such an improvement. A 13 foot encroachment into a required front yard
setback is, in the opinion of out office, a significant deviation from the ordinance
standard.
If the City wishes to allow three stall garages as a property dght, it is believed that a
re-evaluation of the ordinance requirements should be considered.
4. Is the variance being requested the minimum action required to eliminate
the hardship?
Comment: The necessary width of single stall garage addition (12 feet) dictates the
proposed front yard setback (12 feet) along Xylon Avenue. VVhile an opportunity to
shift the third stall to the north (resulting in a staggered north building line) is
possible, it would compromise the proposed building design.
Design and Review Committee. The Design and Review Committee reviewed the
variance application at their April 15, 2005 meeting and indicated an inclination to
approve the request.
Recommendation
The proposed addition is well designed and consistent with a directive of the
Comprehensive Plan to encourage re-investment in the City's residential housing stock.
Whether or not the request satisfies the vadance evaluation criteria of the ordinance is
however, considered a policy decision to be determined by City Officials. in this regard,
the following action alternatives are offered:
A. Denial of the vadance request based on the following findings:
3
There is no physical hardship unique to the subject property.
Approval of the requested variance would confer on the applicant a
special privilege not granted to all properties with the same conditions.
The variance being requested is not the minimum action required to
eliminate the hardship.
B. Approval of the request based on the following findings:
The New Hope Comprehensive Plan encourages reinvestment in the
City's housing stock.
The necessary garage width dictates the setback along Xylon Avenue.
In this regard, the variance is the minimum encroachment required.
The proposed garage expansion will not negatively impact adjoining
uses in the area
The proposed addition meets all other performance requirements for
the R-1 district.
pc.
Roger Axel
Steve Sondrall
Vince Vandertop
Loren Stegman
4
RE,'
,,L. OlUr'l~ I I/-~L bi(UN I/:51UP_/REAR YARD VARIANCES --- 1980 - ~
TO PRESENT
03-11 Front yard setback PC: Approved PC: 6 for. 1 against Too great a variance for front yard
Kurt Klipstein Request: 5' variance on front CC: Denied CC: unanimous
4053 Nevada Avenue Request to construct 22' x 20' attached garage to front of house to
be located 20' to properly line
03~05 -~:ront yard setback (25') and curb cut Approved -- PC: unanimous '[~uilding materials to match existing.
Susan Pfeilsticker Request: 8' variance on front and curb cut closer than 40' to CC: unanimous
3853 Hillsboro Avenue intersection Comply with code,on plantings in sight triangle.
Request to construct 23' x 29' attached garage and move driveway
(~.~ ................. curb cut closer to intersection
Side yard setback corner lot (25') and rear (25') Approved PC: unanimous Building materials to match existing.
Joal Stockton Request: 9.6' variance on side and 1' on rear CC: unanimous Driveway width
8700 61 ~ Avenue _ R, equest to ,construc126' x 28' attached garage to side of home Submit detailed plans for buildin~l permit
02-09 Rear yard setback (25') Approved PC: unanimous --
Gary & Faith Novilsky Request: 5' variance Building materials to match existing.
CC: unanimous
4404 Independence Avenue Request Io construct 15' x 15' 2-slory addition to home 20' front rear
yard property line
01~08 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Submit detailed construction plans at time of obtaining
Timothy Preimesberger Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous building permit.
5841 Cavell Avenue Request 1o construct a 620 SF expansion onto existing home 7'
from property line
00-15 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Demo detached garage and foundation,
Timolhy &Arnetta Glum Request: 2' variance
5307 Pennsylvania Avenue Request to construct an attached 2-car garage 3' from the property CC: unanimous Submit grading/drainage plan for City Engineer
line review.
Gutter & downspout on west side of garage.
Building materials to match house.
Driveway to taper to street,
Retaining wall on south property line.
99-13 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous None
Robert & Janet White Request: 6' variance
CC: unanimous
8948 Norlhwood Parkway Request to construct 6' addition to the front of garage and front entry
to accommodate a second story to be located 24' from front property
98-20 Side yard setback (5') -
Richard & Liane Shive Request: 2' variance Approved PC: unanimous Building materials to match,
8489 N. Meadow Lake Road Request to construct 22' x 26' garage onto existing house extending CC: unanimous Work out drainage issues with neighbor.
~~ 2 feet into the side yard setback
96-29 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous 10' addn. Council approved 12' addition,
Jon Amoldy Request: 7' variance
3532 Ensign Avenue Request to construct 2-story addition to home extending 7' inlo side CC: unanimous 12' addn, Building materials to match.
yard setback
96-28
Doug Norwick
4057 Boone Avenue
96-18
Leona Bigelow
3840 Getlysburg Avenue
92-31
Roger Griggs
5313 Pennsylvania Avenue
88-13
Daniel & Barbara Nordberg
__~ Avenue
88-11
James & Sandra Larson
5908 Boone Avenue
88-02
New Community Builders
4884 Erickson Drive
85-20
Richard & Donna Kranz
3240 Ensign Cl.
85-10
Patrick O'Meara
8200 39~h Avenue
85-02
Gregory Davis
730__.._88 39~" Avenue
84-24
Alvie Carey
4052 Decatur Avenue
84-11
James Wiczek
4104 Oregon Avenue
RESIDENTIAL FRONT/SIDE/REAR YARD VARIANCES --- 1980 - TO PRESENT
Side yard setback (5')
Request: 1' variance
Request to demolish existing 1-car garage and construct new
atlached 2-car gara_~,q~.to extend 1' inlo side_~ard setback
~ yard setback (5')
Request: 2' variance
Request Io construct an addition onto existing garage, extending 2'
setback,
; (5')
Request: 1.8' variance
Requesl to construct garage on side of house, which exlends 1.8'
setback.
Side yard (20' corner 10t) & front yard (35') setback
Request: 5' side & 12' front variances
_Request to ex and ara e on non-conformin structure.
Side yard setback (5')
Request: 2' variance
Request to add onto garage, which would extend 2' into side yard
selback.
,ard setback (35' across from industrial, along
9 Avenue)
Request: 1' variance
_R_equest to build new home 1' into side yard setback.
Side yard selback (10')
Request: 5' variance
Request to add a family room to existing home with basement,
into the setback.
Side yard setback (5')
Request: 2' variance
Request to add bedroom above garage, which would extend 2' into
(10')
Request: 3' variance
Requesl to add onto existing home
Side yard setback (20' corner lot)
Request: 3' variance
Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 3' into side
ard~ner lot) setback.
Side yard selback (5')
Request: 2' variance
Request to add a 2-story addition, including tuck-under garage and
!iving__area above.
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
PC - Approved 1'
CC - Approved 2'
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
PC -approved 1'
CC- approved 2'
PC: 6 for
1 against
2 absent
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
Building materials to match.
Roof pitch to be 3.5/12
Garage dimensions to be 26' wide by 30' long
Building materials to match existing.
PC: 6 for
1 excused
CC: unanimous
PC: 5 for
t abstain
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: 3 for
1 against
unanimous
CC: unanimous
Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Roof & building materials Io match existing structure.
Roof & building materials to match existing structure,
Roof & building materials to match existing structure..
Drainage not adversely impact neighbors.
Lot survey be consislent.
Roof & building materials to malch existing structure~
Extend chain link fence belween houses.
Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
PC: 4 for
1 against
CC: unanimous
unanimous
CC:unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
Roof & building materials to match existing structure,
CC: unanimous
1' unanimous
CC: 2' unanimous
building materials to match existing structure.
84 -08
Richard & Palricia Bruins
7251 40~h Avenue
83-55
P.O. Dotson
2701 Quebec Avenue
83-48
,Joseph Forrer
4633 Rhode Island Avenue
83-35
Charles & Phyllis Horton
3204 Gettysburg
83-30
Joseph Buslovich
3530 Yukon Avenue
83-26
Larry & Carol Adams
5200 Ore~n. Avenue
83-09
Thomas Gagnon
6025 Sumter Place
83-04
Vernon Stuhr
5635 Wisconsin Avenue
82-38
William & Jacqueline Sheperd
8501 28"' Avenue
82-29
Robert Yunker, 4606 Boone
Martin Kvasnik, 4612 Boone
RESIDENTIAL FRONT/SIDE/REAR YARD VARIANCES --- 1980 - TO
Side yard setback (10')
Request: 4' variance
Request to construct a screened porch at rear of house which is
~ !he side__~L~.rd and would extend 4' into side yard.
Side yard setback (5')
Request: 1 Y2' variance
Request !0 add onto garage, which would exlend 1 ¼' into setback.
Side yard setback (5')
Request: 3' variance
Request to add onto garage, which would extend 3' into setback.
Side yard (10') & rear yard (35) setback
Request: 2' side & 3' rear yard variance
Request to add 3-season porch to rear of house, which extends 2'
inlo the side yard and 3' to rear yard.
Side yard variance (5')
Request: 2'9" variance
Variance was granted 3' variance in 1980, after survey by neighbor,
he should have requested 2'3" variance as lhe sidewalk and a shed
are Iocaled on neighbor's property.
Side yard variance (10') and front yard variance (30')
Request: 5' side & 5' front
Request !o construct double garage.
Side yard setback (10')
Request: 4.25' variance with overhang 2.25' from property line.
Request to conslrucl an addition onto existing home. Council
recommended that addition be flush along rear of house so that the
variance be less than original plan.
Side yard setback variances for stairway and wing walls already
constructed.
Side yard setback (20' on corner lot)
Request: 8.4' variance
Request to build 3-season porch onto existing house 8.4' into 20'
~ired for corner Iot~ 1.8'.
Side yard variance (5')
Request: Both parties requesting 5' variance to construct a
concrete apron up to the property line at both residences & 4606
Boone requesting variance to park recreational vehicle on cement
pad to within 3' of property tine.
Approved PC: unanimous
6/5/84 - PC CC: unanimous
6/11/84 - CC
Approved PC: unanimous
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC no minutes in files
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PRESENT 3
Roof & building materials 1o match existing structure.
Roof & building materials to match existing struclure;
Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Structure should be only 20' so overhang is 2' from lot
line.
Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Remove existing shed.
2'3" variance, move shed at back of properly, take out
1'1" of sidewalk, take care of water problem, work to
be done in 30 days.
PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
CC: unanimous
PC: 4 for
3 against
CC: 4 for
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
82-21
Frederick Starke
4042 Oregon Avenue
82-20
Joel Olson
8833 31st Avenue
81-58
Sukhender Natb
8717 30th Avenue
81-52
Roger & Janice Fechner
4700 Independence
81-34
Beverly Cooper
3433 Hillsboro Avenue
81-27
Harold Lund
4617 Hillsboro Avenue
81-11
Kenneth Kline
3551 Wisconsin Avenue
81-02
Frank Dahlen
7301 40m Avenue
80-59
Myron & Betty Kjos
3837 Hillsboro Avenue
RESIDENTIAL FRONT~SIDE~REAR YARD VARIANCES --- 1980 -TO PRESENT
de yard setback (5')
Request: 3' variance
Request 1o construct a 2-car detached garage to within 2' ol side
, line.
yard selback (5')
Request: 5' variance
Request lo add onto existing garage right up to Ihe lot line at the
rear corner ~
:(5')
Request; 3' variance
Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 2' from
Side yard setback (20' on corner)
Request: 4'11"' variance
to add onto existing garage leaving a 15'1" setback along
uires 20'.
yard setback (5')
Request: 4' variance
Request to add onto existing garage, which would exlend 1' from
'line.
Side yard setback (5')
Request: 1' variance
Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 4' from
Side yard setback (35' along ~ Avenue)
Request: 10' variance
Request to convert existing garage into living space and build new
2-car garage which would extend 10' into the 35' side yard setback
~ h Avenue.
Side yard setbac~ (10')
Request: 3' variance
Request Io add family room on to existing home, which would
e~xtend 3' into lhe 10' setback.
Side (20') & rear yard variance (35')
Request: 2' side yard & 5.5' rear yard variance
Lot line is somewhat at an angle to new garage and half the garage
is over the side setback by 2' and lhe rear exlends into Ihe rear
selback by 5,5 feet
Approved
]roved
PC: 6 for
1 abstain
CC: unanimous
PC: 4 for
3 against
CC: unanimous
Approved PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
No minules in file.
Roof & building materials to match existing structure,
Roof & building materials 1o match existing siructure.
Overhang cannot extend over property line.
& building malerials to match existing struclure.
Approved PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
Approved PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
Approved PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
Approved PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
Approved PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
Roof & building materials to match existing slructure.
building materials to malch existing struclure.
Roof & building materials to match existing slructure.
Roof & building materials to match existing slructurei:
Roof and building materials to match existing
structure.
RESIDENTIAL FRONT/SIDE/REAR YARD VARIANCES --- 1980- TO PRESENT
Approved
80-47
Daniel Hanka
3625 Getlysburg Avenue
80-40
Elroy Meyer
Side yard variance (5' garage)
Request: 2' variance
Request Io add on large addition, garage and I v ng area which
leaves only 3' from properly line at one corn~,r o1' home.
-~ide yard v~'iance (5'garage)
Request: 5' variance
Approved
Approved
PC:unanimous
CC:unanimous
PC: unanimous --
CC: unanimous
PC: 6 for
Roof and building materials to match existing
structure.
Roof and building materials to match existing
struclure.
Curb cut moved by City so driveway does not
5832 Cavell Avenue
80-34
Linne Johnson
3022 Boone Avenue
80-27
Roy Lindgren
3600 Jordan Avenue
80-13
Cooper/Herman
4200 Flag Avenee
80-12
Cooper/Herman
4208 Flag Avenue
Request lo keep driveway rigl~t up to the property line as it was for
past 19 years. Want to pave df'iveway and at the boulevard it
.e. ncroaches onto the neighbors land.
Side yard setback (10')
Request: 2' variance
Add a 2' x 5' alcove to dining room, which would exlend out 2' into
the 10' side yard setback
Side yard setback (35' for major arterial street - 36~" Avenue)
Request: 4' variance
Want to add onto the garage into Ihe 35' side yard setback by 4',
which would leave 31'
Side yard setback (10')
Request: 3' variance
Houses were built too close together in cul-de-sac & one corner of
each house does not meet requirement
Side yard setback (10')
Request: 5' variance
Houses were built too close together in cul-de-sac & one corner of
each house does not meet requirement
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
1 against
CC: unanimous
PC:unanimous
CC:unanimous
PC:unanimous--
CC:unanimous
PC:unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC:unanimous
CC:unanimous
encroach on neighboring land when paved.
Roof and building materials to match existing structure
Remove existing fence, building malerials to match
A removable gateway section be installed in fence to
allow for fire protection.
A removable gateway section be installed in fence to
allow for fire protection.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG
A B C D E F G H I J
Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City
cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response
number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant
Address by City that required expires expires of under application
Phone information extension extension
was missing or waiver
04-12 Loren Stegman 4/9/04 6/8/04 8/7/04
8233 39th venue North
New Hope, MN 55427
763-545-8117
18-118-21-41-0122
Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application.
A. Assign each application a number.
B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
C. List the date the City received the application.
D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the
date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line.
To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
The City must act before the deadline.. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or,. if applicable, Box H.)
List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before
the time limit expires.
Planning Case:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
Meeting Date:
Report Date:
04-13
Derrick Slagle
6024 Hillsboro Avenue North
Side Yard Setback Variance
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
May 4, 2004
April 30, 2004
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting a five-foot variance to the 10-foot side yard setback requirement to allow
construction of a living space addition above a garage addition, pursuant to Sections 4-5(f)(4) and 4-36
of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
II. Zoning Code References
R-l, Single Family Residential - Lot Requirements - Setbacks
Administrative - Variance
Section 4-5(0(4)
Section 4-36
Property Specifications
· Zoning:
Location:
Adjacent Land Uses:
Site Area:
Building Area:
Lot Area Ratios:
Planning District:
Specific Information:
III.
R-l, Single Family Residential
On the north side of Hillsboro Avenue approximately 600 feet north of the
intersection of Hillsboro and 60th avenues
Single family properties in all directions
Slightly irregular rectangle lot contains 11,852 sq. ft.
Existing building:
Proposed addition:
Green area:
Building area:
Hard surface area:
1,144 square feet
308 square feet
Current - 85.92%
Current - 9.65%
Current - 4.43%
Proposed - 82.31%
Proposed - 12.25%
Proposed - 5.44%
No. 1; The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the single-family homes in this
district are in good to excellent condition. To maintain and enhance the Iow
density residential land uses, the city will promote private reinvestment in the
housing stock.
The subject single-family home is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential. The
home has an existing two car tuck under garage. A tree exists in the rear yard
and the owner notes in the narrative that they do not want to remove the tree
to facilitate an addition in the rear yard. The engineer stated that no
easements are located in the expansion area and will review grading and
drainage with the building official upon plan review.
Planning Case Report 04-13 Page 1 4/30/04
IV. Background
V=
The owner is requesting a five foot variance to the 10 foot side yard setback
to allow for the construction of living space above an attached garage. The
zoning ordinance permits attached garages within five feet of the side
property line. Living space is required to be 10 feet from the side yard
property line.
The applicant is requesting a five foot variance to the side yard setback to allow the construction of a
308 square foot (11' x 28') addition onto the east side of their home located at 6024 Hilisboro Avenue
North. The addition will include a tuck under garage with living space above. The addition will match the
existing home in building material and style.
The subject site consists of an existing single-family dwelling, which is centered on the lot, 30 feet from
the front lot line. The existing home is 16 feet from both the east and west property line at its closest
points. The applicant currently has a two stall, tuck under garage along the eastern side of the home.
An attached garage is considered an integral part of the principal building. Subsection 4-3 (b)(6)(a) of
the ordinance allows attached garages to encroach into the required side yard setback (10 feet) within
five feet of the lot line. Because the proposed addition includes a second floor living area, it is subject to
the 10 foot setback requirement and the need for the five foot setback variance.
The city manager reviewed the proposal and was supportive of the request.
The following approvals are necessary for this project to proceed:
1. Variance for side yard setback encroachment.
2. Administrative permit for side yard setback encroachment.
Petitioner's Comments
The petitioner submitted a narrative with his plans on April 23 which states:
"We are applying for a variance with the city in order to build an addition onto our home. This letter is
our attempt to relate why we need the variance.
When we moved in six year ago, it was just the two of us. The house was all we had hoped for and fit
our needs quite well. The only drawback, minor at the time, was a minimum of storage space. Our
house has a tuck under garage that takes away nearly half of the living space in the bottom half of the
house. This cuts down on both living space and storage space.
We now have a two-year-old running around, and hopes for a little brother or sister for Jordan in the
near future, we find ourselves bursting at the seams of our home. If we are blessed with another child,
we will have to convert our one combination spare bedroom/storage room into strictly a bedroom, thus
using up all available rooms. Closet space in the "kids" rooms is so small that only the current season's
clothing can be kept there. Clothes for the rest of the year have to be packed away in the garage. Then
when you add in all the things necessary to care for a baby/toddler as well as toys for them to play with,
we have nowhere to hold it all.
Our solution is to extend the house by 11 feet to the east, adding a garage stall on the bottom with living
space above it. This will give us another bedroom, more closet space, and much more storage in the
garage. Our home is currently 16 feet away from the property line. The addition would put it at five feet
from the line, requiring a five foot variance. The current code would allow the garage stall to be added
but not the living space above it. They have looked at other options. It would not be practical to build off
the rear of the house due to the existence of a very large, old maple tree. We would be forced to
remove the tree and do not want to lose the beauty, shade, and natural setting it provides.
Planning Case Report 04-13 Page 2 4/30/04
Our plan is to make the addition appear seamless with the existing house. Anyone seeing the house for
the first time would think that it was all built at the same time. We are taking great care to make sure it
does not look like it was added after-the-fact. Shingles will match those existing. If this is not possible
due to fading, we will re-shingle the entire roof. Siding for the entire house will be redone with
maintenance free vinyl, thus ensuring the entire exterior of the house matches.
We feel it will improve the value of not only our property, but those of the homeowners around us. By
taking such care to make the addition blend with the original house and not impose upon our neighbors
lot, we feel that it will certainly not take away from the attractiveness of our neighborhood, but will add to
it.
We have talked at length with our neighbors who are directly impacted by the addition. Dan and Julie
McAlister live next door to us at 6018. Their only concern was whether we would have a window facing
their home, since we currently do not. They have written an email (attached) on our behalf stating their
support of our addition. David and Lisa Bramwell live directly across the street from us at 6013
Hillsboro. We have spent much time discussing the best way for us to add on. In fact, David has even
joined in, helping us a great deal in finding our lot corners. They have also written a letter on our behalf
(attached), advocating our decision to build on.
We ultimately hired an engineering firm to survey our property and mark the corner posts. Upon
completion, we were able to confidently locate the property lines and ensure that the house is 16 feet
away at its nearest point on the east line.
In closing, we like to say that without the addition, we would be forced to move in order to find a bigger
house. We love our neighborhood and would love to stay here for many years raising our family."
On April 21, 2004, Mr. Slagle sent an email in follow up to the Design and Review meeting and changes
made on the plans, which states:
· "From our meeting with the Design and Review Committee, I took their suggestion and went from a 10-
foot addition (with a four-foot variance request) to an 11 foot addition (with a five-foot request). After
spending some time with a contractor talking about actual construction ideas, I changed the length from
26 to 28 feet. This is being done to match up with the two-foot cantilever on the back (north) side of the
house. It is simply easier, and more importantly, better structurally integrity to have the Icad bearing wall
directly underneath, rather than have the cantilever hang off the end. The change from 26 to 28 feet
has no impact on the request for variance, just in the final construction phase. But I wanted to make you
aware of it because the consultant refers to the 10 by 26 addition in his document, so that would have
to be changed.'
"The other changes the committee recommended and I completed were:
1. Draw in where the change to the driveway will be
2. Say that the singles will match (I also said that if they couldn't match because of facing, the entire
room would be re-done)
3. Say that siding would be consistent with the rest of the house (I will re-do the entire house in vinyl)
4. I also added to my letter that we can't build off the back because of a large maple tree that would
have to be removed. This is the "hardship" that one of the committee members was looking for."
VI. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments,
however the property owner submitted the two attached letters of support for the project. One letter of
support was submitted by the neighbor directly impacted to the east at 6018 Hillsboro Avenue North.
VII. Development Analysis
Planning Case Report 04-13 Page 3 4~30/04
Zoninq Code Criteria
Variance
The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code
to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a
specific parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under
consideration and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent
of this Code.
An application for variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the
variance will result in undue hardship on the applicant, and, as may be applicable, the following criteria
have been met:
1. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property and results in
exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of
this Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or
topographic or similar conditions unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardship also includes
inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall
not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this
Code.
2. The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not
generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district.
3. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner
or any previous owner.
4. Additional Criteria. The application for variance shall also meet the following criteria:
1. It will not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially
increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the
public safety.
3. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship.
4. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district.
The planner's report addresses these criteria, as related to this request as follows:
1. Does hardship exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property that results in
exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot?
Comment: Due to the existing location of the home (centered on the lot), a living area addition
of only six feet in width could be constructed on either side of the home (to meet the 10 foot
side yard setback requirement). While this presents an inconvenience to the applicant, it does
not represent a genuine hardship as a rear yard living area addition is possible.
2. In order for the city to approve the necessary variance, a finding must be made that the
proposed action will not adversely affect the site or surrounding area.
Comment: The ordinance allows attached garages to be constructed up to 5 feet from a side
lot line. Considering this, the proposed second story living area addition would basically result
in a side building elevation of greater height.
The goals of the city's Comprehensive Plan promote re-investment in the city's housing stock.
This type of reinvestment should add value to the neighborhood and increase the livability of
the home.
Planning Case Report 04-13 Page 4 4~30/04
As shown on the submitted building elevations, the addition is to match the finish materials and
rooflines of the existing home. Further, no windows are proposed on the east side of the
structure. Thus, the addition is considered well designed.
To be noted is that the neighbor's home to the east has one window on the west side. Thus,
the proposed addition will be visible from inside the neighbor's residence. Per the attached
correspondence, the applicant's neighbors, in particular the property owners of the lot abutting
the east lot, do not however have an issue with the proposed addition.
3. Would such a variance allow the property owners any special privilege which would be denied
to other lands and structures?
Comment: While it is not believed the proposed addition would adversely impact the area,
some concern does exist in regard to the precedent established. If the city wishes to allow
setback exceptions to living areas constructed above attached garages, a re-evaluation of the
ordinance requirements may wish to be considered. If approved, staff plans to bring this issue
forward at an upcoming Codes and Standards meeting.
4. Is the vadance being requested, the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship?
Comment: The necessary width of single stall garage addition (11 feet) dictates the requested
setback for the second story living area. While opportunities do exist to construct a rear yard
living addition, the requested side yard variance (5 feet) is the minimum necessary to eliminate
the hardship.
The New Hope Comprehensive Plan encourages residential reinvestment. The applicant plans to
upgrade their home with additional garage space and living area. With respect to the variance, the
applicant must demonstrate that the proposal meets the hardship criteria of the zoning code.
Development Review Team
The Development Review Team met to review the plans and was supportive of the addition.
Comments included: revise south elevation to show there would be no window installed, other
window size to be verified with building official, building materials to match existing, and show width
of driveway.
Desi.qn and Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee discussed the plans with the applicant on April 15 and
discussed the same issues. The Design and Review Committee questioned if 10 feet was wide
enough for an additional garage stall and encouraged the owner to revise his plan to show an 11
foot garage. The plans have been revised to show an 11 foot wide garage. Revised plans were
submitted as a result of those meetings.
Plan Description
Per Design and Review comments the applicant made the following changes to the plan:
1. Showed driveway expansion on the site plan.
2. Stated in the narrative that the shingles will match.
3. Stated in the narrative that the siding will be replaced around the entire home.
4. Stated in narrative that a large maple tree exists in the rear yard that would be required to be
removed if the expansion was redesigned.
5. Redesigned project from a 10 foot addition (with a four-foot variance request) to an 11 foot
addition (with a five-foot variance request).
Planning Case Report 04-13 Page 5 4/30/04
6. The owner changed the length of the expansion from 26 to 28 feet to match up with the two foot
cantilever on the back (north) side of the house. The change does not affect the side yard
variance request.
Additional Description
1. Garage/expansion Dimensions: The garage/expansion will extend 11 feet toward the east
property line and five feet from the nearest portion of the garage. Living space is proposed
above the garage, therefore the five foot variance is being requested. The expansion is
proposed to be 28 feet in length. The total square footage of the expansion is 308 square feet.
2. Elevations:
Front (south): An 8' x 6'-6" overhead door is proposed for the new garage, consistent with
existing 2 car garage. The garage will be 11 feet in width and 28 feet in length. A double window
is proposed above the garage door to match the existing windows on the front elevation. A
single window is proposed for the rear. The owner stated in the narrative that the siding would
be replaced around the entire home.
Rear (north): The applicant is proposing to extend the expansion two feet north to match up with
the two-foot cantilever on the back side of the house. A service door is proposed at the rear of
the garage.
Side (east): Per the east neighbor and Design and Review's request, no windows are proposed
for the eastern side of the home.
Side (west): No changes are proposed.
3. Drainage: The city engineer and building official will review grading and drainage upon plan
review.
'E. Planning Considerations
Excerpts from the planning consultant's report have been included in this report and the full report is
attached for reference purposes.
F. Building Considerations
The building official reviewed the plans and supports the five foot variance request. Final
construction plans and building permit will be subject to the building official's approval.
G. Engineering Considerations
The city engineer stated that no easements are located in the expansion area (please see attached
plat map) and will review grading and drainage with the building official upon plan review.
H. Police Considerations
The police department was involved in the review of the plans.
I. Fire Considerations
West Metro Fire-Rescue District was involved in the review of the plans.
VIII. Summary
In examining the requested variance, the City Council is asked to determine whether a variance is
justified based on criteria established by the Planning Commission and the Zoning Ordinance. Attached,
please find a list of previous variances considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. Side
yard variances have been approved in the past on a case-by-case basis.
The subject addition is well designed and consistent with the directive of the Comprehensive Plan to
encourage re-investment of the city's residential housing stock. In developing ideas for this proposal,
Planning Case Report 04-13 Page 6 4/30/04
the property owner utilized the recently completed city-sponsored planbook, Split Visions, A Planbook
for Remodeling Ideas for Split-Level and Split-Entry Houses. Finally, this proposal has brought forward
the issue of adding living space above attached garages and its relationship to the setbacks. If
approved, staff plans to bring this item forward to a Codes and Standards committee meeting in the
near future to determine is an amendment to the Zoning Code is needed.
IX. Recommendation
In consideration of the variance request, two options are offered by the planning consultant:
1. Approval of the request based on the following findings:
a. The New Hope Comprehensive Plan encourages reinvestment in the city's residential housing
stock.
b. The ground level garage width (which meets the applicable setback requirements) dictated the
width of the living area addition. In this regard, the vadance is the minimum encroachment
required.
c. Approval of the variance will not adversely affect the site or the surrounding area.
d. A significant maple tree is located to the rear of the proposed addition and the owner is not
desirous of removing the tree to facilitate an expansion into the rear yard.
e. The neighbor most impacted by the proposal submitted a letter supporting the project.
f. The proposed addition meets all the other performance requirements for the R-1 district.
2. Denial of the request based on the following findings:
a. There is no physical hardship unique to the property that prevents a living area addition in an
alternate location.
b. The proposed variance would result in a two story structure being located 5 feet from a side lot
line thus altering the character of the neighborhood.
Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the following conditions:
1. Exterior building materials to match.
2. Review and approval of plans by the building official.
Also, staff recommends that Codes and Standards review this issue with Design and Review for a
possible text amendment.
Attachments: Addess/ZoningFFopo/Aerial Maps
Petitioner Correspondence
Neighbor Correspondence
Photographs
Certificate of Survey
Site Plan - Revised
Scale Drawing of Building/Proposed Expansion
Floorplan
Section Plan
South Elevation
East Elevation
North Elevation
West Elevation
Plat Map
Planner's Report
Planning Case Report 04-13 Page 7 4/30~04
Previous Variance List
Application Log
Planning Case Report 04-13 Page 8 4/30/04
r
¢'~ ~ 6055
~LI'I ~ 604~
604~
· 6o~7
[] 6031
6108
61ST CIR. N
HIL
6072
60~8
6032
60TI
594.6
5961
5955
5921
5917
5960 5955
5928 5949
LIBERT~
9015
PARK
5909
Correspondence Submitted in SuppoA of
Variance
1. 6018 HillsboroAve. N.
2. 6013 Hillsboro Ave. N.
MEADOW
LAKE
E LEMENTAI:~
H ~ L L SBORo
!
X 883.4
o~
;
885.$
<3
~90.5
6024 Hillsboro Ave N
New Hope, MN 55428
Apdl 21,2004
Dear New Hope City Council:
We are applying for a vadance with the dty in order to build an addition on to our home. This
letter is our attempt to relate why we feel we need the variance.
When we moved in 6 years ago, it was just the two of us, Klm and Derrick. The house was
all we had hoped for and fit our needs quite well. The only drawback, minor at the time, was
a minimum of storage space. Our house has a tuck-under garage that takes away neady half
of the living space in the bottom half of the house. This cuts down on both living space and
storage space.
Now that we have an almost 2-year old running areund, and hopes for a little brother or sister
for Jordan in the near future, we find ourselves bursting at the seams of our home. If we are
blessed with another child, we will have to convert our one combination spare
bedroom/storage room into stdctly a bedroom, thus using up all available rooms. Closet
space in the "kids" rooms is so small that only the current season's clothing can be kept
there. Clothes for the rest of the year have to be packed away in the garage. Then when
you add in all the things necessary to care for a baby/toddler as well as toys for them to play
with, we have nowhere to hold it all.
Our solution is to extend the house by 11 feet to the East, adding a garage stall on the bottom
and living space above it. This will give us another bedroom, more closet space, and much
more storage space in the garage. Our home currently is 16 feet away from the property line.
The addition would put it at 5 feet from the line, requiring a 5 foot variance. The current code
would allow the garage stall to be added, but not the living space above it. We have looked
at other construction options. It would not be practical to build off the rear of our house due to
the existence of a very large, old maple tree. We would be forced to remove the tree and do
not want to lose the beauty, shade, and natural setting it provides.
Our plan is to make the addition appear seamless with the existing house. Anyone seeing
the house for the first time would think that it was all built at the same time. We are taking
great care to make sure it does not look like it was added on after-the-fact. Shingles will
match those existing. If this is not possible due to fading, we will re-shingle the entire roof.
Siding for the entire house will be redone with maintenance-free vinyl, thus ensuring the
entire exterior of the house matches.
We feel it will improve the value of not only our property, but those of the homeowners
areund us. By taking such care to make the addition blend with the original house and not
impose upon our neighbors lot, we feel that it will certainly not take away from the
attractiveness of our neighborhood, but will add to it.
We have talked at length with our neighbors who are directly impacted by the addition. Dan
and Julie McAlister live next door to us at 6018. Their only concem was whether we would
have a window facing their home, since we currently do not. We have no plans on having a
window on that side of the house facing them. They have wdtten an email (attached) on our
behalf stating their support of our addition. Dave and Lisa Bramwell live directly across the
street from us at 6013. We have spent much time discussing the best way for us to add on.
· Page 2 Apdl 21,2004
In fact, Dave has even joined in, helping us a great deal in finding our lot comers. They have
also written a letter on our behalf (attached), advocating our decision to build on.
We ultimately hired an engineering firm to survey our property and mark the comer posts.
Upon completion, we were able to confidently locate the property lines and ensure that the
house is 16 feet away at its nearest point on the East line.
In closing, we like to say that without the addition, we would be forced to move in order to find
a bigger house. We love our neighborhood and would love to stay here for many years
· raising our family.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Kim and Derrick Slagle
763-537-2217
Page 1 of 1
McDonald Kirk
From: Slagle, Derrick [DSlagle@ACNielsen.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:49 AM
To: McDonald Kirk
Subject: Slagle variance
Hi Kirk. Just wanted to drop you a quick note and outline the changes I've made to my variance application. I'm
going to drop the 15 copies off this morning if I can get out of the office soon. Otherwise it'll be right after lunch.
From our meeting with the design and review committee, I took their suggestion and went from a 10 foot addition
(with a 4 foot variance request) to an 11 foot addition (with a 5 foot request). After spending some time with a
contractor talking about actual construction ideas, I changed the length from 26 feet to 28 feet. This is being done
to match up with the 2 foot cantilever on the back (north) side of the house. It's simply easier, and more
importantly, better structural integrity to have the load bearing wall directly underneath, rather than have the
cantilever hang off the end. The change for 26 to 28 feet has no impact on the request for variance, just in the
final construction phase. But I wanted to make you aware of it because the consultant refers to the 10 x 26
addition in his document, so that would have to be changed.
The other changes the committee recommended and I completed were:
draw in where the change to the driveway will be
- say that the shingles will match (I also said that if they couldn't match because of fading, the entire roof
would be re-done)
- say that siding would be consistent with the rest of the house (I will re-do the entire house in vinyl)
- I also added to my letter that we can't build off the back because of a large maple tree that would have to
be removed. This is the "hardship" that one of the committee members was looking for.
That should be everything. Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. It's easiest to reach me
on my cell at 763-218-6172.
Thanks
Derrick
4/21/04
~rick
Fro.q~:
To:
Sent:
· Subjeot:
,,j, ,ji~ MrcA~i-..J~er" ~m~a!~ter! !.@ya,h,,~--,m.C~r~'-q~,,->
"Derrick Slagle" <derrickslagle@comcast.net>
Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:50 PM
Re: friendly note
Apri! 7~ 2004
To Whom It May Concern:
We are writing a letter on behalf of Kim and Derrick Slagle. The Slagle's want to build an
addition onto their house and the addition would be built 10feet closer to our home. We have
spoken to the S!agle's aboUt their plans for the addition and we support their decision to build
onto their existing home. We hope that this letter will help the Slagle family to-continue to live
in our neighborhood. They have been great neighbors in the short time that we have lived
here and we would hate to see them leave.
If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to call us.
Sincerely,
and Julie McAlister
6018 Hillsboro Ave N
New Hope, MN
763-533-0042
417/2004
7 April, 2004
To whom it may concern:
We, David and Lisa Bramwell, residents of 6013 Hillsboro Avenue North, New Hope,
Minnesota, acknowledge that the residents of 6024 Hillsboro Avenue North, New Hope,
Minnesota are planning to construct an addition to the east of their existing home. This
improvement will enhance the front elevation of the home and increase the property
value. We have no objection to the proposed construction. We believe that homeowners
in this community should be allowed the oppommity to improve on their property as
opposed to the option of moving to a different community. We value our neighbors and
would advocate their decision.
Sincerely,
David and Lisa Bramwell
6013 Hillsboro Avenue North
New ~Iope, Minnesota, 55428
WI LLIAM A. CARESOI~I, El/ES.
2324 WEST 1,10th STREET
888-2084
55431
SURVEY FOR~
ALAN CONSTRUCTION Co.
CERTIFICATE oF SURVEY
LAND SURVEYORS
Licensed, Insured & Bonded
LEGAL DESCRIPTION; LOT 9~ BLOCK 5~ ALL-AN HILLS,
ti~E HEREBY' CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESEIdTATIOlli
OF A SU. RVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND ABOVE DES~CRIBE-D AN]:)' OF'
THE LOCATION O'F ALL BUlLDINGS~ IF AN¥~ THEREOI~ AND ALL VISIBLE
ENCROACHMENTS~ IF' ANY~ FROM OR ON SAID LAI~D~ AS SURVEY.ED BY US
THIS 15TH DAY OF MARCH~
1973.
Garage
44'..0 .......
1st Floor View
Fc.~ ~.~ I%
2R x 36.00'T
14'-0" (Rail)
DECK
.LO0'O~ x ~
4',0"
la'-o"
21'-8"'
1 I'-0'"
Walk-in Closet
!'.9~
22'-6'
..... ~'-o .....
Bedroom
2nd Floor View
;;
15'7,55 "~
IGO-
W'O~O0'
HILLSBORO$
7 ~
'"500"'
/
/
13't,
r
~~~ST~i~~ ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St, Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 plannersc~nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Bob Kirmis / Alan Brixius
April 29, 2004
New Hope - Slagle Side Yard Setback Variance
131.01 - 04.12
Background
Derrick Slagle is requesting a five foot variance to the side yard setback requirement to
allow the construction of a 308 square foot (11' x 28') addition to his home located at
6024 Hillsboro Avenue. The addition would be located on the east side of the home
and would include a tuck under garage with living space above. The proposed addition
would match the existing home in building material and style.
While the ordinance makes an allowance for attached garages to encroach upon the
required 10 foot side yard setback, the same allowance is not provided for living area.
The subject site is zoned R-l, single family residential,
Attached for Reference:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Site Plan
Project Description Narrative
First Floor Plan
Second Floor Plan
Analysis
Existing Conditions. The site is presently occupied by a single family dwelling which
is centered on the lot, located 30 feet from the front lot line and 16 feet from the east
and west property lines (side yards). The home currently has a two stall, tuck under
garage along the eastern side of the home.
Setback Requirement. An attached garage is considered an integral part of the
principal building. Subsection 4-3 (b)(6)(a) of the ordinance allows attached garages to
encroach into the required side yard setback (10 feet) within five feet of the lot line.
Because the proposed addition includes a second floor living area, it is subject to the 10
foot setback requirement and the need for the five foot setback variance.
Variance Evaluation Criteria. Section 4.36 of the ordinance establishes that the
applicant must satisfy the following criteria for hardship:
1. Does hardship exist be reason of physical condition unique to the property
that results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot?
Comment: Due to the existing location of the home (centered on the lot), a living
area addition of only six feet in width could be constructed on either side of the home
(to meet the 10 foot side yard setback requirement). While this presents an
inconvenience to the applicant, it does not represent a genuine hardship as a rear
yard living area addition is possible.
2. In order for the City to approve the variance, a finding must be made that
the proposed action will not adversely affect the site or surrounding area.
Comment: The ordinance allows attached garages to be constructed up to 5 feet
from a side lot line. Considering this, the proposed second story living area addition
would basically result in a side building elevation of greater height.
The goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan promote re-investment in the City's
housing stock. This type of reinvestment should add value to the neighborhood and
increase the livability of the home.
As shown on the submitted building elevations, the addition is to match the finish
materials and rooflines of the existing home. Further, no windows are proposed on
the east side of the structure. Thus, the addition is considered well designed.
To be noted is that the neighbor's home to the east has one window on the west
side. Thus, the proposed addition will be visible from inside the neighbor's
residence. The applicants neighbors, in particular the property owners of the lot
abutting east lot, do not however, have an issue with the proposed addition.
3. Would approval of the variance confer on the applicant any special
privileges that would be denied to other lands?
Comment: While it is not believed the proposed addition would adversely impact
the area, some concern does exist in regard to the precedent established. If the City
wishes to allow setback exceptions to living areas constructed above attached
garages, a re-evaluation of the ordinance requirements may wish to be considered.
4. Is the variance being requested the minimum action required to eliminate
the hardship?
Comment: The necessary width of single stall garage addition (11 feet) dictates the
requested setback for the second story living area. While opportunities do exist to
construct a rear yard living addition, the requested side yard variance (five feet) is
the minimum necessary to eliminate the hardship.
Design and Review Committee. The Design and Review Committee reviewed the
variance application at their April 15, 2005 meeting and indicated an inclination to
approve the request.
Recommendation
The proposed addition is well designed and consistent with a directive of the
Comprehensive Plan to encourage re-investment in the City's residential housing stock.
Whether or not the request satisfies the variance evaluation criteria of the ordinance is
considered a policy decision to be determined by City Officials. In this regard the
following action alternatives are offered:
A. Denial of the variance request based on the following findings:
There is no physical hardship unique to the property that prevents a
living area addition in an alternate location.
The proposed variance would result in a two story structure being
located 6 feet form a side lot line thus altering the character of the
neighborhood.
B. Approval of the request based on the following findings:
The New Hope Comprehensive Plan encourages reinvestment in the.
City's residential housing stock.
The ground level garage width (which meets applicable setback
requirements) dictates the width of the living area addition. In this
regard, the variance is the minimum encroachment required.
Approval of the variance will not adversely affect the site or the
surrounding area.
3
The proposed addition meets all other performance requirements for
the R-1 district.
pc.
Roger Axel
Steve Sandral
Vince Vandertop
Derrick Slagle
4
RESIDENTIAL FRONT/SIDE/REAR YARD VARIANCES--- 1980- TO PRESENT
03-11
Kurt Klipstein
4053 Nevada Avenue
03-05
Susan Pteilsticker
3853 Hillsboro Avenue
02-21
Joel Stockton
8700 61 Y~ Avenue
02-09
Gary 8, Faith Novitsky
4404 Independence Avenue
01-08
Timothy Preimesberger
5841 Cavell Avenue
00-15
Timothy & Arnetta Glum
5307 Pennsylvania Avenue
99-13
Robed & Janet White
8948 Nodhwood Parkway
98-20
Richard & Liane Shive
8489 N. Meadow Lake Road
96-29
Jon Arnoldy
3532 Ensign Avenue
Front yard setback
Request: 5' variance on front
Request to construct 22' x 20' attached garage to front of house to
be located 20' to property line
Front yard setback (25') and curb cut
Request: 8' variance on front and curb cut closer than 40' to
intersection
Request to construct 23' x 29' attached garage and move driveway
curb cut closer to intersection
Side yard setback corner lot (25') and rear (25')
Request: 9.6' variance on side and 1' on rear
~ construct 26' x 28' attached arcj.~.[~g~ to side of home
Rear yard setback (25')
Request: 5' variance
Request to construct 15' x 15' 2-story addition to home 20' front rear
yard property line
Side yard setback (10')
Request: 3' variance
Request to construct a 620 SF expansion onto existing home 7'
~ line
Side yard setback (5')
Request: 2' variance
Request to construct an attached 2-car garage 3' from the property
line
Front yard setback (30')
Request: 6' variance
Request to construct 6' addition to the front of garage and front entry
to accommodate a second story to be loCated 24' from front property
line
Side yard setback (5')
Request: 2' variance
Request to construct 22' x 26' garage onto existing house extending
2 feet into the side yard setback
Side yard setback (10')
Request: 7' variance
Request to construct 2-story addition to home extending 7' into side
pard setback
PC: Approved PC: 6 for, 1 against
CC: Denied CC: unanimous
Approved PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
PC:unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC:unanimousl0'addn.
CC: unanimous12'addn.
Too great a variance for front yard
Building materials to match existing.
Comply with code on plantings in sight triangle.
Building materials to match existing.
Driveway width
Submit det~ans for bu~ermit
Building materials to match existing.
Submit detailed construction plans at time of obtaining
building permit.
Demo detached garage and foundation.
Su,bmit grading/drainage plan for City Engineer
review.
Gutter & downspout on west side of garage.
Building materials to match house.
Driveway to taper to street,
~all on south~line.
None
Building materials to match.
Work out drainage issues with neighbor.
Council approved 12' addition.
Building materials to match.
RESID
.... 'L"r-I~l I I/'~L r-r~ul~l I/~IUI=/I~I-AN YARD VARIANCES --- 1980 - TO PRESENT~
96-28 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: 6 for
Doug Norwick Request: 1' variance Building materials to match.
1 against Roof pitch to be 3.5/12
4057 Boone Avenue Request to demolish existing 1-car garage and construct new 2 absent Garage dimensions to be 26' wide by 30' long
attached 2-car garage to extend t' into side yard setback
96-18 ~ CC: unanimous
Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Building materials to match existing.
Leona Bigelow Request: 2' variance
CC: unanimous
3840 Gettysburg Avenue Request to construct an addition onto existing garage, extending 2'
into side yard setback.
92-31 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Roger Griggs Request: 1.8' variance 1 excused
5313 Pennsylvania Avenue Request to construct garage on side of house, which extends 1.8' CC: unanimous
into side yard setback.
88-13 Side yard (20' corner lot) & front yard (35') setback Approved PC: 5 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Daniel & Barbara Nordberg Request: 5' side 8, 12' front variances 1 abstain
3243 Flag Avenue Request to expand garage on non-conforming structure. CC: unanimous
88-11 Side yard setback (5') PC - Approved 1' PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
James & Sandra Larson Request: 2' variance CC - Approved 2' CC: 3 for
5908 Boone Avenue Request to add onto garage, which would extend 2' into side yard 1 against
setback.
~8-02 Side yard setback (35' across from industrial, along 49t" Avenue) Approved PC: unanimous
New Community Builders Request: 1' variance CC: unanimous
4884 Erickson Drive R_~_._quest to build new home 1' into side yard setback.
85-20 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: 4 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Richard & Donna Kranz Request: 5' variance 1 against Drainage not adversely impact neighbors.
3240 Ensign Ct. Request to add a family room to existing home with basement, CC: unanimous Lo! survey be consistent.
which would extend 5' into the side yard setback.
85-10 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Patrick O'Meara Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous Exlend chain link fence between houses.
8200 39th Avenue Request to add bedroom above garage, which would extend 2' into
the side yard.
85-02 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Gregory Davis Request: 3' variance
CC: unanimous
7308 39th Avenue R_~_.q.uest to add onto existing home
84-24 Side yard setback (20' corner lot) Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Alvie Carey Request: 3, variance
CC: unanimous
4052 Decatur Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 3' into side
yard (corner lot) setback.
"'84-11 Side yard setback (5') PC - approved I' PC: 1' unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
James Wiczek Request: 2' variance CC - approved 2' CC: 2' unanimous
4104 Oregon Avenue Request to add a 2-story addition, including tuck-under garage and
living area above.
84 ~08
Richard & Patricia Bruins
7251 40th Avenue
83-55
P.O. Dotson
2701 Quebec Avenue
83-48
Joseph Forrer
4633 Rhode Island Avenue
83-35
Charles & Phyllis Horton
3204 Gettysburg
83-30
Joseph Buslovich
3530 Yukon Avenue
83~26
Larry & Carol Adams
~ Avenue
83-O9
Thomas Gagnon
6025 Sumter Place
83-04
Vernon Stuhr
5635 Wisconsin Avenue
82-38
William & Jacqueline Sheperd
8501 28th Avenue
82-29
Robert Yunker, 4606 Boone
Martin Kvasnik, 4612 Boone
RESIDENTIAL FRONT/SIDE/REAR YARD VARIANCES --- 1980 -TO PRESENT
Side yard setback (10')
Request: 4' variance
Request to construct a screened porch at rear of house which is
and would extend 4' into sid~
Side yard setback (5')
Request: I '/3' variance
~add onto ~hich would extend 1 ~' into setback.
Side yard setback (5')
Request: 3' variance
Request to ~dd onto garage, which would extend 3' into setback.
Side yard (10') & rear yard (35) setback
Request: 2' side & 3' rear yard variance
Request to add 3-season porch to rear of house, which extends 2'
into the side yard and 3' 1o rear yard.
Side yard variance (5')
Request: 2'9" variance
Variance was granted 3' variance in 1980, after survey by neighbor,
he should have requested 2'3" variance as the sidewalk and a shed
~re located on nei~
Side yard variance (10') and front yard variance (30')
Request: 5' side & 5' front
~onstruct double arq~.[~q~. Side yard setback (10')
Request: 4.25' variance with overhang 2.25' from property line.
Request to construct an addition onto existing home. Council
recommended that addition be flush along rear of house so that the
variance be less than original plan.
Side yard setback variances for stairway and wing walls already
constructed.
Side yard setback (20' on corner lot)
Request: 8.4' variance
Request to build 3-season porch onto existing house 8.4' into 20'
~uired for corner Iot~ 1.8'.
Side yard variance (5')
Request: Both parties requesting 5' variance to construct a
concrete apron up to the property line at both residences & 4606
Boone requesting variance to park recreational vehicle on cement
)ad to within 3' ~ line.
Approved PC: unanimous
6/5/84 - PC CC: unanimous
6/11/84 - CC
Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC no minutes in files
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC:unanimous
CC:unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: 4 for
3 against
CC: 4 for
~t
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC;unanimous
CC: unanimous
Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Structure should be only 20' so overhang is 2' from lot
line.
Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Remove existing shed.
2'3" variance, move shed at back of property, take out
1 '1" of sidewalk, take care of water problem, work to
be done in 30 days.
Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
RESID
..... I.~EI~I , I/'~L rr~u~ ~/blU~_/l~l::AH YARD VARIANCES --- 1980 - TO PRESEN~
82-21 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Frederick Starke Request: 3' variance 1 abstain
4042 Oregon Avenue Request to construct a 2-car detached garage to within 2' of side CC: unanimous
yard property line.
82-20 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: 4 for Roo~ & building materials to match existing structure.
Joel Olson Request: 5' variance
3 against Overhang cannot extend over property line.
8833 31st Avenue Request to add onto existing garage right up to the lot line at the CC: unanimous
rear corner of new addition.
81-58 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Sukhender Nath Request: 3' variance
CC: unanimous
8717 30th Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 2' from
property line.
81-52 Side yard setback (20' on corner) No minutes in file.
Roger & Janice Fechner Request: 4'11"' variance
4700 Independence Request to add onto existing garage leaving a 15'1" setback along
47~h Avenue, which re~es 20'.
81-34 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Beverly Cooper Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous
3433 Hillsboro Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 1' from
r o_ P_[ .9 P_.~d_y_l i n e.
81~27 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Harold Lund Request: 1' variance
CC: unanimous
4617 Hillsboro Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 4' from
'81-11 property line.
Side yard setback (35' along 36t~ Avenue) Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Kenneth Kline Request: 10' variance CC: unanimous
3551 Wisconsin Avenue Request to convert existing garage into living space and build new
2-car garage which would extend 10' into the 35' side yard setback
along 36~h Avenue.
81-02 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure,.
Frank Dahlen Request: 3, variance CC: unanimous .
7301 40th Avenue Request to add family room on to existing home, which would
extend 3' into the 10' setback.
80-59 Side (20') & rear yard variance (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing
Myron & Betty Kjos Request: 2' side yard & 5.5' rear yard variance CC: unanimous structure.
3837 Hillsboro Avenue Lot line is somewhat at an angle to new garage and half the garage
is over the side setback by 2' and the rear extends into the rear
setback by 5.5 feet
RESIDENTIAL FRONT/SIDE/REAR YARD VARIANCES -- 1980- TO PRESENT
80-48
Joseph Buslovich
3530 Yukon Avenue
80-47
Daniel Hanka
3625 Gettysburg Avenue
80-40
Elroy Meyer
5832 Cavell Avenue
80-34
Linne Johnson
3022 Boone Avenue
80-27
Roy Lindgren
3600 Jordan Avenue
80-13
Cooper/Herman
4200 Flag Avenue
80-12
Cooper/Herman
4208 Flag Avenue
Side yard variance (5')
Request: 2' variance
Request to add on to make a 2-car garage, which would be 3' from
the property tine with the overhang right on the property line.
house is 10' from line with no windows on that side.
Side yard variance (5' garage)
Request: 2' variance
Request to add on large addition, garage and living area, which
leaves only 3' from property line at one corner of home.
Side yard variance (5'garage)
Request: 5' variance
Request to keep driveway right up to the property line as it was for
past 19 years. Want to pave driveway and at the boulevard it
encroaches onto the neighbors land.
Side yard setback (10')
Request: 2' variance
Add a 2' x 5' alcove to dining room, which would extend out 2' into
the 10' side ~rd setback
Side yard setback (35' for major arterial street - 3--~'r~venue)
Request: 4' variance
Want to add onto the garage into the 35' side yard setback by 4',
which would leave 31'
Side yard setback (10')
Request: 3' variance
Houses were built too close together in cul-de-sac & one corner of
each house does not meet retirement
Side yard setback (10')
Request: 5' variance
Houses were built too close together in cul-de-sac & one corner of
each house does not meet requirement
Approved PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
Approved
Approved
Approved
ApprOved
Approved
Approved
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: 6 for
1 against
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
Roof and building materials to match existing
structure.
Roof and building materials to match existing
structure.
Curb cut moved by City so driveway does not
encroach on neighboring land when paved,
Roof and building materials to match existing structure
Remove existing fence, building materials to match
A removable gateway section be installed in fence to
allow for fire protection.
A removable gateway section be installed in fence to
allow for fire protection.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG
A B C D E F G H I J
Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date Ciiy
cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response
number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant
Address by City that required expires expires of under application
Phone information extension extension
was missing or waiver
04-13 Derrick Slagle 4-9-04 6/8/04 8/7/04
6024 Hillsboro Avenue N
New Hope, MN 55428
763-537-2217
06-118-21-22-0035
B.
C.
D.
Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application.
Assign each application a number.
List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
List the date the City received the application.
List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the
date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line.
To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
The City must act before the deadline..(The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.)
List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before
the time limit expires.
Planning Case:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
Meeting Date:
Report Date:
04-11
Frattallone Ace Hardware
3564 Winnetka Avenue North
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
May 4, 2004
April 30, 2004
Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales and Services
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow accessory outdoor sales and services
limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principal use and to allow construction of a 4,264
square foot garden center adjacent to the new store at Winnetka Commons Shopping Center, pursuant
to Section 4-16(e)(3) and 4-33 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
II. Zoning Code References
Section 4-16(e)(3)
Section 4-33
Property Specifications
Zoning:
Location:
Adjacent Land Uses'.'
Site Area:
Building Area:
Lot Area Ratios:
Planning District:
III.
Conditional Uses, CB - Outdoor Sales and Services
Administrative - Conditional Use Permit
CB, Community Business
Southeast quadrant of the intersection at Winnetka and 36th avenues
R-4, high density residential to the east; I, industrial to the south; R-4, high
density residential (Royal Oaks Apartments) and CB, community business
(gas station/convenience store) to the west; city of Crystal across 36th
Avenue to the north (SuperAmerica); and CB, community business to the
northwest of the intersection (AutoZone)
218,130 square feet; 5.0 acres
Total shopping center = 42,985 square feet
Store = 11,234 square feet
Proposed outdoor sales area = 4,264 square feet
Green area: 57,478 square feet = 26.4%
Building Area: 42,985 square feet = 19.7%
Impervious Area: 160,652 square feet = 73.6%
District No. 17; The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address this
site, other than addressing the streetscape treatment along 36th Avenue
should provide a uniform city-wide commercial identity. Specific commercial
goals and policies include maintaining and improving New Hope's commercial
areas as vital retail and service locations.
Planning Case Report 04-11 Page 1 4/30/04
Specific Information: Frettallone's Ace Hardware is relocating to the Winnetka Commons Shopping
Center located at 3564 Winnetka Avenue North and requesting an outdoor
sales area at the north end of the building as part of their operetion.
Frettallone's will occupy the former Walgreen's tenant bay. The site is zoned
CB, Community Business.
IV. Background
Frattallone's Ace Hardware is a family owned business and operates twelve stores throughout the
metro area. The New Hope store has been located in Winnetka Center at 4401 Winnetka Avenue North
for the past seventeen years. The business decided to expand the store and is remaining in New Hope
and moving to the former Walgreen's location in the Winnetka Commons Shopping Center to
accomplish this expansion. This space has been vacant since Walgreen's constructed their new store
and 42nd and Winnetka Avenues in 1999. The new location will provide significantly more space than
the current location and the opportunity for a garden center, which they are applying for with this
request. With the increased space and anticipated increased business, the store will be adding
additional employees to their staff.
V. Petitioner's Comments
The petitioner stated in correspondence that they were requesting a conditional use permit to construct
a new 4,264 square foot garden center adjacent to the new Frettallone's Ace Hardware Store at
Winnetka Commons Shopping Center. The new garden center will be enclosed by the north wall of the
east wing of Winnetka Commons Shopping Center, Frettallones Ace Hardware space and a wrought
iron fence with rock-faced block piers spaced approximately 16 feet on center. There will be a public
entrence gate on the west side and a service entrence gate on the east side. We will install a new
entrence door to the store on the north wall. The surface of the center will be asphalt and we will install
new landscaping at the north and east areas outside of the center. We will also install two new wall pak
'lights on the existing building north elevation for lighting the center. We feel this addition to the new
store will enhance the appearence of this area of the shopping center, provide a needed retail
opportunity for customers of Frattallones Hardware and bring more pedestrian traffic to the overall
shopping center."
VI. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property, including the city of Crystal, were notified and staff has
received no comments
VII. Development Analysis
A. Zoninq Code Criteria
Conditional Use Permit
1. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the city with a reasonable and legally
permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the
generel welfare, public health, and safety. In making this determination, to allow a conditional use
permit application, the city may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings, similar uses
already in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon
treffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, and any other factors bearing on the
generel welfare, public health, and safety from the approval of the conditional use permit.
2. Criteria for Decision. The Planning Commission and City Council shall consider possible adverse
effects of the proposed conditional use. In determining whether to approve or deny a conditional
use permit, the City Council and Planning Commission shall find that the conditional use permit
complies with the following criteria. The burden of proof demonstrating compliance with the
following criteria shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
Planning Case Report 04-11 Page 2 4/30/04
Co
A. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific
policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official Comprehensive
Municipal Plan of the City.
B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent present and future anticipated
land uses.
C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance
standards contained in the Code.
D. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in
which it is proposed.
E. Zoninq District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed use meets the
criteria specified for the various zoning districts:
1. In Business Districts (L-B, C-B):
a. Traffic. The proposed use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
b. Nearby Residences. Adjacent residentially zoned land will not be adversely affected
because of traffic generation, noise, glare, or other nuisance characteristics.
c. Effect on Other Businesses. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected
because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of unduly heavy
non-shopping traffic or general unsightliness.
3. Specific cdteria .for outdoor sales and services, accessory, include:
1. Area limit. Outside services, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is
limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principal use.
2. Screened from residential. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of
neighboring residential uses or an abutting "R" district.
3. Li.qhting shielded. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be
visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences.
4. Surfacinq. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust, mud and to provide a clean,
attractive and usable surface.
5. Parking. Does not take up parking space required for conformity to this code.
Development Review Team
The Development Review Team met to discuss the plans on April 14 and was supportive of the
request. Comments included the following: provide size of tenant bay, provide wall-pak lighting
details, provide shopping center parking lot details and layout, resolve fence setback issue, and
hardware on gates to be approved by building official.
Desiqn and Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee reviewed the plans on April 15 with the petitioner and was
supportive of the request. The same concerns as listed above were discussed with the applicant.
Plan Description
Revised plans were submitted as a result of the Design and Review Committee meeting and
comments on the application and plans are as follows:
Planning Case Report 04-11 Page 3 4/30/04
Planner Comments:
1. Setback
Within the CB District, a 20 foot setback is required from an arterial or community collector
street. 36th Avenue qualifies as a collector street. A 20 foot setback is labeled on the site plan,
however, the plan scale reveals an 18 foot setback. This setback must be increased to 20 feet.
2. Landscaping
The applicant has illustrated that at the perimeter of the wrought iron fence, landscaping will be
installed. It will be a combination of ornamental trees and shrubs. The ornamental trees will be
two inch caliper spring snow crab. The shrubs will consist of magic carpet spirea and dogwood
and hydrangea. The size and quantity are compliant with city landscaping requirements.
Additionally, an existing 4" ash tree on the northern property line will be retained.
Landscape Schedule:
Symbol Type Name Size Quantity Actual
Noted Shown
ORN Ornamental Spring Snow Crab 2" BB 4 4
SH-2 Shrubs Magic Carpet Spirea 2' tall 12 12
SH-4 Shrubs Dogwood and Hydrangea 4'tall 3 3
Planner comments on the conditions where conditional use permits related to outdoor sales and
services are allowed:
1. Area Limit. Outdoor services, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is
limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principal use.
In review of the submission information from Frattalone Ace Hardware, their proposed
outdoor garden center would be 4,264 square feet in area. To fall under the 30 percent
threshold, the principal use must occupy 14,213 square feet of the shopping center.
The attached site plan indicates that the Ace Hardware tenant bay is 11,234 square feet in
area. This would allow an outdoor sales area of 3,370 square feet. To address this issue and
allow the proposed 4,264 square foot outdoor sales area, the applicant has furnished a letter
from the building owner that would allow them to use an appropriate amount of the shopping
center floor area (15,000 square feet) to calculate their allocated outdoor sales area.
2. Screenin.q From Residential Uses. Outdoor sales are fenced or screened from view from
neighboring residential uses or abutting residential districts in compliance with subsection 4-
3(d)(3) of this Code.
The subject site abuts an R-4, High Density Residential District to the east. At the east
property line, there is a row of coniferous trees that provide a strong screen. Additionally, the
existing apartments located to the east and south of the sales area of the site, provide a
distance that should mitigate any nuisance issues associated with the outdoor sales area.
The applicant has provided photographs of the existing screening as it relates to the outdoor
sales area.
3. Li.clhtina is shielded. All lighting shall be hooded and directed so that the lighting source shall
not be visible from public right-of-way or neighboring residential and shall be in compliance
with subsection 4-3(d)(5) of this Code.
The applicant has provided a detail of the exterior light fixtures to ensure that they are down
lit, 90 degree cut off lighting, with flat lenses. A photometric plan shows the extent of glare
extending toward the property lines to the east as well as the centerline of 36th Avenue. The
Planning Case Report 04-11 Page 4 4/30/04
photometrics reveal that the .4 foot candle contour is limited to two feet from the light source.
This is compliant with city standards.
4. Surfacing. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust, mud and to provide a clean,
attractive and usable surface.
The applicant has indicated that the sales area will be delineated by a wrought iron fence
with rock face brick pillars spaced approximately 16 feet on center. The outdoor sales area
shall be surfaced with asphalt, with landscaping at the perimeter of the fenced area.
5. Parking. Outdoor sales area does not take up parking space required for conforming to this
Code.
In review of the original approvals of Winnetka Commons, we find that the proposed outdoor
sales area will consume a portion of the existing landscaped area. The overall shopping
center was designed with a surplus of parking. The shopping center was required by code to
provide 230 stalls, 254 stalls were provided. No additional parking will be required.
6. Circulation. The proposed outdoor sales area does not interfere with any of the automobile
or truck maneuvering that needs to occur on site.
Access to the outdoor sales area will be provided both on the east and west sides of the
sales area via gates.
E. Planninq Considerations
The planning consultant's comments have been incorporated into this report.
F.. Buildin.q Considerations
Gate hardware must comply with building code accessibility requirements or the gates must be
signed with a notice stating: 'These gates must remain unlocked during business hours'.
G. En.qineerin,q Considerations
The city engineer had no comments on the proposed plans and gated area.
H. Police Considerations
The Police Department had no comments on the proposed plans and gated area.
I. Fire Considerations
West Metro Fire had no comments on the proposed plans and gated area.
VIII. Summary
Staff 'believes that the overall site design is well conceived for this location and is pleased that
Frattallone's Ace Hardware has decided remain in New Hope and relocate to a larger, currently vacant
site in the Winnetka Commons Shopping Center. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit
for outdoor sales to further enhance the use of the facility. Additionally, staff believes that the proposal
provides a good opportunity for infill at a currently vacant commercial site. The development is
compatible with the existing zoning and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Based on staff's
review of the outdoor sales area, staff recommends approval of the application, subject to the
conditions listed below.
IX. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of plans by building official.
Planning Case Report 04-11 Page 5 4/30/04
2. The Planning Commission determines that adequate screening exists on site and no additional
screening is required.
3. The applicant submit a revised site plan that illustrates a scaled 20 foot setback between the fence
and the 36th Avenue right-of-way.
Attachments:
Address/Zoning/Topo/Arial/Maps
Petitioner Narrative
Site Plan
Landscaping Schedule
Light Fixture Details
Photographs of the existing screening to neighboring R4 District
Letter from shopping center owner re: calculation of outdoor sales area (4-22-04)
Planning Consultant Memorandum (4-27-04)
Application Log
Planning Case Report 04-11 Page 6 4/30~04
'N
100 .
~T~AVE N
4TH
//
PL N ]~
BETH EL MEMORI/-,L PARK
ADATH CHESED SHEL
EMES CEMETERY
~11111~111~111~111~1
3520-3566
3510
7716
WINPARK DR
544O
7709
7601
4~ND AV~ N ROCKFORD RD
,NE
~..~,,. .. .... ~.- ~ ........ ;
o~ .... . .........
~ ............ ~i'¥i~
. .AVE N
HA~ h ~."~_. ':
City
200
10oo
~x / ~ ~
·
!
/
FAULKNER
CONSTRUCTION
INC.
April 9, 2004
Ms. Amy Baldwin
Community Development Imem
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Re: Frattlones Ace Hardware
Winnetka Commons Shopping Center
Garden Center Narrative
Dear Ms. Baldwin:
Enclosed are our plans, application and fee of $300 for a Conditional Use Permit Request to
construction ora new 4,264 square foot garden center adjacent to the new Frattlones Ace
Hardware Store at Winnteka Commons Shopping Center. We are requesting a Conditional Use
Permit for this project and meet all of the requirements CD4:I 11 (3) Outdoor sales and services.
The new garden center will be enclosed by the north wall of the east wing of Winnetka Commons
Shopping Center, Frattlones Ace Hardware Space and a wrought iron fence with rock-faced
block piers spaced approximately 16 feet on center. There will be a public entrance gate on the
west side and a service entrance gate on the east side. We will install a new entrance door to the
store on the north wall. The surface of the Center will be asphalt and we will install new
landscaping at the north and east areas outside of the Center. We will also install two new wall-
pak lights on the existing building north elevation for lighting the Center.
We feel that this addition to the new store will enhance the appearance of this area of the
Shopping Center, provide a needed retail oppommity for customers of Frattlones Hardware and
bring more pedestrian traffic to the overall Shopping Center.
Please feel bee to contact us if you have any questions regarding this application. We look
forward to meeting with you and the staff on April 15 to review the project.
2350 COUNTY ROAD J · WHITE BEAR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55110
OFFICE: 651-426-4706 · FAX: 651-426-0045
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A% /I-'Kit I1'"
n v C.., ,~ tj C..
~^/Ik Ih, I r--r-i~ A
Vvll',,l~',{~_ i {'\/-\
~OSION CONTROl. FEN~_
TYPICAL PIER
"
~ EL~VA~ON
-
EXISTING BUILDING
Il
i
MAIL BOX
SIGN
0 MANHOLE
CATCH BA~N
HYDRANT
N GA~[ VALVE
~ ~SC~ MA~I~
E~S~NG ~T ~A~
PR~O~ A~T
C~E~ ~FA~
................. [~S~NG C~T~RS
x ~4 PR~O~ ~OT ~VA~
X ~ ~4 ~S~NG ~OT ~A~
FCI
FAULKNE, R
CONSTRUCTION
I N C
I Ilteh .. I0 rim
NO11~S
ORIENTA'llON OF 1HIS BEARING S't~TEM IS BA~ ON 1HE NORIH UNE OF' IMNNE]I(A
COMMONS TO HAVE AN ASSUMED BEARING OF Nsg'so°39'W.
1HIS SUR~'Y HAS BEEN PREPARED ~dlHOUT BENEF1T OF A TI'I[.E COMMIIMENT OR *111LE
OPINION. A '~TL~ ~ARCH FOR RECORDED OR UNRECO~OE0 FASEMENT~ ~11CIt MAY I~NEFIT
OR ENCUMBER THIS PROPERTY HAS NOT ~ COMPf. ET~D BY THE SUR~yOR,
NO ~E~F1C SOILS IN~S~GAI~ON HAS BEEN COMpIIr~D ON 1HIS LOT BY JAMES R. HILL.
INC, THE SUITABIUTY OF' SOILS TO SUI~0RT ~'IE SPECIFIC SmUCTUR£ PROPOSED ~S NOT
THE RESPONSIBIUTY OF' JNd£S R. HILL INC. OR 'n-lE ~LIR~I~YOR.
~-IE LO~A~ON AND INFORMA~qOH ~tO~N REGARDING UTIUTIES, ~ER~INO IHIS PROPERTY OR
EXISTING ON 1HIS PROPERTY A~ ~.IOWN AS A PART OF' 11tls ~URV['Y, HA~ BEEN LOCA'I'E~0
ElY ON-~ITE OSSERVATION OR TAKEN FROM PLANS PROVIDED BY OTHERS. FOR FUR'~.IER
INFORMA110N CONC~'RNING ~.lE~i~ U~U~ES PLEA,~[ CONTACT THE ~TY OF' NEW HOPE
ENGINEE~NG DEPARIMENT AND/OR GOPHER STA~E ONE CAll..
ON Tit£ DATE OF THIS SURVEY THERE WAS NO O~SI~RVAI~t.E £VIDE~I~ OF' £ARWI MO~INO
WORK, BUILDING CONSmUCTION OR BUILDING AODI'I1ON$ ~ITHIN RECENT MON'IH$.
CONTOUR INI[RVAL IS ! FL'ET. AIL ELEVA~0¢qS ARE: BASED ON THE CITY OF NEW HOPE
DA'IUM. (NOVD 29)
BENCHMARK: TOP NUT HYDRANT ~510 ~NNEll(A A~... N. ELEVATION . ~il.62 FEET
LANIDE~::~ 6C-44EDULE:
GRADING, &: LANDSCAPE
II
ur UN-$~IE OBSERVATION OR TAKEN FROM PLANS PROVIDED BY .....................
OTHERS. FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONCERNING THESE UTIUTIES PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF NEW HOPE
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND/OR GOPHER STATE ONE CALL.
ON THE DATE OF THIS SURVEY THERE WAS NO OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE OF EARTH MOVINO
WORK, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OR BUILDING ADDITIONS WITHIN RECENT MONTHS.
CONTOUR INTERVAL IS I. FEET. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON THE CITY OF NEW HOPE
DATUM. (NGVD 29)
BENCHMARK: TOP .NUT HYDRANT 3510 WINNETKA AVE. N. ELEVATION = 911.62 FEET
L'N'4DEx::AI='E ~::I"IEDULE:
8'I~RIN~ eNO~U CRAi~
PI,d~IC C,~T E,t~IREA
D~ ~, I-ITDRAN~IA
.. A
GRADING, & LANDSCAPE
1 OF I
APR-19-04 O?:4~AM FROM-WEBER ELECTRIC 6~1 490 0;?0 T-~15 P.004/004
The r~fie~.mr proJe,-,ts l i Dh! out and 4~rdy from the I1~re, An excellent cholc9 for
UOhflnD srrmll parkinD or public ~reas next iA buildings.
cimcll,l~wer DIs~rlAl~Uon Curve of 5OW
HPS 8' projection CLm3ff UOllt.
I 2
Is~foD1eandle PlOt Of
8' ProjBe~JDn I~lA~ff LiD~ 10' {~.O m)
moununo height (plan view),
~fl~llalX~vm' Dl~Tlb~on CLJI'V8 of
lOdW MH 1~' PmJA~On Outoff IJohL
- _j
8' ~SW HP$ ~E45~-1 /mY
8' ;0~/HPS SE4.~AS-1 AP/
12' ~ ~ SE4~7-1 ~11 DC~mllight
'[2" lOeW HP.q SE4510-M ~lf DO~II~I~
12' 26W ~DroS~Wlt SE4226.UL ~
12" ~W Ruom~:mlt 5E4~-Lq. My
~1~ FUli8 ~Z?TV Remco,", 12CIV, 277'Y a' 34'7~/~ 27,1,2 or6 F=L.F
D~I Fu~e (2eSVor 240Y) 3ar4 ForCF
(,P ~,Maonelic Ballad, LP = Elemmlle Ballas~
HI~'I PowDr F~c~m- b~flalff H
NDTE: For 8' f~m only' ~p~ ~DW MH & ~fl H~ ~in 34ZV
Tarm~'1~roo[ 1,8m Fssmn~l j
8' Squa? Mmmflng Iffnlll~flm 17 Square MAunUIIILMulfip!pr~
Heloht MlfftlPller flelgkl Multlpllm'
9' (2.? m) "1~ _. 12' (3,7 rtl) ?J6
lo'm~Om} ~o 15'I~6r~)
12' ~?ml O~D ~0' (6,1 m) o.56
15' (4.6 m) 0.44 2S' ('/,6
35W I'PS D.56
'i'll, 12' SE4 Eerim photomac dam
de. loPed In lastlm;r Ruud Ilx~ wR~
cM~, IOOW MH 8,100 lum~ modlum
lam~, R~ol~n~le mdlr~ Io~ ~et
Ay rmllfp~Jng the GheA valu8~ bv ~
foIIAwtAg;
L,ampAVaflailea Mulflplinr
~WFL 0.21
3,~d/FL 0.27
42W~ 0,40
57W Fl. g.,53
7GIN MH 0.~
1~ MH 1.~ '
1.17
.., ......... 6E~ 4~.~27 P.02/02
April 22, 2004
'l'orn Fraua[lone
FratmHorie:s Ace Hardware
3527 Lexington Avenue
Arden [{ills. Minnesota 5'3126
Re: Winnetka Commons Shopping Center
Dear Tom:
For purposes of calculating the Om'dun Center, please use applicable square footage of
15.000 square feet.
! am anxious to celebrate the Grand Opening within the next few weeks,
Please let me know ill can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely, ~..
~resident
TOTAL p. 02
..~ NO.R. THWEST ASSOCiATI~.D CONSULTANTS, iNC.
~'":~ilr Telephone: 952.5.95.9836 F,~csJ:mile: 952.595.9837 pl~:~r't~ers~:~nacplanDing.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Alan Brixius
April 27, 2004
New Hope - Frattalone Ace Hardware Outdoor Sales CUP
131.01 - 04.10
BACKGROUND
Frattalone Ace Hardware is relocating to the Winnetka Commons Shopping Center
located at 3564 Winnetka Avenue North. Ace Hardware will now occupy the old
Walgreens tenant bay and as part of their operation, they are requesting outdoor sales
area be established at the north end of the building. The site is zoned CB, Community
Business District. By conditional use permit, outdoor sales and services are allowed
with the following conditions:
Area Limit. Outdoor services, sales and equipment rental connected with the
principal use is limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principal use.
In review of the submission information from Frattalone Ace Hardware, we
discover that their proposed outdoor garden center would be 4,264 square feet in
area. To fall under the 30 percent threshold, the principal use must occupy
14,213 square feet of the shopping center.
The attached site plan indicates that the Ace Hardware tenant bay is 11,234
square feet in area. This would allow an outdoor sales area of 3,370 square feet.
To allow the proposed 4,264 square foot outdoor sales area, the applicant must
furnish a letter from the building owner that would allow them to use the entire
shopping center floor area to calculate their allocated outdoor sales area.
Screening From Residential Uses. Outdoor sales are fenced or screened from
view from neighboring residential uses or abutting residential districts in
compliance with subsection 4-3(d)(3) of this Code.
The subject site abuts an R-4, High Density Residential District to the east. At
the east property line, there is a row of coniferous trees that provide a strong
screen. Additionally, the existing apartments located to the east and south of the
sales area of the site, provide a distance that should mitigate any nuisance
issues associated with the outdoor sales area. The applicant has provided
photographs of the existing screening as it relates to the outdoor sales a. rea.
Lighting is shielded. All lighting shall be hooded and directed so that the lighting
source shall not be visible from public right-of-way or neighboring residential and
shall be in compliance with subsection 4-3(d)(5) of this Code.
If the applicant is proposing any outdoor lighting of the sales area for security
purposes or display. The applicant has provided a detail of the exterior light
fixtures to insure that they are down lit, 90 degree cut off lighting, with fiat lenses.
A photometric plan shows the extent of glare extending toward the property lines
to the east as well as the centerline of 36th Avenue. The photometrics reveal that
the .4 foot candle contour is limited to two feet from the light source. This is
compliant with City standards.
Surfacing. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust, mud and to provide
a clean attractive usable surface.
The applicant has indicated that the sales area will be delineated by a wrought
iron fence with rock face brick pillars spaced approximately 16 feet on center.
The outdoor sales area shall be surfaced with asphalt, with landscaping at the
perimeter of the fenced area.
Parking. Outdoor sales area does not take up parking space required for
conforming to this Code.
In review of the original approvals of Winnetka Commons, we find that the
proposed outdoor sales area will consume a portion of the existing landscaped
area. The overall shopping center was designed with a surplus of parking. The
shopping center was required by code to provide 230 stalls, 254 stalls were
provided. No additional parking will be required.
Circulation. The proposed outdoor sales area does not interfere with any of the
automobile or truck maneuvering that needs to occur on site.
Access to the outdoor sales area will be provided both on the east and west
sides of the sales area via gates.
SETBACKS
Within the CB District, a 20 foot setback is required from an arterial or community
collector street. 36th Avenue qualifies as that collector street. A 20 foot setback is
labeled on the site plan, however, the plan scale reveals an 18 foot setback. This
setback must be increased to 20 feet.
LANDSCAPING
The applicant has illustrated that at the perimeter of the wrought iron fence, landscaping
will be installed. It will be a combination of ornamental trees and shrubs. Ornamental
trees will be two inch caliper spring snow crab. The shrubs will consist of magic carpet
spirea and dogwood and hydrangea. The size and quantity are compliant with City
landscaping requirements.
CONCLUSION
Ace Hardware is requesting an outdoor sales area associated with their new location at
3564 Winnetka Avenue North. This use is allowed by conditional use permit within the
CB Zoning District. In review of the applicant's request, we recommend approval
subject to the following conditions:
The sales area is either reduced to 30 percent of the Ace Hardware tenant bay
floor space or the shopping center owner provides a letter indicating that the Ace
Hardware's 30 percent outdoor sales area may use the floor area of the entire
shopping center.
The Planning Commission determines that adequate screening exists on site and
no additional screening is required.
The applicant submit a revised site plan that illustrates a scaled 20 foot setback
between the fence and the 36th Street right-of-way.
Appli-
cation
number
04-11
B
Applicant
Name
Address
Phone
Frattallones Ace Hardware
3564 Winnetka Avenue N
New Hope, MN 55427
Inland Commercial Prop Mgmt
7117 10th Street N
Oakdale, MN 55128
612-805-8885 cell
20-118-21-22-0012
CITY OF NEW HOPE
SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG
C D E F
Date Date 60- Date 120-
application day time day time
received limit limit
by City expires expires
4/9/04
Date Applicant
was sent
notice
that required
information
was missing
6/8/O4
8/7/04
Date
Applicant
was notified
of
extension
Deadline
for City
action
under
extension
or waiver
Date City
approved or
denied the
application
Date City
sent response
to Applicant
Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application.
A. Assign each application a number.
B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
C. List the date the City received the application.
D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the
date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line.
E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
I. The City must act before the deadline.' (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.)
J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before
the time limit expires.
Planning Case:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
Request
SECOND ADDENDUM TO
PLANNING CASE REPORT 01-09
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: May 4, 2~
Report Date: April 30, 2004
0f-09
Tharp Family Partnership/Mid America Financial Plaza
9220 Bass Lake Road
Discussion of NeLghborhood Issues Regarding 9220 Bass Lake Road
Per the direction given at the April 6 P/arming Commission meeting, this ma~ter was continued until the
May 4 Planning Commission meet:inC. At the April 6 meeting, there was detaJled discussion about
screening issues and the concerns of several adjacent property owners Please take the time to review
the detailed minutes in your packet. The goal at this meeting will be to try to reach a consensus as to
how [he con ceres can be addressed.
Aclions that have been taken subsequent to the April 6 Planning Commission meeting include the
following:
1. The property owners at 9209 59th Avenue North attended the Aprit t2 Council meeting, inquired
about me status of the issue, and submitted the attached additional photos showing the view of the
building f~*om [heir property. They were notified that the reader was continued to the May 4 PIanning
Commission meeting and staff stated that they would be sent a copy of the detailed minutes when
~ey were compieted. Staff sent the minutes to the property owner.
The building officiai prepared the attached memorandum to address me issue regarding the type of
windows that were installed.
The planning consultant's office sent one of their staff to the site to determine what landscaping was
in place as compared to the plan that was originally approved. Photos were also taken. That
information is contained in the attached April 29 NAC memo.
A memo from NAC daf~ed April 28, 2004. regarding recommended additional plantings that could be
provided to supplement the existing landsca ping was prepared and is attached,
A memo from NAC dated April 28, 2004, regarding the chronofogy of the fence discussion was
prepared and is attached.
The city attorney is in the process of researching information regarding issues relating to the
conditions of ~he conditional use permit, privacy issues, otc, and that information will be reviewed at
the meeting,
A copy of the minutes was also sent to ~he owner of the Mid America Financial Plaza property and
the Design and Review Commi~ee met with the owner to discuss the issues on April 29, The
property owner will be in attendance at the May 4 Planning Commission meeting and will respond to
the issues. The properly owner indicated that he is willing to work with the property owners to
address the concerns.
Planning Case Repor~ 01-09 Page I 4~2/04
Previous informa~ior~ prepared on this matter for the Apdl 6 meeting has r~ot been enclosed, so
ptease bring that information with you to the meeting if you wan~ to refer to it.
As you are aware, the City CounciJ requested that the Ptanning Commission review this matter with
the neighbors and property owner and try to resoJve any outstanding issues at the Planning
CommCssion teveL
Attachments:
· Property Owner Photos
,, Building Official Memo
° NAC Memo
Planning Case Report 01-09 Page 2 4/2/04
MEMORANDUM
City of New Hope
To: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
From: Roger Axel, Building Official ~)f~.
Date: April 12, 2004
Subject: 9220 Bass Lake Road
After reviewing the planning case file for the Midamefican Financial Plaza building, it appears that the
Tharp Family Parmership has complied with the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit that xvas
approved for the conversion of the building from a single tenant to multi-tenant use. The items in
question are the windows that were recently installed on the north side of the building and whether
the proper screening has been installed.
The building elevation plans submitted with the building permit application indicate a series of
windows to be installed on the north wall of the building. These windows are drawn onto the plans
using a computer aided drafting system (CAD) that only represents the general location of the
windows. The symbols used to represent the windows are just that-symbols. The symbols are
accompanied with notes describing the specific details about the windows, such as number of glass
panels, type of glazing (tinted, safety, wired, etc.), frame types and finish, and what type of sealants
will be used. The elevation plans typically may just indicate a window location without specifying
how many panels of glass will be installed as part of the window unit. The critical issue is the
structural design of the lintel that will support the wall and roof structure over the window.
The photometric plan submitted at time of permit application satisfied the ordinance requirements
for exterior lighting. The ordinance is directed at exterior site and security lighting rather than
lighting originating inside the building.
The owners of the building have made an attempt to satisfy the concems of adjoining residential
property owners by installing blinds on the windows and installing timers on the light controls for
each individual office that faces the residential properties on the north side of the building.
The City cannot go back and require additional items to be installed after the CUP was approved.
C:\Documents and Settings\raxel~My Documents~MENIO TEMPLATE.doc Page 1 of 1
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
'r775 7ay~--tata BoUlevard, "'~'u'~te 575, St.-""~ouis -~Trk, MN 5~"~16
· .~' Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 p anners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Brixius
FROM:
Cynthia Putz-Yang
DATE: Apdl 29, 2004
RE:
New Hope - Mid America Office Building
FILE NO: 131.01 - 03.01
Yesterday I visited the Mid America Office Building site and took pictures along the
north side of the building. Those pictures and the approved landscape plan are
attached. An analysis of the landscaping follows:
The landscape plan shows nine 12-inch flowering crabs at the east end of the
north side of the building. It appears that these trees were misidentified and are
actually multi-stemmed amur maple trees. Both types of trees grow
approximately 20 feet tall and are deciduous, so the screening effect is similar.
The location, number, and size of the trees are similar to what is identified on the
plan. The trees screen much of the building during summer months. They do
not completely block out views from the windows, but do provide some
screening. The trees appear to be in good health.
The landscape plan shows eight 20-foot-tall Norway and two 30-foot-tall pine
trees. In the field I found a total of five Norway pine (also called red pine) and six
white pine. The spacing is not as uniform as is shown on the landscape plan.
There is a gap in screening near the west end of the building where there are no
windows. The evergreen trees do not completely hide the building. They soften
the look of the building and provide some screening. The trees appear to be in
good health and are similar in size to what is indicated on the landscape plan.
in summary, some tree types and locations are not exactly the same as what is shown
on the landscape plan; however, the tree quantities, locations, sizes, and mix of
deciduous and evergreen are similar to what was approved.
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
'~ta"Bou'~'evard, S~i~e 5~'"~ouiT Park, ~N
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.oom
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM:
Cynthia Putz-Yang /Alan Brixius
DATE: April 28, 2004
RE:
New Hope - Mid America Office Building
FILE NO: 131.01 - 03.01
There is a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees on the north side of the Mid
America Office Building. The existing trees could be supplemented with new plantings
to enhance screening if that is found to be necessary. The City's screening requirement
is intended as a means to mitigate incompatible nuisance issues. It could be argued
that an office use including office employees sitting at their desks and occasionally
looking out the window is not a nuisance. If supplemental screening is required, we
r~"m',,end treat it be placed in areas with existing one-story windows because the
City's ~ requirement is not ~tended to provide screening from future second
story windows.
Additional screening might include strategic placement of 6 to 8-foot Black Hills spruce
trees just north of the existing amur maple trees, tf spruce trees are required, we would
suggest atigmng them with the windows, rather than requiring them along the length of
the building. Another option would be to plant shrubs that Few approx~ six feet
~ such as Compact Ame.~ C~, between the amur maple trees in the
window locations.
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
~IF ~~oulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.5959837 planners@nacplanning.com
Telephone:
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Cynthia Putz-Yang /Alan Brixius
April 28, 2004
New Hope - Mid America Office Building
131.01 - 03.01
A chronological list of recommendations and decisions regarding landscaping on the
north side of the Mid America Office Building is provided below.
On June 27, 2001, NAC prepared a Planning Report that included a
recommendation that the applicant construct an 8-foot cedar fence from the west
end of the existing fence to the western end of the site. This would have
provided a solid screen between the building and the residential uses to the
north.
A Planning Case Report dated June 29, 2001, and prepared by City staff,
includes the statement, "If only eight new Colorado spruce (6-foot tall) are
planned, the City may want to increase that number along the north side.
At a Planning Commission meeting on July 10, 2001, the applicant's architect
explained that the applicartt's proposal was to install a cedar fence "from the
r~o~ building comer west to the property line to provide additional screening
On July 23, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 01-09 to approve the
conditional use permit request subject to a number of requirements. One
condition was "Petitioner to meet with neighbors to determine proper screening,
either cedar fence or additional landscaping, on the northwest portion of the
property." No new screening was required on the north side of the building.
2
Planning Case:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date:
Report Date:
May 4, 2004
April 30, 2004
Bear Creek Capital and CVS Pharmacy
7901 Bass Lake Road
Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, Site/Building Plan Review, Sign Variance/Comprehensive
Sign Plan and Administrative Permit for Drive-Through Facilities and Outdoor Dining
II.
III.
Request
The petitioner is requesting rezoning a portion of the property from R-l, single family residential, to CB,
community business, preliminary plat approval of property to be known as CVS Winnetka Addition,
site/building plan review to allow construction of a 15,457 square foot retail facility, sign variance/
Comprehensive Sign Plan approval, and administrative permit for drive-through facilities and outdoor
dining, pursuant to Sections 3-40, 3-40(i)3)a,b,c, 3-40(k), 4-5, 4-16, 4-30, 4-35 and Chapter 13 of the
New Hope Code of Ordinances.
Zoning Code References
Section 3-40 Sign Code
Section 3-40(i)(3)a,b,c
Section 3-40(k)
Section 4-5
Section 4-16
Section 4-30
Section 4-35
Chapter 13
prOperty Specifications
Zoning:
Location:
Adjacent Land Uses:
Site Area:
Building Area:
Commercial/Industrial Zoning District - Signs accessory to a multiple
occupancy business - Comprehensive Sign Plan, wall signs, freestanding
signs
Sign Variance
R-l, Single Family Residential District
CB, Community Business District
Administration - General
Administration - Site Plan Review
Subdivision and Zoning
CB, Community Business, and R-l, Single Family Residential
Southwest quadrant of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue
CB, community business, to the west and to the north across Bass Lake
Road, community business to the northeast across the intersection, R-l,
single family residential, to the east across Winnetka Avenue, and R-l, single
family residential to the south (single family home and School District
property)
102,307 square feet (2.35 acres)
15,457 square feet
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 1 4/30/04
Lot Area Ratios:
Planning District:
Specific Information:
IV. Background
Green area: 26,094 square feet = 25.6 percent
Building area: 15,457 square feet = 15.1 percent
Impervious area: 60,756 square feet - 59.3 percent
District No. 4; The Comprehensive Plan suggests a land use change to
expand the commercial land use to include two isolated single family home
sites located east of Winnetka Elementary School. The commercial goals
include 1) maintaining and improving New Hope's commercial areas as vital
retail and service locations, 2) redevelop commercial sites that display
building deterioration, obsolete site design, and land use compatibility issues.
The city has been coordinating with Bear Creek Capital/CVS Pharmacy for
over a year on this project. The city has facilitated meetings and
communications between all property owners, including the owner of the
single family property, the owner of the Sinclair site, and with representatives
of School District 281. This is a private redevelopment; no financial assistance
has been requested or approved from the city. The City Council approved a
resolution of "friendly condemnation" for the Sinclair site, at the request of
Sinclair, for tax reinvestment purposes.
Bear Creek Capital is requesting development applications for preliminary plat, site and building plan
review, administrative permit for outdoor dining, administrative permit for drive through facilities, and
variance from sign statutes. Bear Creek Capital is proposing to construct a 15,457 square foot retail
facility at the corner of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenues. CVS Pharmacy would occupy
.approximately 13,013 square feet with another 2,430 square feet of additional retail or restaurant
facility.
To create the development site, three different properties are involved in the preliminary plat. The first is
the Sinclair site, the second are the two single family properties owned by the Bauer family, and the
third is the land owned by the Robbinsdale Area School District. The applicant is proposing to combine
the Sinclair site with land acquired from the School District and the first Bauer single family home site. A
preliminary plat is required in that the properties currently have a metes and bounds description and
have not been previously platted. The applicant would create two lots, one for CVS Pharmacy and one
containing the remaining single family home from the Bauer property and Outlot A which is intended to
be a storm water drainage pond.
Petitioner's Comments
On April 8, the applicant submitted the following narrative:
"Bear Creek Capital requests the city of New Hope approve the Winnetka West retail project subject to
the above referenced administrative permits and variances in conjunction with the proposed
redevelopment of the retail site at the southwest corner of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. Bear
Creek Capital proposes to redevelop the existing Sinclair fuel station and residential parcels into a retail
property including a 13,013 square foot CVS. Pharmacy and an approximately 2,400 square foot retail
tenant space.
"CVS Pharmacy is the largest pharmacy/convenience retailer in the US with more than 5,000 locations.
Bear Creek Capital is the designated developer for CVS stores in the greater Minneapolis market. We
are currently developing approximately 20 locations including the retail project. Bear Creek Capital is
one of the largest owners and developers of retail centers in the Midwest with a portfolio with more than
$3 million square feet of similar projects.
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 2 4/30/04
"CVS will occupy the site as the fee owner of its parcel. Bear Creek Capital will own and lease the
adjoining retail area. Currently, the lead prospect as a tenant is Caribou Coffee. Cross-access and
cross-maintenance agreements will be incorporated into the development agreements between CVS,
Bear Creek Capital and the city permitting access through the properties.
"Bear Creek is currently in contract to purchase the two parcels known as the Bauer properties on
Winnetka Avenue. Contract documents are being exchanged with Sinclair Oil's home office and a land
swap agreement is being exchanged with Robbinsdale Area Schools. Additionally, Bear Creek has
proposed to purchase approximately 1/3 acres from Robbinsdale Area Schools to be used as a
detention basin area. The basin will be designed to allow for expansion if and when the remainder of the
Winnetka-West area becomes redeveloped.
"Additionally, we formally request the waiving of final plat review by Planning Commission and request
final plat proceed directly to City Council."
The applicant stated in the narrative they are requesting a vadance from allowable building wall
signage, variances for ground mounted signs, administrative permits to accommodate pharmacy pickup
window and outdoor dining
Following the Design and Review Committee meeting, a revised narrative and plans were submitted,
which are incorporated into the balance of the report.
VI. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments
VII. Development Analysis
A. Zoning Code Criteria
Subdivision and Plattinq
The purpose of this chapter is to make certain regulations and requirements for the subdivision and
platting of land within the city of New Hope pursuant to the authority contained in Minnesota
Statutes 462.358, which regulations the City Council deems necessary for the health, safety and
general welfare of this community. It is also the purpose of this chapter to safeguard the best
interests of the city of New Hope and to assist the subdivider in harmonizing his interests with those
of the city at large.
Per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to city department heads, city attorney, city
engineer, planning consultant, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment.
Comments received include the following:
Planner - In review of the preliminary plat, it appears that all lots meet the CB, Community Business
distdct lot size requirements and required setbacks. The notes identified on the preliminary plat show
front yard setback within the CB zoning district would be 35 feet, rather than the required 20 feet. As
proposed, the preliminary plat falls within the Winnetka West Redevelopment Area, as examined by
the New Hope Livable Communities Task Force. The applicant, in their narrative, indicates that they
have provided an exhibit illustrating how Winnetka West retail development can be integrated with the
balance of the Winnetka West master plan, as envisioned by the city.
Utility Companies - no comments received.
City Enqineer - see attached correspondence and comments.
Hennepin County - in process, referenced in city engineer comments.
City Attorney - see attached correspondence and comments.
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 3 4/30/04
The City Code states that copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its
review and recommendation, unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Commission
during its review of the preliminary plat. Per the attached correspondence, the petitioner has
requested waiver of the review of the final plat by the Planninq Commission. The Planning
Commission will need to make a determination as to whether it wants to review the final plat or not.
Due to the simple nature of the plat, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission waive the
review of this final plat.
Rezonin.q
The redevelopment site is zoned CB, Community Business and R-l, Single Family Residential. The
R-1 zoning overlays the property currently owned by the School District that will be acquired by Bear
Creek Capital for CVS Pharmacy.
To facilitate the redevelopment, all of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A of CVS Winnetka Addition must be
zoned CB. Lot 2, Block 1 is being conveyed to the School District.
Section 4-32(c) of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance outlines the criteria for evaluating zoning
changes:
1) The zoning amendment is necessary to correct a past zoning mistake.
The zoning amendment is required to allow for a larger commercial site to accommodate a
contemporary retail use. In this respect, the past zoning was appropriate for past uses and
property ownership configuration.
2) The character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of an amendment.
The area of the city has been identified, through the Comprehensive Plan and Livable
Communities Task Force, as a redevelopment site. The designation for redevelopment and the
proposed commercial land identified in the Comprehensive Plan indicates conditions have
changed at this location that warrant the zoning change.
3) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions and
has been found to be consistent with the official city Comprehensive Plan.
The New Hope Comprehensive Plan envisions this area to be redeveloped and this specific site
to continue to be commercial land use. The proposed zoning change is consistent with the
policies and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. ,Any zoning change is a policy
decision for the Planning Commission and City Council. However, based on the review of the
zoning change, staff believes that the request meets the aforementioned criteria and is
appropriate.
Site and Buildinq Plan Review Code Criteria
The purpose of the site plan review is to insure that the purposes of this Code are adhered to, it is
hereby determined that a comprehensive review of site, building and development plans shall be made
by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council prior to the issuance of any building
permits by the building official pursuant to the procedure established by this section.
In making recommendations and decisions upon site and building plan review applications, the staff,
Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the compliance of such plans with the following
standards:
1. Consistency with the various elements and objectives of the city's long range plans, including but
not limited to the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Consistency with the purposes of this Code.
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 4 4/30/04
3. Preservation of the site in its natural state, insofar as practicable, by minimizing tree and soil
removal, and designing any grade changes so as to be in keeping with the general appearance of
neighboring developed or developing areas.
4. Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces with the terrain and with
existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the proposed development.
5. Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features including:
d. Creation of an internal sense of order for the various functions and building on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community.
e. Appropriateness of the amount and arrangement of open space and landscaping to the design
and function of the development.
f. Appropriateness of the materials, textures, colors, and details of construction as an expression
of the design concept of the project and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and
neighboring structures and functions.
g. Adequacy of vehicular, cycling and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, intedor drives
and parking, in terms of location and number of access points, general intedor circulation,
separation of pedestrian, cycling and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking
so as to be safe, convenient and, insofar as practicable, compatible with the design of
proposed buildings, structures and neighboring properties.
6. Creation of an energy-conserving design through design, location, orientation and elevation of
structures, the use and location of glass in structures, and the use of landscape materials and site
grading.
7. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for such matters
as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and those
aspects of design, not adequately covered by other regulations, which may have substantial
effects on neighboring land uses.
B. Development Review Team
The Development Review Team reviewed and was supportive of the plans on April 14 and
discussed the following: lot area, setbacks, parking, loading, outdoor dining, drive-through lanes,
rooftop equipment, trash enclosure, landscaping, site lighting, fencing, pedestrian access, building
materials, signage, fire department issues including fire lane, sprinklers, fire department connection
and hydrants, drainage, storm water and ponding issues.
C. Desiqn and Review Committe~.
The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner on April 15 and was supportive of the
project. The same issues as above were discussed with the applicant.
D. Plan Description
Revised plans were submitted as a result of the Design and Review meeting.
Petitioner's Comments
The following is a brief explanation of adjustments made to the preliminary plans based on staff
review comments and discussions with the Design and Review Committee.
Site and Building Plan Review
· Parking - Excluding handicap, all parking spaces have been widened to nine feet as requested.
The developer agrees that parking on the site should be maximized while still creating an
aesthetically pleasing environment. Staff described the city's experience with Walgreens
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 5 4/30/04
development and adjoining coffee shop, where parking is at a premium. An additional handicap
stall has been provided in the vicinity of the restaurant to the south.
· Outdoor Dininq - Since the interior of the retail space has not been designed, we do not know
the exact size of the customer area. Based on the potential for up to 1,100 square feet of indoor
dining and service area within the adjacent restaurant, 330 square feet of outdoor dining area
has been provided. To help separate between pedestrian and car space, a 48-inch landscape
buffer has been added at the patio perimeter. The position of accessory table, chair and trash
elements are shown on the plan. Interior space calculations include the need for storage of
these items, the details of which are being further considered at this time.
· Drive-Through - Two 60-foot drive through lanes have been clarified on the site plan with the
addition of proposed pavement striping. The 60-foot length has been based on the smallest
radius of the curve and includes space at the window up to the end of the canopy island.
Adjustments of the ddve through striping has improved potential vehicular conflicts with the
loading zone. Additionally, site deliveries are typically scheduled for late evening/early morning
times when drive through traffic is minimal. Trash pick up will also follow suit. Cut sheets for
drive through audio equipment have been provided with this re-submittal. Additional drive
through canopy details have been provided with this re-submittal. These are intended to clarify
the use of non-combustible building materials.
· Landscape - Norway maples, as proposed on the Landscape Plan, will be replaced with
American linden trees. The planting of additional boulevard trees along Winnetka will be
proposed based on Hennepin County's plans for the relocation of the adjacent sidewalks. The
placement of additional trees in association with the proposed fence, wall and curb will create
crowded conditions. An application for landscaping the county ROW will be filed based on the
city's final design recommendation. If denied, no additional space has been proposed which
would result in the reduction of parking stalls. Thirty-foot visibility triangles at the driveway
entrances have been analyzed with relation to wall heights, fence proximity and landscaping.
· Lighting - The photometric design has been adjusted to better accommodate the required
lighting levels adjacent to residential property. Lighting cut sheets have been provided.
· Pedestrian Access - The main pedestrian site access remains nearest the intersection of
Winnetka and Bass Lake Road via a concrete sidewalk and/or brick pavers. The proposed
decorative fencing works with the sidewalk system to promote the separation of pedestrians
from cars entering. It remains the developer's intent to negotiate an easement with Hennepin
County within the road right of way. We feel this is a more functional space for the community
than if it were located within the developer's property. If, however, the county is unwilling to grant
this easement, the corner pedestrian space can be located on the private property, if desired.
· Buildinq Elevations - Based on Design and Review's comments, the building materials proposed
will remain as proposed. Clarification: With reference to the building elevation plans provided,
window placement size and position are a direct design result of the buildings internal layout and
· function. The enclosure for compactor equipment at the building's rear has been upgraded to
brick, matching the building's materials.
· Si.qnage - Further discussions concerning building and site signage and the variance requested
are ongoing. CVS's sign consultant, Icon Identity Solutions, is to contact the planning consultant
directly.
Engineering
· Site Access from Bass Lake Road - An application for new curb cuts on both Bass Lake Road
and Winnetka Avenue has been filed. We are attempting to coordinate a meeting with the
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 6 4/30/04
developer, the city, ourselves, and Hennepin County to discuss the county's preliminary
recommendations.
· Gradin.q Plan - As suggested, the access slopes have been reduced to two percent 20 feet from
the property line crossing. From there, a maximum of five percent slope has been instituted
throughout. Catch basin clogging and overflow conditions have been reconsidered. Storm water
ponding calculations have been included with this re-submittal as requested and outlined in the
engineering staff report. The pond outlet piping has been re-routed to the nearby catch basin,
rather than connected to adjacent storm piping. As a result of grading adjustments, the height of
the retaining wall on the north property line has been reduced up to two feet in some areas.
Traffic barriers have been proposed and added to the site plan. A proposed pavement section
has been added to the grading plan. Demolition notes for adjacent paving and housing
structures has been added to the site plan.
· Fire Department - "Fire Lane - No Parking" designations will be outlined as part of the final sign
plan; as outlined by staff comments. The hydrant in the north lot has been relocated with the "big
island" as suggested, and has been cleared of landscaping. A separate sprinkler stub has been
provided. Additional fire protection measures associated with the building will be addressed prior
to building permit applications.
Planner/Staff Comments
1. History - This proposed development site was included in the Winnetka West Redevelopment
Study Area of the Livable Communities Task Force. In the task force review of the area, a
number of predominant features were promoted as priorities for any future redevelopment.
Those being:
a. Locating the commercial buildings close to the street and making the building the
predominant streetscape feature in this area of the community.
b. Controlling access points off of Winnetka and integrating those access points with an
internal street system within the balance of the Winnetka West Redevelopment Area.
c. Providing pedestrian and traffic circulation opportunities between the balance of the
Winnetka area with the commercial areas located at Bass Lake Road and Winnetka.
d. Promoting quality masonry construction at the comer of Bass Lake Road and the
predominant building material being brick.
e. Locating the parking associated with the commercial development at Bass Lake Road and
Winnetka intersection away from the street surfaces.
In the review of the CVS Pharmacy site plan, the proposed plans will be compared with both the
existing New Hope Zoning Ordinance as well as the design guidelines that were established by
the Livable Communities Task Force.
Zoninq and Use - The site is requested to be zoned CB, Community Business zoning district.
· The proposed uses will include a pharmacy, retail sales, and/or a restaurant type use. As
identified in the applicant's narrative, the lead prospect for the tenant bay would be Caribou
Coffee. These uses are permitted within the CB District. Additionally, the applicant is pursuing
administrative permits for outdoor dining as well as for drive through facilities associated with the
pharmacy.
Lot Area - The CB District does not have a minimum lot area requirement. The proposed site is
2.35 acres in area. The front of the lot would be facing Winnetka, based on city definition. The
lot width is approximately 202 feet.
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 7 4/30/04
4. Setbacks - Within the CB District, the following setbacks are required:
Required Proposed
Front Yard - East 20 feet 100 feet
Side Yard - South 10 feet 35 feet
Side Yard - North 20 feet 80 feet
Rear Yard 30 feet 73 feet
Within the CB District, the city modified its front and side yard setbacks along streets from 35
feet to 20 feet as a means of promoting buildings located closer to the street surface. This is
intended to make the building a more predominant feature in the New Hope streetscape. The
applicant has chosen setbacks greatly in excess of what is required and placed the parking in
front of the building. Both of these features run contrary to the planning objectives outlined by
the Livable Communities Task Force, however, this is a private redevelopment with no city
assistance and the imposition of guidelines not acceptable to the petitioner will defeat this
redevelopment project. This site is similar to the Walgreens site and similar discussions were
held with that developer. Both indicated that the heavy traffic flow on adjacent streets was not
conducive to moving the buildings closer to the street.
5. Parking - Section 4.3(e)(10)m stipulates that retail stores, service, shopping center, or
convenience food takeout and delivery establishments shall have at least one off-street parking
space for each 200 square feet of floor area. The following formula outlines the required parking
for the proposed building on the CVS Pharmacy site:
15,457 SF X .9 = 13,911 SF + 200 = 69.5 or 70 spaces
The applicant's site plan reveals that they have provided 79 total spaces, in excess of what is
required by New Hope Zoning Ordinance. Review of the parking layout reveals that it meets all
the required dimensional standards of New Hope's Zoning Ordinance. There may be opportunity
to reduce the number of the proposed parking areas and increase plaza or landscape areas as
a means of enhancing the overall site. In review by the Design and Review Committee, it was
suggested that the number of stalls be reduced in favor of widening the plaza on-site near the
intersection. The applicant has increased the size of the parking stalls, per staff
recommendation (similar to Walgreens).
6. Loading - The applicant has provided a 10-foot by 70-foot loading zone at the west end of the
building. Also identified in this location, is a compactor and trash enclosures. It appears that the
circulation flow along the west side of the building will accommodate large trucks, however, as
illustrated on the site plan, the stacking area for the drive through lane will interfere with access
to both the loading area as well as the trash compactor. The applicant intends to respond to the
potential loading area drive-through conflicts by scheduling site deliveries and trash pick up for
late evening and early morning hours when drive-through traffic is minimal.
7. Outdoor Dining - Outdoor dining is allowed by administrative permit.within the CB District. The
applicant has not provided sufficient detail related to the conditions of the outdoor dining area
related to the following items:
a. The applicant is required to show both the table seating and trash receptacle locations as
needed. The applicant's site plan illustrates three tables and a trash receptacle. The outdoor
dining area is defined by pavers.
b. The outdoor dining area cannot be larger than 30 percent of the customer floor area within
the restaurant area. The floor plan to date has not provided that detail to determine whether
30 percent is all that is being requested. The applicant indicates the potential for up to 1,100
square feet of indoor dining within the extra tenant bay. Thirty percent of this floor area
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 8 4/30/04
allows 330 square feet of outdoor dining. Outdoor dining area shall be limited to 330 square
feet.
c. The applicant must separate the dining areas from pedestrian traffic flow with a minimum of
a 36-inch wide pedestrian corridor. A 48-inch landscape perimeter has been added to the
outdoor dining area to separate the dining area from the parking areas. A 48-inch sidewalk is
provided between the building front and the dining area. This meets ordinance requirements.
d. The applicant must outline a plan for the storage of outdoor furniture during the winter
months. This cannot be outdoor storage. The applicant has indicated that they will account
for the indoor storage of the dining area furniture as part of the interior space planning for
the tenant bay.
8. Drive Throuqh Lanes - The applicant is also asking for an administrative permit for drive through
lanes related to the pharmacy. As illustrated on the site plan, they indicate that there will be twin
stacking lanes at the southwest corner of the building.
a. The applicant must provide a minimum of 60 feet per service lane for multiple service lanes.
The applicant's site plan illustrates 60 feet of stacking for each drive-through lane.
b. The stacking lane and its access must be designed to control traffic in a manner to protect
the building and not interfere with on-site traffic circulation or access to required parking
spaces. It appears that the stacking lanes for the individual automobiles may interfere with
access to the loading area and trash compactor. The applicant proposes to schedule
deliveries to the site and trash pick up for late evening/early morning hours when drive
through traffic is minimal. The Planning Commission will need to determine if the drive
through design is acceptable with the applicant's proposed accommodations.
c. With twin drive lanes being proposed with the drive through, the applicant must provide
details on any audio equipment that would be necessary for the outer lane to communicate
with the pharmacy. The applicant has provided details for a Diebold 816 audio system. This
information reveals that the system will be adjusted to site conditions. The highest noise
level is 75 dB at three feet away. This noise level quickly subsides with distance. The drive
through is approximately 60 feet from the nearest lot line. At this distance, the noise level will
be 53 dB, equivalent to a conversation at three feet. This is compliant with city standards.
9. Roof Top Mechanical Equipment - Sheet A-4 illustrates the proposed roof top equipment
located near the center of the building. The applicant is proposing to use a high cornice around
the perimeter of the building as a screening device. It appears that this satisfies the city's
requirement for screening of roof top equipment. No ground level equipment is illustrated.
10. Trash Enclosure - The applicant illustrates a trash enclosure at the southwest corner of the
building facing west. The enclosure is designed to have exterior face brick, exterior with a cedar
slatted gate. This is compliant with the city's requirements. A larger trash compactor is located
along the west side of the building. Following the recommendation of the Design and Review
Committee, the applicant has provided a brick screen wall to hide the trash compactor. A detail
of the trash compactor enclosure gates should be provided. The gates should duplicate the
cedar slatted gates of the freestanding trash enclosure.
11. Landscape Plan - Sheet C-5 illustrates the landscape plan for the proposed site and the
schedule is as follows:
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 9 4/30~04
Common Name I Species t Size t Noted t Shown
Trees
American Linden J T. Americana 13.5"BB l* 9
Balsam Fur A. Balsamea 6' BB 20 20
Shrubs
Black Chokeberry A. Melanocarpa Elata #5 Cont 45 45
Alpine Currant R. Alpinum #5 Cont 76 76
Arcadia Juniper J. Sabina #5 Cont 47 45
Wilton Carpet Juniper J. Horizontalis #5 Cont 22 21
Serviceberry A. Alnifolia #5 Cont 21 28
Total Items 231 244
The following new landscaping is proposed for the site:
Trees: Twenty balsam fir trees are proposed to be placed along the south property line and
swinging around to the north, beginning approximately 120 feet west of the east property line.
Nine American lindens are proposed for the site, two on either side of the Winnetka/Bass Lake
Road intersection, one on the north side of the parking along Bass Lake Road, two placed in the
planting island in the northwest area of the parking lot, one in the landscaping island attached to
the northwest corner of the building and three along the western property line directly west of the
building. Finally, one NM (unidentified) tree is proposed on the landscaping island adjacent to
the refuse enclosure.
Shrubs: Forty-five alpine currants are placed around the perimeter of the site, primarily on Bass
Lake Road (40) and Winnetka (26). In addition, 10 alpine currants are located in front of the
proposed ancillary structure. Forty-five arcadia junipers are proposed for the site. Eighteen
arcadia junipers will be located at the south entry, 12 at the Bass Lake Road/Winnetka
intersection area, four along the monument sign at the Bass Lake Road entrance, three on the
north parking lot island and eight at the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the pond.
Twenty-eight serviceberry shrubs are proposed. Twelve are located along the south property line
east of the balsam firs. Three along Winnetka south of the corner feature, three in the
landscaping island attached to the northwest corner of the building, three on the western
property line directly west of the building and seven located on the landscape island adjacent to
the refuse enclosure. Twenty-one Wilton carpet junipers will be placed at the site. Four will be
placed on the landscape island located in front of the proposed ancillary structure, three at the
south landscape island, three at the northeast landscape island, three along Winnetka south of
the corner feature, five in the northwest landscape island and three on the northwest planting
island adjacent to the northwest corner of the building. Finally, 45 black chokeberrys are
proposed. Nine chokeberry shrubs are proposed for the south property line approximately 20
feet from the south entrance, 22 are proposed around the corner feature, three on ihe north
landscaping island on the east side of the site, four next the monument sign on Bass Lake Road
and seven in the north planting island.
Sod will be placed around the site. No seed type or plantings are proposed for the ponding area.
All landscaping will be irrigated as noted on the Plan.
One tree along the north edge of the pond is proposed to be retained, seven trees are noted for
removal.
The following minor inconsistencies were noted on the landscape plan:
a. A tree (NM) was located on the plan next to the refuse enclosure, but not identified on the
schedule.
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 10 4/30/04
b. Three shrubs were located on the plan at the comer of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka, but
the type was not identified on the plan and it is unknown if they are listed on the schedule.
c. Three Wilton carpet junipers are located at the northwest planting island adjacent to the
proposed building, four are noted.
d. The number of American lindens should be identified on the schedule. Currently no number
is listed on the schedule.
e. No seed type or plantings are proposed for the pond area.
The planning consultant provided the following comments on the landscape plan:
a. The applicant has substituted American linden over-story trees for the previous Norway
maples per staff suggestion, except for a single Norway maple near the trash enclosure. The
plant schedule should reflect the number, type and size of all plantings. Fewer over-story
trees are proposed along the street rights-of-way than the previous plan. We would suggest
the addition of an over-story tree near the north site entrance and the continuation of over-
story trees along Winnetka Avenue.
b. The applicant is supplementing the over-story trees with a continued hedge of alpine currant.
This is an excellent hedging material that will screen the parking lot.
c. Junipers are proposed at the entrance points to the site. These are Iow growing shrubs and
will work well for these areas.
d. Serviceberry hedge and a balsam fir are proposed along the south and west portions of the
property to screen the commercial area from the School District property.
e. Black chokeberry is used at the entrance points. These shrubs tend to "sucker" and are
good as mass plantings.
f. The entire area intended for sodding or shrubbery shall be designed with irrigation.
g. Plantings within the traffic visibility triangles, especially on the north side of the access on
Winnetka, should be removed to insure proper traffic visibility for the southbound Winnetka
traffic.
h. The applicant is proposing a plaza and extensive landscaping beyond these property lines
within the Hennepin County/Bass Lake Road right-of-way. Any improvement of this sort
would have to receive county approval.
i. The applicant illustrates retaining walls along the east and west property lines. Based on the
grading plan, it appears that the elevation difference between the proposed site and the
Frank's site to the west is a difference of approximately three to seven feet. Any retaining
wall over four feet would have to submit detailed plans of the retaining wall for engineering
and building official approval. A railing will be required on top of the west retaining wall.
12. Site Liqhting - Sheet C-7 illustrates the site lighting. In review of the lighting and photometric
plan, it appears that the applicant has complied with the light levels that are allowed by the New
Hope Zoning Ordinance. Details or cut sheets for the light fixtures have been provided. Staff
recommends the fiat lens light fixtures as a means of reducing glare.
13. Fencing - The applicant is proposing to install a three-foot high fence consisting of wrought iron
and masonry piers. This can add an attractive appearance along the Bass Lake Road and
Winnetka Avenue streetscape.
14. Pedestrian Access - One of the priorities of the Livable Communities Task Force was to make
this commercial site look attractive and accessible to pedestrians. Concrete sidewalks exist both
along Bass Lake Road and Winnetka. The applicant has proposed to build a brick paver plaza at
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 11 4/30/04
the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue with pedestrian connections to the
store entrance defined by brick pavers. The plaza exists primarily within the county right-of-way.
The acceptability of this plaza construction needs approval by Hennepin County as an
encroachment into their right-of-way area.
A similar brick paver pedestrian connection between the public sidewalk and building should be
considered at the site's two main entrance points to allow pedestrians access to the building to
be segregated from automobile traffic entering and exiting the site.
15. Buildinq Elevations - Sheet A-1 illustrates the building elevations. As illustrated in the graphic,
the predominant exterior building feature will be EFIS, a stucco-like exterior treatment. Brick is
being used as an accent treatment for the lowest 3.5 feet of the building with vertical brick
columns being extended up the building at the corners and at building accent areas.
At the suggestion of staff, the applicant has added windows in areas where previously blank
walls were being proposed. These windows are approximately 18 inches in height and 39 feet in
length. These windows serve to break up the building massing and provide a more aesthetic
building appearance. The Design and Review Committee reviewed the building elevations and
found them to be acceptable.
The left rear building elevation illustrates the location of the trash compactor fence. The
applicant has changed the screen wall for the trash compactor to brick per the recommendations
of the Design and Review Committee.
16. Signage - The applicant is asking for numerous signs in excess of what is allowed by New Hope
Sign Ordinance as follows. Within the CB Zoning District, signs accessory to multiple occupancy
buildings, may submit a comprehensive sign plan. Under a comprehensive sign plan, the
following rules would apply as compared to the sign template proposed by the applicant.
· Wall Signs - The maximum total allowable sign area for multiple occupancy structures shall
not exceed 15 percent of the combined wall surfaces of the walls which abut streets in a
business or industrial zoning district. No individual tenant identification signs shall exceed
100 square feet in area.
The applicant's sign survey illustrates numerous wall signs "A" and "C". Sign A identifies
CVS Pharmacy dimension as 75 square feet (3 feet by 25 feet). These signs are intended on
the north and east sides of the building. These signs are compliant with city standards.
However, the applicant has requested the variance to allow 112 square foot (4 feet by 28
feet) wall signs citing the greater setbacks present a visibility hardship.
The applicant also proposes wall sign "C" (drive through, one hour photo, food shoppe). The
Design and Review Committee indicated that these multiple wall signs were excessive and
detracted from the appearance of the building. These signs would not be permitted. The
Design and Review Committee was receptive to a sign variance to allow a 112 square foot
(4 feet by 28 feet) wall sign without the miscellaneous wall sign. The future tenant of the
southern bay would also be allowed a 100 foot wall sign.
· Freestandin.q Siqns - Multiple occupancy structures, other than shopping centers or
shopping centers having four or less separate distinct occupants, may erect ground signs in
accordance with provisions outlined in Section 340.i.2 of this Code. This section references
the freestanding sign requirements allowed for single occupancy buildings. Under this
section of the Code, no more than one freestanding sign shall be permitted on any lot
abutting local collector or minor arterial streets. The applicant is proposing two freestanding
signs, a pylon sign at the Bass Lake Road entrance, and a monument sign at the Winnetka
Avenue entrance.
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 12 4/30/04
The applicant is requesting a variance for both the number of freestanding signs and sign
area. Freestanding signs abutting a local collector or minor arterial street shall not exceed
100 square feet in area. The applicant's signs are pylon (132 square feet) and monument
(22 square feet). In review of the applicant's request, staff does not find a hardship that
warrants the increased sizes and suggests a reduction in the sign area of the larger sign to
100 square feet.
Related to the number of signs, the applicant is requesting a monument sign for the south
entrance of the site. This sign is intended to be 5 feet, 10 inches in height with a total sign
area of 22 square feet in area. Staff questions the need and location of the monument sign.
The sign will be placed next to landscaping, a retaining wall, and fence. As such, visibility
from southbound traffic will be limited. Grades along the south property line will also limit the
range of view for northbound traffic.
The monument sign location, in conjunction with other-parking lot and landscape
improvements, also raise concern for traffic visibility for traffic leaving the site and accessing
Winnetka Avenue.
Based on the aforementioned concerns, along with accommodation of larger CVS wall
signage, staff suggests denying the applicant's request for the monument sign.
Freestanding signs shall not exceed 30 feet in height. The applicant's signs are 24 feet and
5 feet, 10 inches in height, compliant with this provision of the Code.
All freestanding signs must be set back at least 10 feet from any property line. The site plan
shows a five-foot setback. This should be increased to 10 feet.
· Information Signs - Within the comprehensive sign plan, the ordinance allows for delivery
signs not to exceed nine square feet in area to be located on the side or rear of the building
structure. The applicant is intended to use Signs D, E, F, G, H (Drive Through Pharmacy,
Full Service Drop Off Only, Drive Through Instruction Panel) and driveway signs at the back
of the building. In review of the delivery and drive through signs, staff feels it is compliant
with the sign area and location standards of the Sign Code. Sign location and sizes of Signs
D, E, F, G, and H are approved.
· Directional Siqns - The city also allows for public convenience or directional signs. Small
signs not exceeding two square feet in area displayed on private property for the
convenience of the public, but not limited to directional signs for freight entrances and on-site
circulation.
The applicant is asking for some freestanding directional signs (Signs I, J, K, L) which staff
believes are warranted in view of the traffic circulation patterns on the site. These signs are
generally three square feet in area which exceeds ordinance standards. The Planning
Commission may consider some of the sign variance requests of the applicant.
Staff would recommend approving Signs I and L sign area and location, but deny Signs J
(enter) and Sign K (exit) located at the site entrances. These signs are not necessary and
add to the sign clutter of the site.
17. Snow Storage - The snow storage area is identified on the site plan to be the storm water pond
on the southwest side of the development. The area is 5,000 square feet or 10 percent of the
asphalt area. The landscape plan shows an opening in this area to accommodate the pushing of
snow from the parking lot to the pond.
Planning Considerations
The planning consultant's report has been incorporated into this report.
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 13 4/30/04
Ho
Buildinq Considerations
Comments from the building official are incorporated into this report and a condition of approval will
be approval of plans by building official.
Le,qal Considerations
The city attorney submitted comments on the preliminary plat and will prepare the development
agreement.
En,qineerin,q Considerations
Comments from the city engineer include (April 29, 2004 correspondence):
We have reviewed the revised plans for the proposed site improvements and the storm water
calculations. The following comments are based the submitted materials. Comments not repeated
herein from the preliminary review (April 15, 2004) shall still be considered a requirement of this
project.
Sheet 0-2 Preliminary Site Plan
1. Hennepin County Transportation has indicated that the access to Bass Lake Road should be a
right in only. Egress movements to the left turn lane for northbound Winnetka or U-turns to west-
bound Bass Lake Road present a safety concern. The configuration of the access must be
approved by Hennepin County.
2. The county has indicated that a full movement driveway access will be permitted to Winnetka
Avenue. It was recommended that the driveway be widened to include three lanes. Left and right
turn egress lanes and one ingress lane.
3. Access permits must be approved for both proposed property accesses.
4. At this time, it appears that adequate ROW is being dedicated along Bass Lake Road and
Winnetka. Hennepin County may provide additional comments on future ROW requirements.
5. A plaza area is shown within the county ROW. This should be reviewed with Hennepin County. It
is our understanding that this will be acceptable to the county with the understanding future
removal, if ever required for future transportation improvements, would be at the owner's
expense. The city will assure that this responsibility remains with CVS via a maintenance
agreement.
6. The storm water pond is proposed to be located on an outlot. It is our understanding that CVS
will purchase this outlot from School District 281. We would recommend that CVS consider
obtaining an easement only over this outlot and that the School District retain ownership of the
outlot. This would facilitate redevelopment of the outlot and relocation of the pond in the future.
Sheet C-3 Preliminary Grading and Drainage
7. The driveway slopes have been modified to a maximum of a 5% grade. A 2% landing area near
the entrance is shown. The existing gutter elevations at the Winnetka driveway must be shown.
It appears that gutter reaches a high point of 920+/-. If this is correct, the final 20 feet of the
driveway may still be too steep. This should be clarified.
8. A storm water pond is shown on the west side of the property. The following comments relate to
the pond.
a. Storm water calculations have been submitted and are being reviewed. The proposed
drainage pattern will increase the amount of area directed toward the adjacent Iow area to
the west. Flooding conditions on this property to the west cannot be increased.
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 14 4/30/04
b. The proposed pond outlet connects to the existing public storm sewer west of Franks
Nursery. Drainage and utility easement must be provided over the storm sewer between the
pond outlet and the public storm sewer. The condition of the existing storm structure must
also be verified. A number of connections have already been made'to this structure.
Replacement or additional work may also be required.
9. Two retaining walls are shown on the plans. The wall along the east property line is significant
although the height has been reduced with the revised plans. Further comments relating to the
wall include:
a. A design certified by a licensed engineer must be submitted for the wall prior to construction.
b. A treated timber guardrail is shown along the top of the wall. A railing is required. The
basis/rating of the rail design should be discussed. The city should also comment on the
acceptability of the railing materials.
10. The proposed pavement section is shown. With the proposed mass grading on the site, it is
anticipated that an acceptable subgrade will be achieved from a compaction standpoint.
However, it is recommended that a more significant section be used in the main drive areas. We
would recommend an aggregate section of 12 inches.
11. The adjacent residential property will be removed. Remove the existing driveway and curb cut
also. Repair sidewalk and curb and gutter as is necessary. This is not noted on the plans.
Sheet C-4 Preliminary Utility Plan
12. The storm sewer layout may require further modification pending the review of the storm water
calculations. No specific changes are noted at this time.
I. Police Considerations
The Police Department was involved with the review process.
J. Fire Considerations
West Metro Fire was involved in the review process and comments have been incorporated into the
report. A condition of approval is approval of the final plans by West Metro Fire.
VIII. Summary
Bear Creek Capital, on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, has requested the following development applications
to allow for the redevelopment of the southwest corner of the Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue
intersection with a 15,457 square foot retail facility.
1. Rezoning of a portion of the land received from the School District from R-1 Single Family to
CB, Community Business.
2. Preliminary plat.
3. Site and building plan review
4. Administrative permit for outdoor dining.
5. Administrative permit for drive through facilities
6. Sign variances.
The proposed redevelopment site is a predominant location within the city and has undergone extensive
study and review. The Planning Commission must determine if the proposed use and site design fulfills
the city's long range goals for this area of the community. Staff feels that overall the applicant has done
a good job with plan revisions and has addressed a majority of the issues. While all of the
recommendations of the Livable Communities study are not met, it is important to remember that this is
a private redevelopment, similar to Walgreens, and no city assistance is involved in the project.
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 15 4/30/04
IX,
3.
4.
5.
Recommendation
Rezoninq - Staff finds that conditions have changed that warrant the expansion of the CB zoning in
conJunction with this application. This site has been identified for redevelopment and the
Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for commercial land use. Under these circumstances, staff
recommends approval of the zoning change.
Preliminary Plat - The proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the New Hope Subdivision
Ordinance and CB Zoning District. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. Comply with recommendations of city engineer (April 15 and 29, 2004, correspondence).
2. ComPly with recommendations of city attorney (April 23, 2004, correspondence).
3. Subject to Hennepin County plat review and approval of street access permits.
4. Planning Commission agrees to waive review of final plat.
5. Park fees to be paid at time of final plat approval (2.35 acres x $2,500 = $5,875).
Site and Buildinq Plan Review
1. Execute development agreement with city and provide the appropriate financial security for site
improvement work (amount to be determined by building official and city engineer).
Comply with city engineer recommendations, per April 15 and 29, 2004, attached correspondence.
Approval of plans by building official.
Approval of plans by West Metro Fire.
Comply with planner recommendations, as follows:
a. Hennepin County providing written approval of the plaza improvements and landscaping. Without
this approval, the proposed plaza should be expanded on site. This will change the site plan
design.
b. Provide a detail for trash compactor enclosure gates. Said gates should duplicate the trash
enclosure gates.
c. Landscape plan:
1) Extending over-story tree treatment along Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue.
2) Details on the retaining walls over four feet in height must be submitted for review and
approval by the New Hope building official and city engineer. Railings must be installed atop
the west retaining wall.
3) Correct discrepancies between landscape plan and schedule.
d. Parking lot lights shall use the flat lens fixtures.
e. Planning Commission to make recommendation regarding bdck paver pedestrian connection
being provided connecting the building with public sidewalk along both access drives.
f. The following signage is approved for the CVS multi tenant building:
1) Wall Siqns:
a) Planning Commission approves a variance for two CVS walls signs at 112 square feet (4
feet by 28 feet) in area.
b) Other miscellaneous signs (i.e., drive through, one hour photo, food center) shall be
prohibited.
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 16 4/30/04
c) The other tenant bay shall receive a wall sign up to 100 square feet in area.
2) Freestandinq Signs:
a) Planning Commission should.make recommendation on the variance for 132 square foot
freestanding sign area. The New Hope Sign Code allows 100 square feet. Staff
recommends a reduction in sign area to 100 square feet.
b) Staff recommends denial of the second freestanding sign.
c) The freestanding signs be set back 10 feet from all property lines.
3) Informational Siqns - Per the sign packet submitted by the applicant, the city approves the
sign size and location for Signs D, E, F, G, and H.
4) Directional Signs:
a) The city approves the size and location for Signs I and L per the applicant's sign plan.
b) The proposed Sign J (enter) and Sign K (exit) are prohibited.
Administrative Permit - Outdoor Dining - Administrative permit for outdoor dining is approved with the
following criteria:
1. Outdoor dining area shall be limited to 330 square feet, delineated by landscaping and brick pavers.
2. The applicant is required to provide indoor storage space for any movable dining area furniture for
winter month storage.
Administrative Permit - Drive Through Facilities - Administrative permit for drive through facilities is
approved with the following condition:
1. All deliveries and trash pick up shall be scheduled for late evening hours or early morning hours
when ddve through traffic is minimal.
Attachments:
Address/Zoning/Topo/Aerial Maps
4/8~04 Petitioner Correspondence
4/23/04 Petitioner Correspondence
Information on Ceiling Heights
Land Swap Area Exhibit
Aerial View
Rendering
Long Range Concept
Light Fixture Details
Audio System Specifications
4/15 and 4/28/04 Planner Report
4/15 and 4/29/04 City Engineer Comments
4/23/04 City Attorney Plat Comments
West Metro Fire Comments
Application Log
Revised Plans/April 23
Large Scale Revised Plans:
Cover Sheet
Preliminary Site Plan, Trash Enclosure and Fence Detail
Preliminary Grading/Drainage Plan
Preliminary Utility Plan
Landscape Plan and Schedule
Existing Conditions
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 17 4/30/04
Photometric Plan and Luminaire Schedule
Preliminary Plat
Exterior Elevations/Finish Schedule
Building Floor. Plan
Fire Protection Plan
Roof/Mechanical Plan
Drive Through Details
Planning Case Report 04-10 Page 18 4/30104
5827
5811
--' GREEN
;)LF 1;~! ,.____J
:'l!i'i ST. THERESE
!'}~?: NURSING ~,2o -
~ t '5559
5559 r,. 5537
794O
5524.
5518
5512
55O6
5500
5531
5519
5509
7610
5501 /
5443 5 5437
56TH AV
-- ~ J~JJJ gl 761
AVE t
HOSTERMAN : .......... _ .__ -4 :-:- ......... :
JR HIGH .............
SCHOOL WINNETKA ...........
ELEMENTARY'-
SCHOOL ........... ' ........ - .....
............ = =, '-' R:I ...... :::"'".-" :::.::~---:-
ST. RAPHAEL
CHURCH
Q
Q
Q
0 X " '"'"'
') 'X /"
BEAR CREEK CAPITAL
April 8,2004
Kirk McDonald
Director of Community Development
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55928
Subject:
· PROJECT OVERVIEW
REQUESTED VARIANCE FOR WALL SIGNAGE
· REQUESTED VARIANCE FOR GROUND MOUNTED SIGN
· REQUESTED ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT FOR PHARMACY PICK-UP
WINDOW
· REQUESTED ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR DINING
Dear Kirk:
Bear Creek Capital requests the City of New Hope approve the Winnetka-West retail project subject
to the above referenced administrative permits and variances in conjunction with the proposed
redevelopment of the retail site at the southwest comer of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue.
As illustrated in the attached package, Bear Creek Capital proposes to redevelop the existing
Sinclair fuel station and residential parcels into a retail property including a 13,013 square foot CVS
Pharmacy and an approximately 2,400 s.f. retail tenant space.
CVS Pharmacy is the largest pharmacy/convenience retailer in the U.S. with more than 5,000
locations. Bear Creek Capital is the designated developer for CVS stores in the greater Minneapolis
market. We are currently developing approximately 20 locations including the retail project. Bear
Creek Capital is one of the largest owners and developers of retail centers in the Midwest with a
portfolio with more than $3 million square feet of similar projects.
CVS will occupy the site as the fee owner of its parcel. Bear Creek Capital will own and lease the
adjoin!ng retail area. Currently the lead prospect as a tenant is Caribou Coffee. Cross-access and
cross-maintenance agreements will be incorporated into the development agreements between CVS,
Bear Creek Capital and the City permitting access through the properties.
We have also prepared an exhibit illustrating how the Winnetka-West retail development can
become integrated with the balance of the Winnetka-West master plan as envisioned by the City of
New Hope.
Bear Creek is currently in contract to purchase the two parcels known as the Bauer properties on
Winnetka Avenue. Contract documents are being exchanged with Sinclair Oil's home office and a
land swap agreement is being exchanged with Robbinsdale Area Schools. Additionally, Bear Creek
has proposed to purchase approximately 1/3 acres from Robbinsdale Area Schools to be used as a
detention basin area. The basin will be designed to allow for expansion if and when the remainder
of the Winnetka-West area becomes redeveloped.
Additionally, we formally request at this time the waving of final plat review by Planning
Commission and request final plat proceed directly to the City Council.
REQUESTED VARIANCE FROM ALLOWABLE BUILDING WALL SIGNAGE
Attached are two 8 ½ x 11 illustrations. The first, shows our understanding of code allowable
signage. The second illustrates our requested variances.
In general, the City's code permits 365 square feet of building wall signs. We are requesting a total
of 504 square feet in order to accommodate a slightly larger primary sign (48" CVS logo vs.
permitted 36" CVS logo). The justification for this increase would be to accommodate the visibility
of the sign due to increased set backs.
REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FOR GROUND MOUNTED SIGNS
Similarly, a ground mounted monument sign in compliance with the city's maximum square
footage is requested at the property's entrance on Winnetka Avenue. The justification for this
requested variance is to clearly identify the properties' entrance to the CVS customers.
REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT TO ACCOMMODATE PHARMACY
PICK-UP WINDOW
Located to the rear of the main CVS building, we propose to provide a two bay pick-up window
service for our CVS customers. The bay closest to the window will represent the primary pick up
window while the bay to the outside will represent the pneumatic tube for prescriptions only.
Circulation has been designed to safely accommodate traffic through that portion of the site. Traffic
trip generation and stacking requirements are minimal since only prescription pharmaceuticals can
be acquired at this location.
REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR DINING
In association with the proposed coffee shop to the south, a brick paved pedestrian seating area has
been proposed. This element is intended to enhance the character of the development.
Additionally, this space through its use of brick pavers and pedestrian space will provide a link to
the pedestrian space located at the intersection.
Bear Creek Capital is proud of its association with CVS Pharmacy and looks forward to working
with the City in creating a project at this important location.
Please Call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
William J. Tippmann
Vice President
Cc: Mark Miller
Tim Baird
ANDERSON ENGINEERING of Minnesota,
CIVIL ENGINEERING ~ LAND SURVEYING
13400 15th Avenue North, Suite 8 · Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
LLC
· Tel: 763.383.1084
· Fax: 763.383.1089
April 23, 2004
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Community Development Director
4401 Xylon Ave N
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Narrative; Adjustments to Plans Based on DRC Meeting; CVS/pharmacy Proposed
Development
Dear Kirk:
The following is a bdef explanation of adjustments made to the Preliminary Plans based on staff
review comments and discussions with the DRC.
SiTE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW
Parking
Excluding handicap, all parking spaces have been widened to 9 feet as requested. Based on
discussions between Bill Tippmann and you, the developer agrees with you that parking on the
site should be maximized while still creating an aesthetically pleasing environment. You
described the city's experience with the Walgreens development and adjoining coffee shop,
where parking is at a premium.
An additional handicap stall has been provided in the vicinity of the restaurant to the south.
Outdoor Dining
Since the interior of the retail space as not been designed, we do not know the exact size of the
costumer area. Based on the potential for up to 1100 SF of indoor dining and service area with in
the adjacent restaurant, 3,300 SF of outdoor dining area has been provided. -
To help separate between pedestrian and car space, a 48" landscape buffer has been added at
the patio perimeter.
The position of accessory table, chair and trash elements are shown on the plan. Interior space
calculations include the need for storage of these items, the details of which are being further
considered at this time.
Drive Thru
Two, 60' drive thru lanes have been clarified on the site plan with the addition of proposed
pavement striping. The 60' length has been based on the smallest radius of the curve and
includes space at the window up to the end of the canopy island.
Adjustments of the drive thru striping has improved potential vehicular conflicts with the loading
zone. Additionally, site deliveries are typically scheduled for late evening/early morning times
when drive thru traffic is minimal. Trash pick up will also follow suit.
LAND DEVELOPMENT · MUNICIPAL · HIGHWAYS · RAILROADS
SURVEYING · WETLANDS · ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
Anderson Engineering of MN, LLC
Re-submittal Narrative
Page 2 of 4
Apdl 23, 2003
Cut sheets for drive thru audio equipment have been provided with this re-submittal.
Additional ddve thru canopy details have been provided with this re-submittal. These are
intended to clarify the use of non-combustible building materials.
Landscape
Norway Maples, as proposed on the Landscape Plan, will be replaced with Amedcan Linden
trees.
The planting of additional boulevard trees along Winnetka will be proposed based on Hennepin
County's plans for the relocation of the adjacent sidewalks. The placement of additional trees in
association with the proposed fence, wall and curb will create crowded conditions.
An application for landscaping in the County ROW will be filed based on the City's final design
recommendation. If denied, no additional space has been proposed which would result in the
reduction of parking stalls.
30' visibility triangles at the driveway entrances have been analyzed with relation to wall heights,
fence proximity and landscaping.
Lighting
The photometric design has been adjusted to better accommodate the required lighting levels
adjacent to residential property.
Lighting cut sheets have been provided.
Pedestrian Access
The main pedestrian site access remains nearest the intersection of Winnetka and Bass Lake via
a concrete sidewalk and/or brick pavers. The proposed decorative fencing works with the
sidewalk system to promote the separation of pedestrians from cars entering. It remains the
developer's intent to negotiate an easement with Hennepin County within the road right of way~
We feel this is a more functional space for the community than if it where located within the
developer's property. If however the county is unwilling to grant this easement, the comer
pedestrian space can be located on the pdvate property if desired.
Building Elevations
Based on DRC review, the building materials proposed will remain as proposed. .
Clarification. With reference to the building elevation plans provided, window placement size and
position are a direct design result of the buildings internal layout and function.
The enclosure for compactor equipment at the building's rear has been upgraded to bdck,
matching the building's materials.
Signage
Further discussions concerning building and site signage and the variance requested are
ongoing. CVS's sign consultant, Icon Identity Solutions is to contact Alan direct.
Anderson Engineering of MN, LLC
Re-submittal Narrative
Page 3 of 4
Apd123. 2003
ENGINEERING
Site Access From Bass Lake Road
An application for new curb cuts on but Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Ave has been filed. We
are attempting to coordinate a meeting with the developer, the city. Ourselves and Hennepin
County to discuss the counties preliminary recommendations.
Grading Plan
As suggested, the access slopes have been reduced to 2%, 20' from the property line crossing.
From there, a maximum of 5% slope has been instituted throughout.
Catch basin clogging and overflow conditions have been reconsidered.
Storm water ponding calculations have been included with this re-submittal as requested and .
outlined in the engineering staff report.
The pond outlet piping has been re-routed to the nearby catch basin, rather than connected to
adjacent storm piping.
As a result of grading adjustments, the height of the retaining wall on the north prope~, line has
been reduced up to 2 feet in some areas.
Traffic barriers have been proposed and added to the site plan.
A proposed pavement section has been added to the grading plan.
Demolition notes for adjacent paving and housing structures has been added to the site plan.
Fire Department
"Fire Lane - No Parking" designations will be outlined as part of the final sign plan; as outlined: by
staff comments. -
The hydrant in the north lot has been relocated with the "big island" as suggested, and has been
cleared of landscaping.
A separate sprinkler stub has been provided.
Additional fire protection measures associated with the building will be addressed prior to building
permit applications.
CONCLUSION
Attached to this letter are copies of our development proposal complete with the aforementioned
adjustments and attachments. Please contact us with further comments or concerns.
~oss Fairbr(~ther, L.;A./Planner
Anderson Engineering of Minnesota.
McDonald Kirk
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
rene plumart [rplumart@DJR-INC.com]
Thursday, April 15, 2004 1:59 PM
McDonald Kirk
Ross Fairbrother-Anderson Eng. (E-mail)
CVS New Hope-ceiling heights
Kirk,
A question arose in regards to the ceiling heights.
follows:
Main Sales Area/Photo Lab 11'-11"
Pharmacy 9'-0"
Restrooms/Break Room 8'-0"
Receiving 9'-11 ~"
Let me know if you need any more info.
Rene Plumart
Senior Project Architect
DJR Architecture, Inc.
333 Washington Ave. N. Suite 210
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Ph: 612-676-2721
Fx: 612-676-2796
rplumart@djr-inc.com
They are as
~,iWATER POND CREATES
~IBORHOOD AMENrFY
GAZEBO/CENTRAl.'
GATH F.~'ANG AREA
BEGIN PARK
PEDF. qTRi A N CONNEC-rION
TO COMMERCIAL AREA
CREATE ATTRACTIVE VIEWS FOR.
SINGLE FAJ~IILY NEIGHBORHOOD
THROUGH BUILDING ORIENTATION
,'~I'D LANDSCAPING
cvs ..A..ACY TY.E A · A2: GSM-AM-MT-,000-M.-- V-SO-A.-F,,MA,00,A" McGRAW-EDISON'
DESCRIPTION
McGraw-Edison's Galleria
combines beauty and versatility
to make it an excellent choice
for architects, specifiers and
contractors in today's
energy- and design-conscious
environment. An aesthetic
reveal in the formed aluminum
housing gives the Galleria a
distinctive look while a variety
of mounting options and lamp
war, ages provide maximum
flexibility.
APPLICATION
The Galleria achieves superior
light distribution by utilizing a
seamless reflector system,
making it the optimum choice
for almost any small, medium
or large area lighting
application.
DIMENSIONS
SPECIFICATION FEATURES
A.-Housing
Formed aluminum housing
with stamped reveal has
interior-welded seams for
structural integrity and is
finished in premium TGIC
polyester powder coat. U.L
listed and CSA certified for wet
locations.
B.*.Ballast Tray
Ballast tray is hard-mounted to
housing interior for cooler
operation.
C .-.Ballast
Long-life core and coil ballast.
D-.-Reflector
Spun and stamped aluminum
reflector in vertical lamp units,
or hydroformed anodized
aluminum reflector in
horizontal lamp units.
Rotatable optics standard.
E-,-Door
Formed aluminum door has
heavy-duty hinges, captive
retaining screws and is
finished in premium TGIC
polyester powder coat. (Spider
mount unit has steel door.)
F***Leos
Convex tempered glass lens or
flat glass,
Arm Mo~t Spk:l~iou~t
FIXTURE A B C D E F
Small (in,) 9 1t4 I 1/2 12 7/~ 15 5/~ 6 or 9 3 1/4
imm) 235 38 327 397 152 or 229 337
Medium (in.) 11 3 1/2 19 1/4 21 3/4 6 or 14 15 or 16
(mm) 279 89 480 552 152 or 356 381 or 406
Large lin,) 14 1/2 4 I/4 25 7/8 27 6 or 14 18 3/4 or 19 3/4
(mm) 368 108 657 686 152 or 356 476 or 502
NOTE: Top cap used on GSM with 1000W flat glass vertically lamped optics only.
COOPER LIGHTING
GSS/GSM/GSL
GALLERIA
SQUARE
70-1000W
Metal Halide
High Pressure Sodium
ARCHITECTURAL
AREA LUMINAIRE
DARK SKY FRIENDLY
tn all flat glass configurations,
ENERGY DATA
CWA Ballast Input Watts
150W MH HPF (210 Watts)
175W MH HPF (210 Watts)
175W MH HPF (210 Watts)
250VV MH HPF {295 Watts)
250W HPS HPF (300 Watts)
400W MH HPF (455 Watts)
400W HPS HPF (465 Wettsl
1000W MH HPF I1080 Watts)
1000W HPS HPF II100 Watts)
ADHO12827
PHOTOMETRICS
G$S/GSM/GSLGALLERIA SQUARE
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
4 5
ABC DE
0 1 2 3 0 t 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
GM-1 GM-2 GM-3
GSS-AM-175-MH-MT-3F.FG GSM-AM-400-HPS-MT.3F-FG GSM-AM-1000-MH.MT.3V. FG
175-Watt MH, Type Ill 400-Watt HPS, TyDe III 1000-Watt MH, Type Ill Vertical
14,000-Lumen Clear Lamp 50,000*Lumen Clear Lamp 110,000-Lumen Clear Lamp
Footcandle Table Footcandle Table Footcandle Table
Setect mounting height and read Select mounting height and read Select mounting height and read
across for footcandle values of across for footcandle values of across for footcandle values of
each isofootcandle line. Distance each isofootcandie line. Distance each isofootcandle ime, Distance
in units of mounfinq hei~)ht, in units of mountin~ height, in units of mountin~ height.
Mounting Mounting Mounting
Height Footcandle Values for Height Footcandle Values for Height
GM-1 Isofootcandle Lines GM-2 Icofootcandle Lines
A B C D E A B C D E
10' 11.25 4.50 2.25 1.16 0,45 30' 2.00 1.00 0.50
15' 5.00 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.25 35' 1.46 0.73 0.37
20'2.801.120.56 0.28 0.1940'1.120.56 0.28
'WATTAGE TABLE Watta.qe
Fixture Size .
GSS 70W--175W
~ ~ 175W--1000W
GSL 400W--1000W J
ORDERING INFORMATION
4
: ! ill I,~1 "
ABCDtE
~A 8 C DE
Footcandle Values for
GM-3--5 Isofoo~candle Lines
A 8 C D E
0.250.1030' 3.502.00 1,000.50
0.18 0.07 35' 2.60 0.73 0.37 0.18 0.07
0.140.0640' 2.001.000.500.200.10
SAMPLE NUMBER: GSM'AM-4OO-MH-MT-3V.SG.BK.L
0 I 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
GM-4 GM-$
GSM-AM-1000-MH.MT-AS-FG GSM-AM-1000-MH-MT. AS.SG
1000.Watt MH, Area Square 1000-Watt MH, Area Square
110,000-Lumen Clear Lamp 110,000-Lumen Clear Lamp
2
3
Product Family
I GSS=Galleria Square
] Small
~ GSM=Galleria Square
Medium
~ GSL=Galleria Square
Large
IMounting Method
AM=Arm Mount ~
SMl=Spider Mount
{2' O.D. Tenon)
SM2=Spider Mount
(2 3/8" O.D. Tenon)
I SM3=Spider Mount
(3 1/2' O.D. Tenon)'
Lamp Wattage ·
70=70W
100=100W
150=150W
175=175W
250=-250W
400=400W'
1000=1000W'
fL amp Type
MH=Metal Halide
HPS=High Pressure Sodium
120=120V
208=208V
240=240V
277=277V
480=480V
MT=Multi-Tap wired 277V'
Tr=Triple-Tap wired 347V'
DintHbution
IColorl (add as suffix/
must st)act(y).
BK=Black
AP=Grey
aZ-Bronze
WH=Amhitectural White
1F=Type I Formed (Horizontal)'
2F=Type II Formed (Horizontal)
3F=Type I1( Formed (Horizontal)
FT=Forward Throw Formed (Horizontal)
AR=Area Round (Vertical)
AS=Arss Square (Vertical)*
3V=Type Ill (Vertical)'
RW=RectanguJar Wide (Vertical)L.
FO=Flat Glass -
SO--Sag Glass
O~tion~ ladd as aufflx)
F--Single Fuse
(120, 277 or 347V)
FF=Doubte Fused
(208, 240 or 480V)
EM=Quartz Restrike with Delay
(Also Strikes at Cold Start)
R=NEMA Twistlock Photocontrol
Receptacle
{]=-Quartz Restrlke
{Hot Restrike Only)
HS=House Side Shield
V$-Vendel Shield
(Arm Mount Only,
400W Maximum)
L=Lamp Included
NOTES: , Arm not included. See accessories. ~ Available on GSL housing only.
~ Medium-base lamp for GSS housing. Mogul-base on GSM and GSL housings.
' Requires reduced envsioioe ED-28 tamp when used with GSM housing and fiat glass venicsily tamped optics.
~ ReQuires reduced envelope BT-37 lamp when used w~th GSM housing.
· Product also available in non-US voltages and 50Hz for international markets. Consult factory for availability and ordering information.
' Multi-Tap ballast is 120/208/240/277V wired 277V. Tripla-Tag ballast is 120/277/347V wired 347V.
' Available on GSM and GSL housings only.
· RW optic not available with flat glass.
'" 1000W GSL with fiat glass requires BT-37 lamp and is not available in AS, RW, 3V distributions.
' Other finish colors avsilable. ConsuR McGraw-Edison Architectural Colors brochure.
Aeeeaaoriea (order separately)
MA1{034=14' Arm for Square Pole. 1.0 EPA
MA1005=6' Arm for Square Pole. 0,5 EPA
MAlOOB=Direct Mount Kit for Square Pole
MA1007=14' Arm for Round Pole. 1.0 EPA
MAlooa=6' Arm for Round Pole. 0.5 EPA
MAlOOg=-Direct Mount Kit for Round Pole
t MAlOlO=Single-erm Tenon Adapter for 3 1/2' O.D. Tenon
MA1011 =2 @ 180° Tenon Adepter for 3 1/2' O.D. Tenon
MA1012=3 @ 120° Tenon Adapter for 3 1/2' O.D. Tenon
MA1013-4 @ 90° Tenon Adapter for 3 I/2' O.D, Tenon
MAt014=2 @ 90° Tenon Adapter for 3 1/2' O.D. Tenon
MA1016.2 @ 120° Tenon Adapter for 3 1/2' O,D. Tenon
MAIOtB=3 ~ 90= Tenon Adapter for 3 1/2' O,D. Tenon
MAlO17=Single-erm Tenon Adapter for 2 3/8' O.D. Tenon
MAI01S=2 @ 180° Tenon Adapter for 2 3/8' O.D. Tenon
~A1019-~3 @ 120° Tenon Adapter for 2 3/~' O.D. Tenon
MA'IO21=6- Arm for Square Pole. 0.5 EPA (GSS Only)
R~1,1022=6# Arm for Round Pole. 0,5 EPA (GSS Only)
MA1023-,-9' Arm for Square Pole. 0,5 EPA (GSS Only)
MA1024=9' Arm for Round Pole. 0.5 EPA (GSS Only)
MAIO29=WeIi Mount Bracket with 10' Arm (Specify color)
MAIINIr~4 ~) 90* Tenon Adapter for 2 3/8' O.D. Tenon
MA104~=Well Mount Bracket with 9' Arm(GSS Only,
Specify color)
MAIO48=-2 @ 90° Tenon Adapter for 2 3/8' O.D. Tenon
MA104~=3 @ 90° Tenon Adapter for 2 3/8' O.D. Tenon
~lO~O=House Side Shield for GSS (Field Installed)
M~lo~l=House Side Shield for GSM (Field Installed)
MA¶O62. House Side Shield for GSL (Field Installed)
aa10IG=Photocontrol--Multi.Tap
aa 102?=Photocont rol-480V
OA12Ol=Photoelectric Control, 347V NEMA Type
NOTE: SbaCiRcstions and dimensions subject to cha~ge without nonce.
Lighting
Visit our web site at www. coopertighUng.com
Customer First Center 1121 Highway 74 South Peachtree City, GA 30269 770,486.4800 FAX 770.486.4801 ADH012827
TYPE:
CATALOG #:
STREETWORKS'
MH
(mounting height)
~--~ ....... 4
handhoie
12 5/16 ·
~Base View
DBc
COOPER LIGHTING
HANDHOLE (section through standard handhole)
1/4' Outside corner radius
3/4' Thick handhole reinforcement
ring welded to shaft
Cover retaining screw
Stamped handhole cover
Cover retaining latch
Ground lug receptacle
SPECIFICATION FEATURES
I -..ASTM Grade steel base plate
with ASTM A366 base cover.
2 '"Handhole assembly 3' x 5# on
5' and 6" pole; and 2" x 4' on
4" pole.
3 -.'ASTM A500 grade "B" steel
shaft. Shot blasted and painted
with polyester powder coat.
4--. Drilled or Tenon (specify).
E".Anchor bolt per ASTM A576
with (2) nuts, (2) fiat washer,
and (1) lock washer, Nuts,
washers and threaded portion
of bolt are hot dip galvanized.
3' hook for 3/4' bolt. 4" hook
for 1" bolt.
SSSSQUARE
STRAIGHT STEEL
10'-39'
Mounting Height
SQUARE STRAIGHT STEEL
FINISH COLORS
F=Dark Bronze
G=Galvanized
H=Red
I=Royal Blue
P=Prime .'
S=Silver
V=Grey
W=White
X=None
Y=Black
ADW010626
ORDERING INFORMATION
SSSSOUARE STRAIGHT STEEL
The following information illustrates the correct way to enter an order for SSSSA20SFMlXG. The ordering designation is detailed as follows.
Mounting Fixture No. & Accessories
Shaft 3 Wall Height Base Mounting Location Arm {Ground
Square Straight Steel Size Thickness (ft.) Type Finish & Type of Arms Lengths Lug)
S $ S 5 A 20 S F M I X G
Bolt Anchor
Base Circle Bolt Shaft Bolt Net. Max. Fixture
Mtg. Catalog 1, 2 Wall Square Dia. Proj. Size Dia. &. Wt. EPA EPA {Sq. Ft.) 4 Load--Include
Height Number Thickness (In.) (In.) (in.) (in,) Length (in,) (Lbs.) At Pole Top (Sq. Ft.) 2' Above Pole Top Bracket (Lbs.)
MH S BC BP B AB 80 90 100 80 90 100
10 SSS4A10SF .120 10 1/2 11.0 4 1/2 4 3/4 x 25 x 3 96 28.5 22.1 17.5 20.3 15.8 12.5 150
15 SSS4A15SF .120 10 1/2 11.0 4 1/2 4 3/4 x 25 x 3 133 17.3 13.0 9.9 10.9 8.2 6.2 150
20 SSS4A20SF .120 10 1/2 11.0 4 1/2 4 3/4 x 25 x 3 152 8.5 5.9 4.1 7.0 4.9 3.4 200
25 SSS4A25SF .120 10 1/2 11.0 4 1/2 4 3/4 x 25 x 3 208 4.7 2.7 1.2 4.0 2.3 1.0 5 200
20 SSS5A20SF .120 10 1/2 11.0 4 1/2 5 3/4 x 25 x 3 202 15.1 11.0 8.0 12.6 9.1 6.7 200
25 SSS5A25SF .120 10 1/2 11.0 4 1/2 5 3/4 x 25 x 3 248 9.7 6.4 4.0 8.3 5.5 3.4 200
30 SSS5A30SF .120 10 1/2 11.0 4 1/2 5 3/4 x 25 x 3 293 5.4 2.6 .6 5 4.3 2.1 .5 5 300
35 SSSSM35SF .188 10 1/2 11.0 4 1/2 5 3/4 x 25 x 3 480 6.6 3.4 1.1 5 5.9 3.1 1.0 5 300
25 SSS6A25SF .120 12 1/2 12.5 5 6 1 x 36 x 4 295 16.0 11.0 7.6 13.7 9.6 6.6 200
30 SSS6A30SF .120 12 1/2 12.5 5 6 1 x 36 x 4 347 10.3 6.2 3.3 8.2 5.0 2.6 200
30 SSS6M30SF .188 12 1/2 12.5 5 6 I x36x 4 505 20.2 14.1 9.7 16.1 11.2 7.7 300
35 SSS6M35SF .188 12 1/2 12.5 5 6 I x 36 x 4 584 12.5 7.8 4.5 5 11.3 7.0 4.0 300
35 SSS6X35SF .250 12 1/2 12.5 5 6 I x 36 x 4 696 19.0 12.9 8.6 17.0 11.6 7.7 450
39 SSS6M39SF .188 12 1/2 12.5 5 6 I x 36 x 4 647 8.6 4.3 1.4 7.9 4.1 1.3 5 300
39 SSS6X39SF .250 12 1/2 12.5 5 6 I x 36 x 4 822 14.4 8.9 5.0 13.2 8.2 4.7 300
NOTEB: I Catalog number includes pole with anchor bolts with double nuts (BEFORE INSTALLING ANCHOR BOLTS MAKE SURE PROPER ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE tS OBTAINED FROM
COOPER LIGHTING). 2 Tenon size or machining for rectangular arms must be specified. Handhole is located 180° from single arm. 3 Shaft size, base blare, anchor bolts and
projections'may vary slightly--all dimensions nominal. 4 EPA's based on shaft properties with wind normal to fiat. EPA's calculated using base wind velocity as indicated plus 30°,/.
gust factor. 5 Not recommended.
DRILLING PATTERN
Type"M" Type
[--'~'~ 2 13/16" 3/4"
J I' 9/16' [14mm]
L_ die, hole 13)
MOUNTING OPTIONS (add as suffix)
Fixed Tenon
-O.D.~
Designation O.D, Length
Number lin.) {In.)
1 2 3/8 3 1/2
2 2 3/8 4
3 3 1/2 5
9 3 4
MACHINING FOR RECTANGULAR ARMS (add as suffix)
Designation Des;,3~;-{;on (UCS Only) Designation (Cirrus / Credenza Only)
Letter & Number Letter & Number Letter & Number
M1 E1 Zl
M2 E2 Z2
M3 E3 Z3
M4 E4 Z4
M5 E5 Z5
M6 E6 Z6
M7 E7 Z7
NUiI=~: 1 Arm mounting holes located 45° from base holes. 2 First drilling is 180' from handhole.
Quantity
& Lc, cat;on
Single
2 @ 180" 1
3 @ 120° 2
4@90ol
2@90° 1
3@90°
2 @ 120°
ACCESSORIES
A=1/2' tapped hub 1
B=3/4" tapped hub 1
C=Convenience outlet 2
G=Grounding lug (max. wire #8 AWG)
H=Additional handhole and cover--
12' below pole top---90° from handhole."
NOTES: 1 Location is 3' above base-90° from handhole.
2 Outlet is located 4' above base and on same side of
pole as handhole, unless specifie0 otherwise. Receptacle
not included, provision only.
COOPER Lighting
NOTE: $pecificalions end dimensions subject to change withom notice.
Visit our web ~ at www. cooperlighting.com
Customer First Center 1121 Highway 74 South Peachtree City, GA 30269 770.486.4800 FAX 770.486.4801 ADW010626
Physical Security Group
113/02
816TM Audio System Sound Specifications
DIEBOLD engineehng has taken sound level measurements on our audio products
associated with our VATs (Vacuum Air Tube Systems); VAT 21, VAT 23, and VAT
30/Easy-air 10 systems. These pneumatic tube systems are equipped with
816TM Audio Systems.
In order to simulate a worst case configuration, all lane controls were set to the maximum
levels and the person talking into the Operator's microphone stayed within one inch of the
microphone. Normally, the lane volume potentiometers are adjusted on a per ske basis to
allow for normal ambient noise levels. Normal procedure also calls for the person speaking
to be within three inches of the microphone.
75 dB 3
72dB 10
64dB 20
61dB 30
57dB 40
55dB 50
53dB 60
53dB 70
Please note that these are maximum values and the 816 audio system is completely adjustable
down to zero output. Also, these measurements were taken with no vehicle present, which
will block a significant portion of the audio. Normal site conditions require less than ..
maximum levels of output. The system is adjustable to local conditions. Once adjustments
are made for the customer terminal (outside), they cannot be changed from outside of the
building. In addition, changes made inside the building require a technician to remove a
latched panel and make any adjustments for the outside terminal with a tool. The operator
makes the inside operator terminal volume adjustments to his/her preference using the
volume control.
For your convenience, the following table is included:
DB level
0 dB Threshold of Hearing
10 dB Rustle of Leaves
20 dB Quiet Studio or Auditorium
30 dB Quiet Office
60 dB Conversation at 3 feet
70 dB Conversation at 1 foot
8_0 dB Orchestra Average Level
90 dB Vanaxial Ventilating Fan
100 dB Gas Powered Lawn Mower
110 dB Rock Concert
120 dB Jet Takeoff at 1,500 feet
130 - 1400 dB Threshold of Physical Pain
DIEBOLD, INCORPORATED
Dan McIntyre
Product Manager
Pneumatic Systems
· ..~~!i~ NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
~':~i!~¢~' Telephor~e: 952.595.96,~6 F,3cs~mile.: 952.595.9837 pianner$,'~.,nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Alan Brixius
April 28, 2004
New Hope - CVS Pharmacy
131.01 - 04.09
BACKGROUND
Bear Creek Capital is requesting development applications for rezoning, preliminary
plat, site and building plan review, administrative permit for outdoor dining,
administrative permit for drive through facilities, and variances from sign statutes. Bear
Creek Capital is proposing to construct a 15,457 square foot retail facility at the corner
of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. CVS Pharmacy would occupy
approximately 13,013 square feet with another 2,430 square feet of additional retail or
restaurant facility.
To create the development site, three different properties are involved in the preliminary
plat. The first is the Sinclair site, the second are the two single family properties owned
by the Bauer family, and third the land owned by the Robbinsdale Area School District.
The applicant is proposing to combine the Sinclair site with land acquired from the
School District and the first Bauer single family home site.
A preliminary plat is required in that the properties currently have a metes and bounds
description and have not been previously platted. The applicant would create two lots,
one for CVS Pharmacy and one containing the remaining single family home from the
Bauer property and Outlot A which is intended to be a stormwater drainage pond.
In the following pages, we have provided our preliminary comments for Development
Review Team and Design Review Committee pertinent to the individual development
applications.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
In review of the preliminary plat, it appears that all lots meet the CB, Community
Business District lot size requirements and required setbacks. The notes identified on
the Preliminary plat (Page C-8) show front yard setback within the CB Zoning District
would be 35 feet, rather than the required 20 feet.
As proposed, the preliminary plat falls within the Winnetka West Redevelopment Area.
as examined by the New Hope Livable Communities Task Force. The applicant, in their
narrative on Page 2, indicates that they have provided an exhibit illustrating how
Winnetka West retail development can be integrated with the balance of the Winnetka
West master plan, as envisioned by the City. However, in examination of the exhibits
that have been provided, we fail to find this exhibit.
REZONING
The redevelopment site is zoned CB, Community Business District and R-I, Single
Family District. The R-1 zoning overlays the property currently owned by the School
District that will be acquired by Bear Creek Capital for CVS Pharmacy.
To facilitate the redevelopment, all of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A of CVS Winnetka
Addition must be zoned CB. Lot 2, Block 1 is being conveyed to the School District.
Section 4.32(c) of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance outlines the criteria for evaluating
zoning changes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The zoning amendment is necessary to correct a past zoning mistake.
This zoning amendment is required to allow for a larger commercial site to
accommodate a contemporary retail use. In this respect, the past zoning was
appropriate for past uses and property ownership configuration.
The character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of an
amendment.
The area of the City has been identified, through the Comprehensive Plan and
Livable Communities Task Force, as a redevelopment site. The designation for
redevelopment and the proposed commercial land identified in the
Comprehensive Plan indicates conditions have changed at this location that
warrant the zoning change.
The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City
Comprehensive Plan.
The New Hope Comprehensive Plan envisions this area to be redeveloped and
this specific site to continue to be commercial land use. The proposed zoning
change is consistent with the policies and recommendations of the
Comprehensive plan.
Any zoning change is a policy decision for the Planning Commission and City Council.
However, based on our review of the zoning change, staff believes that the request
meets the aforementioned criteria and is appropriate.
SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW
History. This proposed development site was included in the Winnetka West
Redevelopment Study Area of the Livable Communities Task Force. In the Task Force
review of the area, a number of predominant features were promoted as priorities for
any future redevelopment. Those being:
Locating the commercial buildings close to the street and making the building the
predominant streetscape feature in this area of the community.
Controlling access points off of Winnetka and integrating those access points
with an internal street system within the balance of the Winnetka West
Redevelopment Area.
Providing pedestrian and traffic circulation opportunities between the balance of
the Winnetka area with the commercial areas located at Bass Lake Road and
Winnetka.
Promoting quality masonry construction at the corner of Bass Lake Road and the
predominant building material being brick.
Locating the parking associated with the commercial development at Bass Lake
Road and Winnetka intersection away from the street surfaces.
In our review of the CVS Pharmacy site plan, we will compare the proposed plans with
both the existing New Hope Zoning Ordinance as well as the design guidelines that
were established by the Livable Communities Task Force.
Zoning and Use. The site is requested to be zoned CB, Community Business Zoning
District. The proposed uses will include a pharmacy, retail sales, and/or a restaurant
type use. As identified in the applicant's narrative, the lead prospect for the tenant bay
would be Caribou Coffee. These uses are permitted within the CB District. Additionally,
the applicant is pursuing administrative permits for outdoor dining as well as for drive
through facilities associated with the pharmacy.
Lot Area. The CB District does not have a minimum lot area requirement. The
proposed site is 2.35 acres in area. The front of the lot would be facing Winnetka,
based on City definition. The lot width is approximately 202 feet.
Setbacks. Within the CB District, the following setbacks are required:
i Required i Proposed !
Front Yard-East t 20 feet i 100feet
Side Yard - South ] 10 feet I 35 feet
I 80 feet
t 30 feet 73 feet
Side Yard - North ~ 20 feet
Rear Yard
Within the CB District, the City modified its front and side yard setbacks along streets
from 35 feet to 20 feet as a means of promoting buildings located closer to the street
surface. This is intended to make the building a more predominant feature in the New
Hope streetscape. The applicant has chosen setbacks greatly in excess of what is
required and placed the parking in front of the building. Both of these features run
contrary to the planning objectives outlined by the Livable Communities Task Force.
Parking. Section 4.3(e)(10)m stipulates that retail stores, service, shopping center, or
convenience food takeout and delivery establishments shall have at least one off-street
parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area. The following formula outlines the
required parking for the proposed building on the CVS Pharmacy site:
15,457 SF X .9 = 13,911 SF ~ 200 = 69.5 or 70 spaces
The applicant's site plan reveals that they have provided 79 total spaces, in excess of
what is required by New Hope Zoning Ordinance. Review of the parking layout reveals
that it meets all the required dimensional standards of New Hope's Zoning Ordinance.
There may be opportunity to reduce the number of the proposed parking areas and
increase plaza or landscape areas as a means of enhancing the overall site. In review
by the Design and Review Committee, it was suggested that the number of stalls be
reduced in favor of widening the plaza on-site near the intersection.
Loading. The applicant has provided a 10 feet by 70 feet loading zone at the west end
of the building. Also identified in this location, is a compactor and trash enclosures. It
appears that the circulation flow along the west side of the building will accommodate
large trucks, however, as illustrated on the site plan (Plan C2), the stacking area for the
drive through lane will interfere with access to both the loading area as well as the trash
compactor.
The applicant intends to respond to the potential loading area drive-through conflicts by
scheduling site deliveries and trash pick up for late evening and early morning hours
when drive-through traffic is minimal.
Outdoor Dining. Outdoor dining is allowed by administrative permit within the CB
District. The applicant has not provided sufficient detail related to the conditions of the
outdoor dining area related to the following items:
4
The applicant is required to show both the table seating and trash receptacle
locations as needed.
The applicant's site plan illustrates three tables and a trash receptacle. The
outdoor dining area is defined by pavers.
The outdoor dining area cannot be larger than 30 percent of the customer floor
area within the restaurant area. The floor plan to date has not provided that
detail to determine whether 30 percent is all that is being requested.
The applicant indicates the potential for up to 1,100 square feet of indoor dining
within the extra tenant bay. Thirty percent of this floor area allows 330 square
feet of outdoor dining. We believe the applicant's letter contains a typo. Outdoor
dining area shall be limited to 330 square feet.
The applicant must separate the dining areas from pedestrian traffic flow with a
minimum of a 36 foot wide pedestrian corridor.
A 48 inch landscape perimeter has been added to the outdoor dining area to
separate the dining area from the parking areas. A 48 inch sidewalk is provided
between the building front and the dining area. This meets ordinance
requirements.
The applicant must outline a plan for the storage of outdoor furniture during the
winter months. This cannot be outdoor storage.
The applicant has indicated that they will account for the indoor storage of the
dining area furniture as part of the interior space planning for the tenant bay.
Drive Through Lanes. The applicant is also asking for an administrative permit for
drive through lanes related to the pharmacy. As illustrated on the site plan (Sheet C2),
they indicate that there will be twin stacking lanes at the southwest corner of the
building.
The applicant must provide a minimum of 60 feet per service lane for multiple
service lanes.
The applicant's site plan illustrates 60 feet of stacking for each drive-through
lane.
The stacking lane and its access must be designed to control traffic in a manner
to protect the building and not interfere with on-site traffic circulation or access to
required parking spaces. It appears that the stacking lanes for the individual
automobiles will interfere with access to the loading area and trash compactor.
The applicant proposes to schedule deliveries to the site and trash pick up for
late evening/early morning hours when drive through traffic is minimal. The
Planning Commission will need to determine if the drive through design is
acceptable with the applicant's proposed accommodations.
With twin drive lanes being proposed with the drive through, the applicant must
provide details on any audio equipment that would be necessary for the outer
lane to communicate with the pharmacy.
The applicant has provided details for a Diebold 816 audio system. This
information reveals that the system will be adjusted to site conditions. The
highest noise level is 75 dB at three feet away. This noise level quickly subsides
with distance. The drive through is approximately 60 feet from the nearest lot
line. At this distance, the noise level will be 53 dB, equivalent to a conversation
at three feet. This is compliant with City standards.
Roof Top Mechanical Equipment. Sheet A-4 illustrates the proposed roof top
equipment located near the center of the building. The applicant is proposing to use a
high cornice around the perimeter of the building as a screening device. It appears that
this satisfies with City's requirement for screening of roof top equipment. No ground
level equipment is illustrated.
'Trash Enclosure. The applicant illustrates a trash enclosure at the southwest corner
of the building facing west. The enclosure is designed to have exterior face brick,
exterior with a cedar slatted gate. This is compliant with the City's requirements.
A larger trash compactor is located along the west side of the building. Following_ the
recommendation of the Design and Review Committee, the applicant has proVided a
brick screen wall to hide the trash compactor. A detail of the trash compactor enclosure
gates should be provided. The gates should duplicate the cedar slatted gates of the
freestanding trash enclosure.
Landscape Plan. Sheet C-5 illustrates the landscape plan for the proposed site. We
offer the following comments:
The applicant has substituted American linden overstory trees for the previous
Norway maples per staff suggestion, except for a single Norway maple near the
trash enclosure. The plant schedule should reflect the number, type and size of
all plantings. Fewer overstory trees are proposed along the street rights-of-way
than the previous plan. We would suggest the addition of an overstory tree near
the north site entrance and the continuation of overstory trees along Winnetka
Avenue.
The applicant is supplementing the over story trees with a continued hedge of
alpine currant. This is an excellent hedging material that will screen the parking
lot.
d
Junipers are proposed at the entrance points to the site. These are tow growing
shrubs and will work well for these areas.
Serviceberry hedge and a balsam fir are proposed along the south and west
portions of the property to screen the commercial area from the School District
property.
Black chokeberry are used at the entrance points. These shrubs tend to "sucker"
and are good as mass plantings.
The entire area intended for sodding or shrubbery shall be designed with
irrigation.
Plantings within the traffic visibility triangles, especially on the north side of the
access on Winnetka, should be removed to insure proper traffic visibility for the
south bound Winnetka traffic.
The applicant is proposing a plaza and extensive landscaping beyond these
property lines within the Hennepin County/Bass Lake Road right-of-way. Any
improvement of this sort would have to receive County approval. It is
questionable as to whether these type of improvements would be acceptable. An
option may be the elimination of additional stalls along the plaza area and
expanding the plaza within the applicant's property.
The applicant illustrates retaining walls along the east and west property lines.
Based on the grading plan, it appears that the elevation difference between the
proposed site and the Frank's site to the west is a difference of approximately
three to seven feet. Any retaining wall over four feet would have to submit
detailed plans of the retaining wall for engineering and Building Inspector
approval. A railing will be required on top of the west retaining wall.
Site Lighting. Sheet C-7 illustrates the site lighting, in review of the lighting and
photometric plan, it appears that the applicant has complied with the light levels that are
allowed by the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. Details or cut sheets for the light fixtures
have been provided. Staff recommends the flat lens light fixtures as a means of
reducing glare. ..
Fencing. The applicant is proposing to install a three foot high fence consisting of
wrought iron and with masonry piers. This can add an attractive appearance along the
Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue streetscape.
Pedestrian Access. One of the priorities of the Livable Communities Task Force was
to make this commercial site look attractive and accessible to pedestrians. Concrete
sidewalks exist both along Bass Lake Road and Winnetka. The applicant has proposed
to build a brick paver plaza at the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue
with pedestrian connections to the store entrance defined by brick pavers. The plaza
exists primarily within the County right-of-way. The acceptability of this plaza
construction needs approval by Hennepin County as an encroachment into their right-
of-way area.
A similar brick paver pedestrian connection between the public sidewalk and building
should be provided at the site's two main entrance points to allow pedestrians access to
the building to be segregated from automobile traffic entering and exiting the site.
Building Elevations. Sheet A-1 illustrates the building elevations. As illustrated in the
graphic, the predominant exterior building feature will be EFIS, a stucco-like exterior
treatment. Brick is being used as an accent treatment for the lowest 3.5 feet of the
building with vertical brick columns being extended up the building at the corners and at
building accent areas.
At the suggestion of staff, the applicant has added windows in areas where previously
blank walls were being proposed. These windows are approximately 18 inches in
height and 39 feet in length. These windows serve to break up the building massing
and provide a more aesthetic building appearance. The Design and Review Committee
reviewed the building elevations and found them to be acceptable.
The left rear building elevation illustrates the location of the trash compactor fence. The
'applicant has changed the screen wall for the trash compactor to brick per the
recommendations of the Design and Review Committee.
Signage. The applicant is asking for numerous signs in excess of what is allowed by
New Hope Sign Ordinance as follows. Within the CB Zoning District, signs accessory to
multiple occupancy buildings, may submit a comprehensive sign plan. Under a
comprehensive sign plan, the following rules would apply as compared to the sign
template proposed by the applicant.
Wall Signs
The maximum total allowable sign area for multiple occupancy structures shall not
exceed 15 percent of the combined wall surfaces of the walls which abut streets in a
business or industrial zoning district. No individual tenant identification signs shall
exceed 100 square feet in area.
The applicant's sign survey illustrates numerous wall signs "A" and "C". Sign A
identifies CVS Pharmacy dimension as 75 square feet (3 feet by 25 feet). These signs
are intended on the north and east sides of the building. These signs are compliant with
City standards. However, the applicant has requested the vadance to allow 112 square
foot (4 feet by 28 feet) wall signs citing the greater setbacks present a visibility hardshiP.
The applicant also proposes wall signs "C" (drive through, one hour photo, food
shoppe). The Design and Review Committee indicated that these multiple walls were
excessive and detracted from the appearance of the building. These signs would not be
permitted. The Design and Review Committee was receptive to a sign variance to allow
a 112 square foot (4 feet by 28 feet) wall sign without the miscellaneous wall sign. The
future tenant of the southern bay would also be allowed a 100 foot wall sign.
Freestandinq Signs
Multiple occupancy structures, other than shopping centers or shopping centers having
four or less separate distinct occupants, may erect ground signs in accordance with
provisions outlined in Section 340.i.2 of this Code. This section references the
freestanding sign requirements allowed for single occupancy buildings. Under this
section of the Code, no more than one freestanding sign shall be permitted on any lot
abutting local collector or minor arterial streets. The applicant is proposing two
freestanding signs, a pylon sign at the Bass Lake Road entrance, and a monument sign
at the Winnetka Avenue entrance.
The applicant is requesting a variance for both the number of freestanding signs and
sign area. Freestanding signs abutting a local collector or minor arterial street shall
not exceed 100 square feet in area. The applicant's signs are pylon (132 square feet)
and monument (22 square feet). In review of the applicant's request, staff does not find
a hardship that warrants the increased sizes and suggests a reduction in the sign area
of the larger sign to 100 square feet.
Related to the number of signs, the applicant is requesting a monument sign for the
south entrance of the site. This sign is intended to be 5 feet, 10 inches in height with a
total sign area of 22 square feet in area. Staff questions the need and location of
monument sign. The sign will be placed next to landscaping, a retaining wall, and
fence. As such, visibility from southbound traffic will be limited. Grades along the south
property line will also limit the range of view for north bound traffic.
The monument sign location, in conjunction with other parking lot and landscape
improvements, also raise concern for traffic visibility for traffic leaving the site and
accessing Winnetka Avenue.
Based on the aforementioned concerns, along with accommodation of larger CVS wall
signage, staff suggests denying the applicant's request for the monument sign.
Freestanding signs shall not exceed 30 feet in height. The applicant's signs are 24 feet
and 5 feet, 10 inches in height, compliant with this provision of the Code.
All freestanding signs must be set back at least 10 feet from any property line. The site
plan shows a five foot setback. This should be increased to 10 feet.
Information Si,qns
Within the comprehensive sign plan, the ordinance allows for delivery signs not to
exceed nine square feet in area to be located on the side or rear of the building
structure. The applicant is intended to use Signs D, E, F, G, H (Drive Through
Pharmacy, Full Service Drop Off Only, Drive Through Instruction Panel) and driveway
9
signs at the back of the building. In review of the delivery and drive through signs, staff
feels it is compliant with the sign area and location standards of the Sign Code. Sign
location and sizes of Signs D, E, F, G, and H are approved.
Directional Siqns
The City also allows for public convenience or directional signs. Small signs not
exceeding two square feet in area displayed on private property for the convenience of
the public, but not limited to directional signs for freight entrances and on-site
circulation.
The applicant is asking for some freestanding directional signs (Signs I, J, K, L) which
we believe are warranted in view of the traffic circulation patterns on the site. These
signs are generally three square feet in area which exceeds Ordinance standards. The
Planning Commission may consider some of the sign variance requests of the
applicant.
Staff would recommend approving Signs I and L sign area and location, but deny Signs
J (enter) and Sign K (exit) located at the site entrances. These signs are not necessary
and add to the sign clutter of the site.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Bear Creek Capital, on behalf of CVS Pharmacy, has requested the following
'development applications to allow for the redevelopment of the southwest corner of the
Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue intersection with a 15,457 square foot retail facility.
1. Rezoning of a portion of the land received from the School District from R-1
Single Family to CB, Community Business. '
2. Preliminary plat.
3. Site and building plan review.
4. Administrative permit for outdoor dining.
5. Administrative permit for drive through facilities.
6. Sign variances.
The proposed redevelopment site is a predominant location within the City and has
undergone extensive study and review. The Planning Commission must determine if
the proposed use and site design fulfills the City's long range goals for this area of the
community. If the project is found to be acceptable, we offer the following conditions fOr
approval:
Rezoning
Staff finds that conditions have changed that warrant the expansion of the CB zoning in
conjunction with this application. This site has been identified for redevelopment and
the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for commercial land use. Under these
circumstances, we recommend approval of the zoning change.
]0
Preliminary Plat
The proposed preliminary plat meets the standards of the New Hope Subdivision
Ordinance and CB Zoning District. Staff recommends approval with the following
conditions:
City Engineer approval of the proposed drainage and utility easement pertaining
to size and location.
2. Subject to Hennepin County plat review and approval of street access permits.
Site and Building Plan Review
In review of the proposed site and building plans, the Planning Commission and City
Council must evaluate the application's consistency with the New Hope development
regulations and past planning efforts, including the Comprehensive Plan and Livable
Communities Study.
If the City deems the development proposal consistent with these past planning efforts
and approves the site and building plans (dated 419104, revised 4/23~04), it shoUld
including the following conditions:
o
Hennepin County providing written approval of the plaza improvements and
landscaping. Without this approval, the proposed plaza should be expanded on
site. This will change the site plan design.
Reduce the number of parking stalls to 70 and expand the plaza area on site.
City approval of the loading area relative to the drive through facilities with the
condition that all deliveries and trash pick up be scheduled for late evening or
early morning when drive through traffic is minimal.
Provide a detail for trash compactor enclosure gates. Said gates should
duplicate the trash enclosure gates.
Landscape plan that includes:
ao
Extending overstory tree treatment along Bass Lake Road and Winnetka
Avenue.
Provide written approval from Hennepin County for the plaza
improvements and landscaping in the County right-of-way.
Details on the retaining walls over four feet in height must be submitted for
review and approval by the New Hope Building Inspector and City
Engineer.
d. Railings must be installed atop the west retaining wall.
Parking lot lights shall use the fiat lens fixtures.
Brick paver pedestrian connection be provided connecting the building with
public sidewalk along both access drives.
The following signage is approved for the CVS multi tenant building:
a. Wall signs:
Planning Commission approves a variance for two CVS wall signs
at 112 square feet (4 feet by 28 feet) in area.
(2)
Other miscellaneous signs (i.e., drive through, one hour photo, foot
center) shall be prohibited.
(3)
The other tenant bay shall receive a wall sign up to 100 square feet
in area.
b. Freestanding signs:
(1)
Planning Commission should make recommendation on the
variance for 132 square foot freestanding sign area. The New Hoe
Sign Code allows 100 square feet. Staff recommends a reduction
in sign area to 100 square feet.
(2) Staff recommends denial of the second freestanding sign.
(3) The freestanding signs be set back 10 feet from all property lines.
Informational signs. Per the sign packet submitted by the applicant, the
City approves the sign size and location for Signs D, E, F, G, and H.
Directional signs:
The City approves the size and location signs for Signs I and L per
the applicant's sign plan. ..
(2) The proposed Sign J (enter) and Sign K (exit) are prohibited.
Subject to the comments of the City Engineer related to grading, drainage, storm
water management, and utilities.
Administrative Permit - Outdoor Dining
Administrative permit for outdoor dining is approved with the following criteria:
1. Outdoor dining area shall be limited to 330 square feet, delineated by
landscaping and brick pavers.
The applicant is required to provide indoor storage space for any movable dining
area furniture for winter month storage.
Administrative Permit- Drive Through Facilities
Administrative permit for drive through facilities
conditions:
is approved with the following
All deliveries and trash pick up shall be scheduled for late evening hourS or early
morning hours when drive through traffic is minimal.
pc:
Roger Axel
Steve Sondrall
Vince Vandertop
Engineers & Architects
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal
Opportunity Eroployer and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto G Bonestroo, P.E, Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. Glenn R. Cook, P,E. Robert
Schunicht, P.E. JerryA. Bourdon, P.E. MarkA. Hanson,
Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. Richard E. Turner,
P.E. Susan M, Ebedin, C.P.A.
Associate Principals: Keith A, Gordon, P.E. Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. Richard W, Foster,
P,E David O. Loskota, P.E. Michael T. Rautmann, P,E. Ted K. Field, P.E. Kenneth
Anderson, P.E. MarkR. Rolls, P.E. DavidA, Bonestroo, M.B.A. Sidney P, Williamson, P.E.,
L.S. A§nesM. Ring, M.B,A. Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E. Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. James R.
Maland, P.E. Miles B. Jensen, P.E. L. Phillip Gravel III, P.E. Daniel J, Edgerton, P.E.
Ismael Martinez, P.E, Thomas A. Sy~o, P.E Sheldon J. Johnson Dale A, Grove, P.E,
Thomas A. Roushar, P.E. Robert J. Devery, P.E.
Offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar, MN Milwaukee, WI Chicago, IL
Website: www.bonestroo.com
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM:
Vince Vander Top
CC:
Mark Hanson, Guy Johnson
DATE: April 15, 2004
SUBJECT: CVS/Pharmacy- Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue
Our File No. 34-Gen E04-05
We have reviewed the plans for the proposed site improvements. The following comments are
from our preliminary review:
Sheet C-2 Preliminary Site Plan
Hennepin County Transportation has indicated that the access to Bass Lake Road
should be a right in only. Egress movements to the left turn lane for north bound
Winnetka present a safety concern. The configuration of the access must be approved
by Hennepin County.
Access permits must be approved for both proposed property accesses.
o
We will continue to review the potential reconfiguration of Bass Lake Road. At this
time, it does not appear that additional ROW will be required from Bass Lake Road
or Winnetka. It is anticipated that Hennepin County will comment on future ROW
requirements.
A plaza area is shown within the County ROW. This should be reviewed with the
Hennepin County.
Sheet C~3 Preliminary Grading and Drainage
The driveway from Bass Lake Road is too steep. Max. slope must be limited to 5%.
The first 20 feet of the driveway should be limited to 2% to provide a "landing area"
for vehicles entering and leaving the site. A similar landing area should be provided
at the Winnetka driveway. Currently, both driveway slopes extend directly to the
County Road curb line.
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
The east parking area is drained by one catch basin near the north island. If the catch
basin plugs or is controlled by inlet capacity, water will pond in this area to a depth of
almost 1.5 feet. This should be reduced if feasible.
A storm water pond is shown on the west side of the property. The following
comments relate to the pond.
a. Submit drainage calculations demonstrating that discharge rates do not increase
for a 2, 10, and 100-year storm. The proposed drainage pattern will increase the
amount of area directed toward the adjacent low area to the east. Flooding
conditions on this property to the west cannot be increased.
b. The pond outlet connects to an existing storm sewer. This is not a public storm
sewer. Drainage and utility easement must be provided over the storm sewer.
Verify the diameter, material, and condition of the existing storm sewer.
c. The 100-year overflow location of the pond has not been identified. The overflow
must be directed to the school property and not the adjacent business. Additional
grading on the school property in the area of the ball fields may be required.
Two retaining walls area shown on the plans. The wall along the east property line is
significant. It is recommended that the grading plan be reviewed to reduce the
requirements of this wall.
ao
A design certified by a liscensed engineer must be submitted for the wall.
A railing/barrier must be provided along the top of the wall. Provide a detail
relating to this design.
9. Identify proposed pavement sections for the parking and drive areas.
10.
The adjacent residential property will be removed. Remove the existing driveway
and curb cut also. Repair sidewalk and curb and gutter as is necessary.
Sheet C-4 Prelimiinary Utility Plan
11.
Verify Hydrant locations and requirements per West Metro Fire Department
comments.
12.
Domestic and Fire Services for the CVS store must be split outside of the building per
Public Works requirements.
13. Cut-in the connection to the existing water main in lieu of proposed wet tap.
14.
Consider increasing sanitary sewer diameter from 6-inch to 8-inch in anticipation of
future development to the south.
Sheet C-5 Preliminary Landscape Plan
15. Review landscaping in County ROW such that site lines for transportation are not
impacted.
End of memo
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc, is an Affirmative Action/Equal
Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. MarvinL. Sorvala, P.E. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Robert
Schunicht, P.E. Jerry A. Eourdon, P.E. Mark A. Hanson, P.E.
Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. Joseph C. Andedik, P.E. Richard E. Turner,
P.E. Susan M. Ebedin,
Associate Principals: Keith A. Gordon, P.E. Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. Richard W. Foster,
P.E. David O. Loskota, P.E. Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. Ted K. Field, P.E. Kenneth
Anderson, P.E. Mark R. Rolls, P.E. DavidA. Sonestroo, M.B.A. Sidney P. Williamson, P.E.,
L.S. AgnesM. Ring, M.B.A. Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E. ThomasW. Peterson, P.E. James R.
Maiand, P.E. Miles B. Jensen, P.E. L. Phillip Gravel iii, P.E. Daniel J. Edgerton,
Ismael Martinez, P.E. Thomas A. Syt~o, P.E. Sheldon J. Johnson Dale A. Grove,
ThomasA. Roushar, P.E. Robert J. Devery,
Offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar, MN Milwaukee, WI Chicago, iL
Website: www.bonestroo.com
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM:
Vince Vander Top
CC:
Mark Hanson, Guy Johnson
DATE: April 29, 2004
SUBJECT: CVS/Pharmacy- Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue
Our File No. 34-Gen E04-05
We have reviewed the revised plans for the proposed site improvements and the storm water
calculations. The following comments are based the submitted materials. Comments not
repeated herein from the preliminary review shall still be considered a requirement of this
project.
Sheet C-2 Preliminary Site Plan
Hennepin County Transportation has indicated that the access to Bass Lake Road
should be a right in only. Egress movements to the left mm lane for north bound
Winnetka or U-tums to west bound Bass Lake Road present a safety concern. The
configuration of the access must be approved by Hennepin County.
The County has indicated that a full movement driveway access will be permitted to
Winnetka Avenue. It was recommended that the driveway be widened to include
three lanes. Left and right turn egress lanes and one ingress lane.
3. Access permits must be approved for both proposed property accesses.
At this time, it appears that adequate ROW is being dedicated along Bass Lake Road
and Winnetka. Hennepin County may provide additional comments on future ROW
requirements.
o
A plaza area is shown within the County ROW. This should be reviewed with the
Hennepin County. It is our understanding that this will be acceptable to the County
with the understanding future removal, if ever required for future transportation
improvements, would be at the owner's expense. The City will assure that this
responsibility remains with CVS via a maintenance agreement.
The storm water pond is proposed to be located on an outlot. It is our understanding
that CVS will purchase this outlot from School District 281. We would recommend
that CVS consider obtaining an easement only over this outlot and that the School
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax:'651-636.1311
District retain ownership of the outlot. This would facilitate redevelopment of the
outlot and relocation of the pond in the furore.
Sheet C-3 Preliminary Grading and Drainage
The driveway slopes have been modified to a maximum of a 5% grade. A 2%
landing area near the entrance is shown. The existing gutter elevations at the
Winnetka driveway must be shown. It appears that gutter reaches a high point of
920+/-. If this is correct, the final 20 feet of the driveway may still be too steep. This
should be clarified.
A storm water pond is shown on the west side of the property. The following
comments relate to the pond.
Storm water calculations have been submitted and are being reviewed. The
proposed drainage pattern will increase the amount of area directed toward the
adjacent low area to the east. Flooding conditions on this property to the west
cannot be increased.
The proposed pond outlet connects to the existing Public storm sewer west of
Franks Nursery. Drainage and utility easement must be provided over the storm
sewer between the pond outlet and the public storm sewer. The condition of the
existing storm structure must also be verified. A number of connections have
already been made to this structure. Replacement or additional work may also be
required.
Two retaining walls area shown on the plans. The wall along the east property line is
significant although the height has been reduced with the revised plans. Further
comments relating to the wall include:
a. A design certified by a licensed engineer must be submitted for the wall prior to
construction.
b. A treated timber guard rail is shown along the top of the wall. A railing is
required. The basis/rating of the rail design should be discussed. The City should
also comment on the acceptability of the railing materials.
10.
The proposed pavement section is shown. With the proposed mass grading on the
site, it is anticipated that an acceptable subgrade will be achieved from a compaction
standpoint. However, it is recommended that a more significant section be used in.
the main drive areas. We would recommend an aggregate section of 12 inches.
11.
The adjacent residential property will be removed. Remove the existing driveway
and curb cut also. Repair sidewalk and curb and gutter as is necessary. This is not
noted on the plans.
Sheet C-4 Preliminary Utility Plan
12.
The storm sewer layout may require further modification pending the review of the
storm water calculations. No specific changes are noted at this time.
End of memo
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
04/23/2004 12:22 FAX 763 493 5193 JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. ~ CN~-CH [~]002
DOUGLAS J. D~,aN~R2
GORDON L. JEN~I
CL~USSA M. K,LUG
GLEN A. NORTON
STACY A. WOODS
OF COUNSEL
LOR,~rs Q. BR~N,~rAD
~Real Property Law
Specialist Certified By
Thc Minnesou Statc
Bar Association
=Admitmd in Iowa
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A.
Attorneys At Law
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201
BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA ~.~..~ 1968
TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193
e-mail law~jensen-sond ralLcom
Writer's Direct Dial No.: (763) 201.0217
e-rnail djd~jensen-sondrall, com
April 23, 2004
VIA FACSIMILE TO (763) $31-5136
AND VIA EMAIL TO kmcdonald@ci.new-hope.mn.us
Kirk McDonald
Community Development Director
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Re:
Preliminary Plat for CVS Winnetka Addition
Our File No.: 99.15061
Dear Kirk:
I have received the preliminary plat for the CVS Winnetka Addition dated April 9, 2004
(under "Revisions") (hereinafter "Plat"). I have reviewed the Plat for compliance with
the City's platting ordinance found at New Hope Code (hereinafter "Code") Section 13-
4(a). I have noted the following comments and exceptions:
CODE RELATED COMMENTS AND EXCEPTION~q:
Exception: Names and addresses. The Plat identifies the name and address of
the presumed owners. However, "evidence of ownership" (discussed further
below) has not yet been provided to the City Attorney's Office. Therefore, the
City Attorney is unable to verify that the named entities are in fact the sole
owners of the property. Evidence of ownership must be submitted to the City
Attorney's Office. See Code § 134(1)(c).
Excegtion: Acreage and dimensions. Thc Plat does not contain a
statement on the approximate total acreage and dimensions of the lots."
§ 13--4(a)(2)(c).
"general
See Code
Exception: Previously platted streets, other details. The Plat some of the
required information but does not contain the location, width and names of all
existing or previously platted streets or other public ways, parks and other public
open spaces, permanent buildings and structures, and casements within 350 feet
04/23/2004 12:22 FAX 763 493 5193 JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. ~ CN'fl-CR ~0~3 A
April 23, 2004
Page 2
beyond the tract. See Code § 13-4(a)(2)(d).
Exception: Sewer, water main and other details. The Plat does not show the location and size of
existing sewers, water mains, culverts or other underground facilities within the tract and to a distance
of 350 feet beyond the tract. See Code § 13-4(a)(2)(e). The Plat only provides a vague reference to
an eight inch C.I.P. water main at the northern most point of the platted property and an eighteen inch
C.I.P. water main at the southeastern most point of the platted property. Note: the applicant should
be required to confirm the reference to the eighteen inch C.I.P. water main at the southeastern most
point of the platted property as it is the understanding of the City Attorney's office that this is not a
"C.I.P." water main.
Exception: Adjoining land. While the Plat shows the boundary lines with the immediately adjoining
land, it does not show the adjoining land "within 350 feet, identified by name and ownership"
(emphasis added). See Code § 13-4(a)(2)(f).
Exception: Topographic drain. The Plat does show some topographic data, but it does not show
topographic data of all areas within 350 feet of the Plat. See Code § 13-4(a)(2)(g).
Comment: Street layout. It is the understanding of the City Attorney's Office that the property to be
platted does not include any property to be dedicated as a street. See Code § 13-4(a)(3)(a).
Comment: Alleys, pedestrianways, easements. It is the understanding of the City Attorney's Office
that there are no proposed alleys or pedestrianways and that all proposed utility easements are shown.
See Code § 13-4(a)(3)(b).
e
Exception: Sewer lines and water mains. The Plat does not indicate the location and size of any
proposed sewer lines and water mains. See Code § 134(a)(3)(e).
10.
Exception: Water supply. The Plat does not show how water, including fire hydrants, is to be
provided to the platted property. See Code § 134(a)(3)(j).
11.
Exception: Sewage disposal. The Plat does not show any proposed sewer main or service
connection. See Code § 134(a)(3)(k).
12.
Exception: Surface water. The Plat does not show any provision for surface water disposal,..drainage
and flood control. See Code § 13-4(a)(3)(1).
13.
Exception: Preliminary Site Plan. As the property being platted abuts two county roads, a
preliminary site plan is required to be submitted along with the Plat. See Code § 134(a)(5). Such a
preliminary site plat was not submitted to the City Attorney's Office.
OTHER COMMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS:
Exception: Dedication. There is no dedication on the Plat. While a dedication on a preliminary plat
is not otherwise specifically required by the Code, it is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that
the definition of the term "plat" includes a dedication.
04/23/2004 12:22 FAX 763 493 5193 JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. ~ CNB-CH [~004
April 23, 2004
Page 3
Exception: Signature. The Plat is unsigned. While a signature on a preliminary plat is not otherwise
specifically required by the Code, it is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that the definition of
the term "plat" includes a signature.
Comment: Evidence of Ownership. Plat approval applicants are required to submit to the City a
commitment for title insurance. Such a commitment will allow the City to determine that the proper
individuals are signing the Plat. Also, the City reserves the right to require a title insurance policy on
the City's interest in any easement or right-of-way to be dedicated on the Plat prior to approval of the
final plat.
Please contact me with any questions or comments.
Very tru~,,y urs~~'fi
.D/~.~{as J_ Debner,
?stant City Attorney for the City of New Hope
c¢: Steven A. Sondrall, New Hope City Attorney (via email to sas~jensen-sondrall.com)
P:lAUon~y~DJD\2. City of New HOpe~gg. 1506I - CVS Winnetka Addiiion Plat Approval\99.15061-002-Preliminary Plal Appmvld Leoet-sflort form l.doc
S~/Ivester Pam
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Surratt Aaron
Tuesday, April 27, 2004 3:07 PM
Sylvester Pam
CVS
Hey Pam,
Just wanted you to know that we have no further comments at this time on the CVS Pharmacy project. All issues brought
up in the review process have been addressed at this time.
Have a great night,
Aaron
Page 1 of 1
Sylvester Pam
From: Wolf Shelby
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 1:56 PM
To: Axel Roger; McDonald Kirk; Sylvester Para
Forgot to mention one item that was indicated on the plan for CVS/Pharmacy. Question is on Sheet A-3 (Fire
Protection Plan) item number 11 in the notes talk about underground piping being routed under building. Just
would like some clarification on what exactly they mean.
Thanks!
Shelby Wolf, Fire Inspector
West Metro Fire-Rescue District
4251 Xylon Avenue N.
New Hope, MN 55428-4881
swolf@westmetrofire.com
763-537-2323 x 2004
Serving the Cities of Crystal and New Hope
04/13/2004
April 13, 2004
Re: Development Review Comments for CVS/Pharmacy
Bass Lake Rd and Winnetka Ave
New Hope, MN
West Metro Fire-Rescue District conducted a plan review on the preliminary
plans dated April 4, 2004 for the above-mentioned project. The following
items that are listed below are either comments or requirements per West
Metro Fire-Rescue Districts Policies, 2003 Minnesota Fire Code and NFPA
Standards:
Sheet C-4 (Preliminary Utility Plan): A fire lane will be required
to be located at the northwest comer of the building from the
beginning of the parking space in the northwest parking lot going
south to the starting of the receiving door area. This is where the
fire department connection is supposed to be located.
Sheet C-4 (Preliminary Utility Plan): A fire lane will be required
at each fire hydrant. The fire lane shall be a minimum of 20 fi in
length. Best option is 10 fi on each side of hydrant.
Sheet C-4 (Preliminary Utility Plan): The fire hydrant located in
the north parking lot needs to be relocated either somewhere
within a 100 fi of the fire department connection in the back lot
or moved to the other side of the big island, but no closer than 40
feet from the building. This will provide the fire department with
easier access to the hydrant when connecting to the fire
department connection which is located on the back of the
building.
Sheet C-5 (Preliminary Landscape Plan): The plan indicates that
there will be some Wilton Carpet Junipers next to the hydrants.
Possibly will need to adjust the landscape plan so that the
hydrants will not be obstructed. There must be a 3-foot access
around a hydrant at all times. 2003 Minnesota Fire Code, Section
508.5.5.
Development Review Comments for CVS/Pharmacy
April 13, 2004
Page Two
Sheet A-3 (Fire Protection Plan): The fire protection plan is not
approved at this time and you will be required to submit a full
sprinkler submittal to the fire department. A permit is required
prior to starting work. Although, the design criteria appears to be
correct for the type of occupancy and use of this building. The
entire building is required to be sprinkle red per 2003 Minnesota
Fire Code, Section 903.2.6 and 1306. Even the future mercantile
spaces will be required to be sprinklered. This was not shown on
the plan.
Sheet A-3 (Fire Protection Plan): The plan indicates that the
sprinkler riser will be located at the back wall in the receiving
area. The sprinkler riser will be required to be protected by
bollards or some other approved item by the AHJ. The protection
must have a minimum clearance of 3 feet around the sprinkler
riser in order to gain access. 2003 Minnesota Fire Code, Section
903.3.3.
Sheet A-3 (Fire Protection Plan): The plan indicates that there is
an overhang area in the drive through area of the pharmacy, and a
canopy that will be located up by the front door. As long as the
canopy and overhang is all noncombustible sprinklers will not be
required in these areas as indicated on the plan.
Sheet A~3 (Fire Protection Plan): The sprinkler contractor will be
required to provide signage for all sprinkler valves such at
inspector test and drain valves that are located in the ceilings or
walls.
Sheet A-4 (Mechanical Plan):Ifduct smoke detectors are required
then a remote indicator is required below a ceiling if the detector
is located in-between a ceiling and roof. The duct smoke
detectors shall be either restorable from a key switch at the
remote indicator or at the fire panel. The duct smokes shall be
supervisory only.
General
10.
11.
12.
Comments:
A fire department lock box is required to be located by the fire
department connection. Lock box information can be provided
by the fire department.
Monitoring of the sprinkler system is required. 2003 Minnesota
Fire Code, Section 903.4.
Provide signage on the backdoor stating "Sprinkler Riser and
Roof Access". 2003 Minnesota Fire Code, Section 510.1.
Development Review Comments for CVS/Pharmacy
April 13, 2004
Page Three
13.
14.
Provide information on the shelving that will be used in the
receiving area. Also provide information on the height of the
shelving in the store area and receiving area. No solid shelve is
something that is less than 30 inches. Anything over 30 inches or
more than 4 feet will be required to be either sprinklered in the
shelving or you will be allowed to use mess or have 2X4 space
with a 6 inch flu in-between each board. These boards shall be
secured to the racking or shelving. 1999 NFPA 13.
Provide address numbers on the front of the building a minimum
of 4 inches on the address street side of the building. 2003
'Minnesota Fire Code, Section 505.
Comments are based on plans reviewed. Any revisions may change the
stated requirements. If you have questions feel free to contact me at (763)
537 2323 extension 2004.
Sincerely,
Shelby Wolf
Fire Inspector
A
Appli-
cation
number
04-10
B.
C.
D.
B
Applicant
Name
Address
Phone
Bear Creek Capital
9549 Montgomery Road
Cincinnati, OH 45242
513-793-1500
06-118-21-41-0005, 06-118-21-
44-0002, 06~ 118-21-44-0003,
18-21-44-0004
CITY OF NEW HOPE
SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG
C
Date
application
received
by City
4/9/04
Date Applicant
was sent
notice
that required
information
was missing
Date 60-
day time
limit
expires
6/8/04
Date 120-
day time
limit
expires
8/7/04
G
Date
Applicant
was notified
of
extension
H
Deadline
for City
action
under
extension
or waiver
Date City
approved or
denied the
application
Date City
sent response
to Applicant
Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application.
Assign each application a number.
List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
List the date the City received the application.
List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the
date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line.
To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
The City must act before the deadline..(The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.)
List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before
the time limit expires.
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Planning Commission
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
April 30, 2004
Miscellaneous Issues
NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with
additional detail on CouncilIEDA/HRA actions on Community Development related issues or
other city projects, It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review,
at your discretion.
April 12 Council/EDA Meetings - At the April 12 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took
action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
· Proiect #734, Resolution orderinq published notice and public hearinq on sale of 4317
Nevada Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request.
· Proiect #734, Resolution supportin.q Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation
Hennepin County transit oriented development .qrant application for their proposed
project located at 4301 and 4317 Nevada Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request.
· Proiect #751, Resolution awardin.q city of New Hope public improvement contract bulk
asbestos and environmental hazards survey to Angstrom Analytical in the Iow quote
amount: Approved, see attached Council request.
· Project #714, 716, 719, 723, 755, 761, 748, 757, 758, 762, 763, 764, 765, 768, Motion
al31~rovinc~ demolition plans and specifications and authorizinq advertisement for bid~:
Approved, see attached Council request.
· Proiect #760, 753, 741,756, 758, 734, Resolution awardin.q city of New Hope demolition
contract to RJK Contractinq in the Iow bid amount of $67,519: Approved, see attached
Council request.
· Resolution callinq for a public hearinq on the modification of the restater~
redevelopment plan for redevelopment proiect no. 1; modification of the TIF plans for
TIF districts nos. 80-2, 81-1, 82-1, 85-1, 85-2, 86-1, 02-1, 03-1 (special law) and 04-1
(special law) {CVS): Approved, see attached Council request.
· Proiect #733, Public Hearinq - Resolution modifying the restated redevelopment plan
and TIF plans for redevelopment no. 1 and TIF districts nos. 80-2, 81-1, 82-1, 85-1, 85-2,
86-1, 02-1, and 03-1 (special law); creating TIF district no. 04-1 (special law) and
adol3tim3 a TIF plan relatinq thereto {5620 V~innetka): Council continued this item to the
April 26 meeting.
PC04-02~ Request for preliminary plat approval of Science Industry Center 3rd Addition
and site/buildin.q plan review, 8801 Science Center Drive.: Approved as recommended by
the Planning Commission, with a slight wording change on one condition (copy attached).
PC04-04, Request for preliminary plat approval of AC Carlson Addition and sitelbuildin.r-
.plan review, 8901 Bass Lake RoaH: Approved as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
.-
· Project #759~ Resolution orderinq construction of and awardinq contract for
construction of the 2004 street infrastructure improvements: Approved, bid awarded to
Doboszenski & Sons for base bid of $2,195,485.19 plus alternates 1 and 2, see attached
Council request.
April 26 Council/EDA Meetinqs - At the Aprii 26 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took
action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
· Project #751, Resolution awarding city of New Hope contract for drilling services to
Matrix Environmental in the Iow quote amount: Approved, see attached Council request.
· Proiect #734, Public Hearinq - Resolution approving development contract for 4317
Nevada Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request.
· Project #733, Public Hearinq - Resolution modifyinR the restated redevelopment plan
and TIF plans for redevelopment proiect no. 1 and TIF districts nos. 80-2, 81-1, 82-1, 85-
1, 85-2, 86-1, 02-1 and 03-1 (special Law); creatinq TIF district no 04-1 (special law) and
adoptin.q a TIF plan relatinq thereto (5620 Winnetka): Approved, see attached Council
request. (Similar resolution passed by the EDA.)
· PC04-02~ Request for final plat approval for property to be known as Science Industry
Center 3rd Addition, 8801 Science Center Drive: Approved, see attached Council request.
· PC04-06, Request for rezoninq, Comprehensive Plan amendment, and concept/
development staqe planned unit development, 5620 Winnetka Avenue: Approved as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
· Proiect #733, Resolution authorizinq execution and delivery of a contract for private
redevelopment by and between the New Hope EDA and Armory Development II, LLC for
the redevelopment of the former Frank's Nursery property: Approved, see attached EDA
request. (Development agreement available for review at city hall.)
Codes and Standards Committee - The Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in April.
A meeting has been scheduled for May 19 to discuss the transit shelter ordinance, all night
computer games in a shopping center setting, and several minor code amendments.
Design and Review Committee - The Design and Review Committee met in April to review the
plans for two residential variances, outdoor storage for Frattallone's Ace Hardware, CVS
Pharmacy, and a special meeting on the screening issues at Mid America Financial Plaza. The
deadline for the June Planning Commission meeting is May 7. It is anticipated that several
applications may be filed, including:
· St. Joe residential plat
· Egan plat
· 8501 54th Avenue plat
· Text amendment for all night computer game events.
The Design and Review Committee will meet on Thursday, May 13, at 7!30:a m.
Future Applications - Future applications or businesses that staff is currently working with
include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Collisys - amend CUP
Paddock Laboratories expansion
Waymouth Farms expansion
Restaurant and office condo project, 42nd and Quebec - on hold
4301/4317 Nevada - six housing units
Dakota Growers (Creamettes) expansion
YMCA addition
10.
City Center Task Force Update - In April, the Council directed staff to focus on the potential
relocation/redevelopment of the School DiStriCt §ite, Per the recommendation of the task force, for
the remainder of 2004.
Real Estate Siqns - In April, the Council also directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment
to make the setback for real estate signs similar to the setback for other temporary signs.
Planninq/Council/EDA Minutes - Enclosed are Planning/Councii/EDA meeting minutes for your
review.
Proiect Bulletins - Enclosed are project bulletins on 7609 Bass Lake Road, City Center,
Winnetka Green, 7643 Bass Lake Road, and property demolition.
If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff.
Attachments:
4317 Nevada Avenue
NCRC grant application
Asbestos/environmental hazard survey-Ryland project
Demo plans and specs for remaining 14 properties
Demo contract for 6 properties
Public Hearing on TIF plans (CVS)
Public Hearing on TIF plans (5620 Winnetka)
2004 street infrastructure
Contract for drilling services
Public Hearing- 4317 Nevada sale
Public Hearing - TIF plans (5620 Winnetka)
Final plat - Science Industry Center 3rd Addition
EDA - 5620 Winnetka development contract
Project Bulletins
Planning/Council/EDA Minutes
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 6, 2004
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Svendsen called the meeting to order at 7
p.m.
ROLL CALL
CONSENT BUSINESS
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken, O'Brien, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Barrick, Landy
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve
Sondrall, City Attomey, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Vince
Vander Top, City Engineer, Ken Doresky, Community
Development Specialist, Amy Baldwin, Community Department
Assistant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC04-02
Item 4.1
Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for
preliminary plat approval of Science Industry Center 3rd Addition and
site/building plan review, 8801 Science Center Drive, Science Center Drive
LLC, Petitioner.
Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, stated that the petitioner was requesting
site and building plan review for an industrial site at 8801 Science Center
Drive and a preliminary plat review. The subdivision of the plat would be to
create two separate pamels. The new parcel meets all I, Industrial Zoning
District qualifications with regard to lot area and lot width. Easements would
be established at the periphery of the property lines. The plat illustrates
existing easements through the property, which are acceptable in conjunction
with the improvements as proposed.
The development plan proposed the construction of a of 21,600 square foot
building,, with 8,400 square feet of office space, 13,200 square feet of
warehouse, and 7,600 square feet of bulk equipment storage. The site plan
illustrates the proposed building area would occupy 28.2 percent of the site,
green area is 31.9 percent, and paved area is 39.9 percent of the site, which
is compliant with the 20 percent green area requirements of the I District.
Brixius explained that the proposal had been reviewed by staff and the Design
and Review Committee. Several suggestions were made at those meetings
and revised plans were submitted as a result. The building would be placed on
the northeast corner of the new lot and meets all required setbacks.
Easements were established around the property that raised some concerns.
An existing utility easement that runs diagonally through the site is slightly
encumbered by the parking lot areas. The city engineer reviewed that and
found all manholes lie outside the improvement area and felt that the
encroachment on the easement is acceptable provided the applicant
understands that if the city needed to access that utility, the city would have
the right of access and may disrupt the parking areas. There is a non-
exclusive easement for a rail spur through the property. The rail spur would be
a property owner issue and the city would need assurances that
improvements could take place within that required easement. There is a
proposed access easement that runs through the site between Lots 1 and 2
that would provide a workable circulation pattern for all trucks. A documented
easement needs to be prepared and reviewed by the city attorney.
Drainage improvements call for all site drainage to come across the property
into a pond on the adjoining lot. The petitioner presented a letter prior to the
start of this meeting explaining that the applicant and adjoining property owner
(Artec Finishing Systems) had come to an agreement as far as the placement
of the pond on the property. The plan would require review by the Shingle
Creek Watershed and verification of all setbacks from the wetland areas are
required. The water service would be coming from Science Center Drive. The
sanitary sewer would come off the west side of the building and connect with
the sanitary sewer line that runs through Lot 1. If the building would be
sprinkled, a separate utility connection would be required for fire suppression
and a second line provided for potable water.
Brixius stated that the proposed signage includes a 40 square foot monument
sign on the north side of the building, which was compliant with the industrial
district standards. No wall signage was identified on the plans. Any wall
signage would need to be compliant with the sign code. A color rendering of
the proposed building was submitted. Building materials would consist of pre-
cast concrete wall panels, standard gray finish with two blue smooth banding
strips around the building, Aluminum window frames with insulated glass are
proposed. Several suggestions were made by staff and the Design and
Review Committee including additional landscaping to break up the building
massing on the north and south property lines, additional plantings near the
back entrance, screening at rear of the property and additional landscaping
along the east building elevation to break up the wall mass along that side.
The proposed lighting would consist of wall mounted fixtures. Fixtures should
be propedy hooded and be illustrated on photometric plans. A freestanding
light pole was added in the south parking lot to provide additional lighting to
the storage/parking area, which would be fenced.
The loading areas would be at the back of the building. All are properly
dimensioned with access doom available. The circulation pattern would be
effective in conjunction with the shared access easement. All refuse and
storage would be located inside the building. The applicant was requesting an
eight-foot fence around the south area of the building to secure the south
parking and loading area. Company service vehicles would be stored in this
area. No other outdoor storage would be required. City code requires 35 stalls
for this site and 53 stalls have been provided, including two ADA stalls. The
landscape plan had been adjusted to meet the recommendations of the
Design and Review Committee. The site would be irrigated.
Brixius concluded by saying that the applicant had complied with most of the
items identified by staff and the city engineer, including the shared access
easement and ponding. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions
in the planning report.
Commissioner Brauch questioned why waiver of the final plat review was not
mentioned in the conditions. It was noted that condition should be added.
Mr. Vince Vander Top, city engineer, explained that the site drainage is
conveyed toward the west property line and is captured in a ditch and routed
to a pond. The pond is proposed to be constructed on adjacent property,
which is encumbered by an existing drainage and utility easement in favor of
the city. The city encouraged the applicant to locate the pond in the proposed
area. The pond would be bordered on the east side by the sanitary sewer
utility easement. VanderTop reported that he and Mr. McDonald met with
representatives of Avtec to discuss the ponding situation. They raised some
concems with regard to liability of having another business's pond on their
property. The applicant took the initiative to contact Avtec. and the two
Planning Commission Meeting 2 April 6, 2004
businesses have reached an agreement that the applicant will hold Avtec
harmless of any liability of having the pond on Avtec's property in the future.
The city would approve the proposed plan.
VanderTop indicated that the applicant had included a storm sewer that cuts
through the site, per Design and Review recommendations. The larger parcel
of 8801 Science Center Drive has a drainage area which concentrated at
approximately the rear southeast corner of the new building and crosses the
new parcel's rear parking area. According to drainage calculations, the
proposed pond is not sized for the additional drainage. Staff recommends that
the drainage from the two properties be separated. Shingle Creek Watershed
recommends that the storm sewer be eliminated and the runoff be allowed to
go through the pond. Even though the pond was not designed for that amount
of water it would provide some additional treatment for the water from the
greater parcel rather than giving a direct route for those sediments and
parking lot runoff into that channel.
Chairman Svendsen confirmed that there would not be a land swap for the
ponding issues.
Commissioner Brauch wondered whether or not the applicant was agreeable
to the recommendations of the Shingle Creek Watershed with the flow of
water across their property. VanderTop indicated he felt the applicant would
be agreeable due to the fact that there would be less storm sewer to construct
and the pond maintenance would be the same either way. He clarified that at
the time of any improvements on the larger 8801 Science Center Drive
property, that property owner would be required to expand the ponding on that
property and route that runoff through their pond. This option would be
acceptable to the city.
Commissioner O'Brien clarified that this was a private pond, and VanderTop
added that the standard pond maintenance agreement should be executed.
Mr. Richard Tieva, co-owner of Northland Mechanical Contractors, came
forward and stated that the business had been in New Hope for approximately
17 years and the proposed site would be a good move for them. The new
building would provide bulk storage inside the building so they would not need
any additional outside storage of tools and equipment. He stated they
requested a fence to secure the service trucks that generally contain many
dollars worth of tools and to reduce vandalism. Mr. Tieva mentioned that the
old railroad spur did not have an easement attached to it, referenced on the
plat as Lot 4. The permit for the storm water pond had been submitted to the
Watershed District. The easement through the 8801 property is only an
egress easement, not ingress. The purpose of this is for easier
maneuverability of the few semi trucks that come per week. The plan is to
install an electric gate at the egress location for trucks leaving their property.
The purchase agreement with the owner of 8801 Science Center Drive states
that fact. The easement will be registered separately as part of the plat.
Commissioner Anderson clarified that the outside storage would be for service
vans, semis and small trailers. There would be no additional materials stored
outside. Anderson questioned the trash storage. Mr. Tieva responded that the
dumpsters would be located inside the building. The area at the rear of the
building would be screened with a fence.
Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, clarified that no outdoor storage conditional
use permit was requested, the fence was for security purposes.
Oelkers initiated discussion on the easement documents and Sondrall
indicated that the easements would not be recorded on the plat. If the property
Planning Commission Meeting 3 April 6, 2004
MOTION
Item 4.1
owners have agreed between themselves on a private easement for egress
only, and if the agreement was violated, they would need to work out the
situation on their own.
There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Brauch, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien to
close the Public Hearing on Planning Case 04-02. All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to
approve Planning Case 04-02, Request for preliminary plat approval for
Science Industry Center 3rd Addition and site/building plan review, 8801
Science Center Drive, Science Center Drive LLC, Petitioner, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Comply with city engineer recommendations dated 4-1-04.
2. Approval of plans by building official.
3. Approval of plans by West Metro Fire.
4. City attorney to review and comment on shared access easement
between Lot 1 and Lot 2.
5. Comply with planning consultant recommendations including:
a. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to the review
and approval of the city engineer.
b. Fire hydrant to be protected by bollards or other approved
method.
c. The fire department location (approved by the fire
department) shall be marked with a sign stated "No Parking
Fire Lane".
d. Indicate the location of all mechanical areas on the exterior
elevations plan.
6. Enter into development agreement with city and provide
performance bond (amount to be determined by city engineer and
building official).
7. Establishment of an agreement where Avtec provides an easement
over the pond and Northland Mechanical subsequently provides an
indemnification.
8. A'sign permit and a fence permit are required.
9. Planning Commission to waive review of final plat.
A question was raised whether or not Avtec owned the property. It was noted
that the letter received concerning the easement was signed by the attorney
for Avtec Properties. Sondrall stated that both the access and pond
easements were private and the only concern that the city would have in
connection with the easement, would be the standard pond maintenance
agreement so that if the pond was not maintained, the city would have the
right to maintain it and assess the costs back to the property owner.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Barrick, Landy
Motion carried.
Buggy, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien,
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on April 12 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance.
Planning Commission Meeting 4 April 6, 2004
Chairman Svendsen reported that the Winnetka townhome development
discussion would be tabled and discussed at a special meeting on April 20, at
7 p.m.
PC04-04
Item 4.2
Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for
preliminary plat approval of AC Cadson Addition and site/building plan review,
8901 Bass Lake Road, A.C. Cadson, Petitioner.
Mr. Ken Doresky, community development specialist, stated that the subject
property located at 8901 Bass Lake Road consisted of two lots at the
southeast comer of Bass Lake Road and International Parkway. The property
was zoned industrial, with surrounding land uses of industrial to the east and
west, medium density residential and single family residential to the north and
high density residential to the south, as well as a DNR wetland to the south.
The site area contains 128,520 square feet or 2.95 acres. The proposed
green area for the site is 64,903 square feet or 50.5 percent, building area is
17,130 square feet or 13.3 percent, and paved area is 46,267 square feet or
36 percent of the site. The Comprehensive Plan states that the primary goal
for Planning District 3 is the preservation and enhancement of its industrial
land uses and inflll development of vacant sites.
The applicant has owned the undeveloped site for several years. The site
consists of two separate parcels that would be combined on the plat. The
property is adjacent to a DNR wetland to the south. The petitioner was
requesting preliminary plat approval which would be known as the AC Cadson
Addition and site/building plan review to allow construction of the new
office/showroom/warehouse facility. No variance or conditional uses are
requested with this application.
Doresky reported that A.C. Carlson was proposing a retail showroom, office
space, and warehouse space for their facility. A narrative was submitted by
the applicant which stated that they desire to upgrade their showroom and
combine it with their warehousing so everything would be at a single location.
The petitioner has been selling appliances in Crystal and New Hope for 50
years. Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and staff
received no comments.
Doresky explained that excerpts from the Zoning Code with regard to
subdivision and platting and site/building plan review were included in the
planning report. The preliminary plat was submitted to department heads, city
attorney, city engineer, planning consultant, utility companies and Hennepin
County for comments. No comments were received from the utility companies
and the city attorney's comments are included in the planning packet. The
petitioner did not submit correspondence requesting waiver of review of the
final plat by the Planning Commission, therefore, the Commission should
discuss this issue further with the applicant.
Staff and the Design and Review Committee reviewed the request and
revised plans were submitted as a result of those meetings.
Doresky reported that the current site contains two lots. The proposed plat
would create one lot and a building with 9,600 square feet of retail and 7,530
square feet of warehouse space. All setbacks are compliant with the city code.
Based on the submitted plans, 51 parking stalls are required and are shown
on the plans. Four accessible stalls, including one accessible van space, are
provided. Currently, there is a fire hydrant in the island at the southeast corner
of the parking lot. West Metro Fire is recommending that the fire department
connection be located at the south corner of the retail portion of the building,
and the curb area south of the retail facility be posted fire lane at the south
end of the retail building. Revised plans did not account for. any additional
Planning Commission Meeting 5 April 6, 2004
expansion. Preliminary plans did identify future expansion to the south and
east of the proposed retail and warehouse building. The number of parking
spaces that could be provided on the site would limit future business
expansion.
Access to the property would be via International Parkway. The applicant was
proposing a 28-foot curb cut onto Bass Lake Road near the east corner of the
property to accommodate truck traffic exiting the property. This turning radius
has been expanded to accommodate the truck turning radius. The applicant
would be required to complete the sidewalk along Bass Lake Road to the west
as part of this approval. The applicant provided a truck traffic circulation plan
for the property entering on International Parkway and traveling along the rear
portion of the property and existing onto Bass Lake Road. Access off of Bass
Lake Road should be identified as a one-way exit and would be limited to
truck traffic only.
Doresky explained that a fully enclosed dumpster location at the southern
portion of the building was identified. The gate materials should be identified
on the plan. An area of roughly 1,040 square feet or 17 percent of the gross
floor area was identified on the plans for outdoor storage. The Zoning Code
allows for 20 percent outdoor storage without a conditional use permit. West
Metro Fire has also requested that a sprinkler riser be identified on the plan.
According to the City Code where an industrial use abuts a residential use,
screening shall be provided along the boundary of the property. The applicant
identified nine Black Hills spruce plantings on the southern side of the building.
The northern property line includes a mix of shrubs, trees, perennials. The
western side of the property includes a mix of ornamental trees and shrubs.
The planning consultant had recommended that additional plantings be placed
in the parking islands and this has not been shown on the plan. An irrigation
system was designed for the site and is shown on the plan. Seeding and
restoration types and methods would need to be defined in the areas shown
on the plan. A few inconsistencies between the plan and planting schedule
should be corrected.
Two wall signs and one pylon sign are proposed for the property. One
freestanding sign per property is allowed in the industrial district. The
proposed pylon sign measures 56 square feet. The proposed wall signs are
72 square feet each, which is in compliance with City Code. The wall signs
would be internally lit channel letter, plex-face. The pylon sign would be
internally lit and mounted on two painted steel columns. A 42 square foot
internally lit channel letter, plex-face identification sign would be placed in the
EIFS section on both the west and north sections of the building. The main
entryway of the building at the west entrance would be surrounded by glass.
Cast stone base will be on each side adjacent to the entry. Face brick would
be placed upon the base up to an EIFS cornice with a pre-finished cap
flashing at the top. Four sets of windows are shown to the south of the
entryway. EIFS will continue southward over the glazing. The lower eight feet
of material would be integral color rock face block. The remainder of the wall
will be painted concrete block. Prefinished metal cap flashing would be
installed along the entire roofline. The planning consultant recommended that
the painted concrete be replaced with colored masonry for long-term durability
and upkeep.
Doresky noted that snow storage was not identified on the plan. He stated
staff felt the intention was to store snow in the ponding areas, which should be
noted on the plan. The applicant submitted a lighting plan for the project.
Fourteen fixtures would be added around the perimeter of the building. Two
back to back fixtures would be placed in the parking lot in the middle of the
islands.
Planning Commission Meeting 6 April 6, 2004
Mr. Vince Vander ToP, city engineer, stated that the plans for the project were
very well done and the detail was appreciated. He stated he would comment
on Hennepin County's transportation comments and the grading plan. Neither
issue should add additional conditions with the approval.
Hennepin County did not issue written comments yet for the plan. The
preliminary plat was submitted to Hennepin County, however, the county
deemed it incomplete and requested additional information in Bass Lake
Road. Specifically, the location of the median in Bass Lake Road. The city
requested the same information at the Design and Review meeting and the
applicant had indicated the location on the grading plan. The same information
needed to be shown on the plat for Hennepin County. The county's comments
should be minimal as the right-of-way is sufficient for Bass Lake Road. Bass
Lake Road was improved in the early 1990s and those issues were addressed
at that time. A driveway entrance was constructed in the early 1990s as well.
That entrance would be modified somewhat and the applicant would be
required to obtain a driveway permit from Hennepin County. One comment
that may come from Hennepin County and would be supported by the city,
would be that the Bass Lake Road driveway be an egress only. All customers
and service vehicles would have to arrive via the signals at Bass Lake Road
and International Parkway and in the driveway from International Parkway.
The median in Bass Lake Road is configured so that there is a left turn lane. A
recommendation would be that the driveway on Bass Lake Road be signed as
egress only or do no enter. Commissioner Brauch expressed concern that
during the day traffic coming from the south to the intersection at Bass Lake
Road and Intemational Parkway can sometimes be backed up for several
hundred feet. He wondered if that was a Hennepin County issue and whether
it would be acceptable for customers to exit the property from the driveway on
Bass Lake Road. VanderTop confirmed that would be acceptable to the city,
but could not speak for the applicant. The traffic light sequencing was a
Hennepin County issue. The traffic light situation could encumber this
property, which was the reason to move the driveway as far south away from
the light as possible. A dedicated movement for left tums from International
Parkway onto Bass Lake Road could be raised with Hennepin County to see if
the county would be agreeable to that change.
VanderTop explained that the applicant's engineer had done a good job in
showing ponding and drainage improvements per Shingle Creek Watershed
2nd Generation Plan. The new requirements for the 2nd Generation Plan
require infiltration. Not only is ponding required, but the first one-half inch of
runoff needs to be infiltrated within 72 hours. VanderTop stated he questioned
the requirement with the Watershed on this application, and that requirement
was a goal not necessarily a requirement, as he understood it, as it related to
the city of New Hope, due to the city's heavy, clay soils and organic soils
adjacent to the wetland. The applicant has shown a pond to the west to accept
the runoff from the parking lot west of the building and a pond to the south
accepting runoff from the rest of the property. The outlet from the west pond is
to be routed through the site in a storm sewer to the pond on the south. The
overflow from the south pond flows into the infiltration basin. A large amount of
the property is encumbered by ponding areas. The applicant submitted a
wetland delineation plan, which was reviewed by the city. In the past, the city
had completed a wetland delineation on this property. VanderTop showed a
map of the two delineation lines and stated that the city's was preferred due to
the fact that the applicant's delineation was completed in winter, which was
not the preferred time. He continued by saying that the infiltration and
improvements are not to encroach onto the wetland.
The city would recommend that the applicant redo the grading plan so that the
infiltration area be eliminated or minimized. The ponding area could be
Planning Commission Meeting 7 April 6, 2004
reconfigured to further enhance the property from a use and grading
standpoint that the pipe through the site be eliminated and that the discharge
from the west pond be routed directly to a storm sewer constructed on the
western portion of the site to the wetland. If required, some mitigation or
filtration strips at the outlets of the ponds could be added to enhance the
improvement and still meet the requirements of the watershed.
A second change to the grading plan has been discussed, whereby it may be
feasible to eliminate a portion of the retaining wall and allow some grading to
cross the property line onto city property. This would minimize the cost of the
retaining wall and the long-term maintenance of it. This would be a partnership
between the applicant and the city. If there would be any impacts to the city
property and the wetland, how would it be mitigated and how would restoration
occur. VanderTop stated that the Planning Commission should be aware of
those changes. The request could be approved with the understanding the
plans would be subject to the approval of the city engineer and that the city
was offering the applicant some opportunities to optimize their improvements.
Commissioner O'Brien questioned how much of the retaining wall would be
eliminated and how the grading would impact the wetland. VanderTop
indicated that it would not be feasible to eliminate all of the retaining wall. It
may be possible that the city chooses to grade into the wetland and mitigate
for it. Those decisions should be weighed by the applicant and the city, and
can be determined by review of the grading plan.
Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the storm sewer extension from ,Bass
Lake Road south onto the site would be an expense to the applicant.
Mr. Doresky stated staff felt that the overall site design was well conceived
and that the proposal provided a good opportunity to use a site that was ready
for development. The development was compatible with the existing zoning
and was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The building would be an
attractive addition to New Hope's Industrial District on a heavily traveled
thoroughfare. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions in the staff
report.
Mr. Todd Young, KKE Architects, representing AC Cadson, stated that they
tried to get the grading issue resolved prior to this meeting. They found out
about the infiltration pond too late to change the plans. He stated they would
work with the city to make the project work better as requirements for ponding
at this time seemed excessive. He stated he had not heard about the city's
wetland delineation report before tonight. One contention of the wetland
delineation was the storm sewer letting out where it does. Mr. Young stated
that the applicant would like to work with the city to determine if some of the
grading could take place on the city property. It could be beneficial for both
parties and make a better transition from the wetland to their property and give
the applicant an opportunity to eliminate some of the retaining wall. As part of
the grading, they would consider doing some wetland plantings in that area.
He stated they would try to eliminate some of the ponding on the south side of
the property and work with the storm sewer location and discharge into the
pond.
The location of the pylon sign along Bass Lake Road may be relocated closer
to the corner within the setback requirements depending on reconfiguring the
pond. Mr. Young asked for waiver of final plat by the Planning Commission.
Young stated that he did not feel the fire lane at the south side of the retail
building would pose a problem. There is a service door in the warehouse that
would be utilized for customer pick up of appliances, so there may
occasionally be a vehicle parked in that proposed fire lane.
Planning Commission Meeting 8 April 6, 2004
Commissioner BrauCh wondered whether it was realistic to get all of the
grading, ponding, and wetland delineation issues resolved prior to the April 12
City Council meeting. The city engineer stated it may not be necessary, but
would be preferred to have the final plans. Mr. McDonald stated that staff
would present what it has at the City Council meeting and recommend
approval subject to working out the details with the city engineer.
Chairman Svendsen questioned the width of the two concrete islands and the
recommendation of plantings in those areas. Mr. Young stated his recollection
of the Design and Review meeting was that those areas could be concrete.
Svendsen inquired as to the request of the Police Department and whether
the plantings at the front entrance had been relocated. Young responded that
some of the plantings were moved farther to the east. All of the planting
materials shown on the plan would be utilized.
Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on a left turn from Bass Lake Road
into the property which would be prohibited. A left turn out of the property to
the west on Bass Lake Road would be allowed.
Commissioner Hemken asked for clarification of any curbing along the
driveway from Intemational Parkway into the property.
It was noted that the petitioner would work with the city on appropriate wetland
plantings.
There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien to
close the Public Hearing on Planning Case 04-04. All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
MOTION
Item 4.2
Planning Commission Meeting
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to
approve Planning Case 04-04, Request for preliminary plat approval of
AC Carlson Addition and site/building plan review, 8901 Bass Lake
Road, A.C. Carlson, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
1. Comply with city engineer recommendations, including those
dated April 1, 2004, and noted in Planning Commission minutes of
April 6 regarding the pond and retaining wall.
2. Comply with Hennepin County requirements for platting and
access.
3. Approval of plans by building official.
4. Approval of plans by West Metro Fire-Rescue District and comply
with recommendations, including fire lane.
5. Enter into a development agreement with the city and provide
performance bond (amount to be determined by city engineer and
building official).
6. Comply with planning consultant recommendations including:
a. Revised plans did not show future expansion, but any
expansion would be required to be approved through the
planning process and proof of parking would be necessary.
b. Verify turning radius with building official at plan review.
Access off of Bass Lake Road should be identified as exit only
and will be limited to truck traffic only. Finally, the applicant to
complete the sidewalk along Bass Lake Road.
c. The applicant has identified a retaining wall on the southern
and eastern portions of the plan, however wall details are not
9 April 6, 2004
10. Sign permit is required and location
determined by final pond location.
provided. The retaining walls will be subject to the review and
approval of the-city staff.
d. Indicate the location of all mechanical areas on the exterior
elevation plan.
e. Submit photometric plan showing foot-candle measurements
at the property line and demonstrate fixtures comply with City
Code.
Correct minor plan issues including:
a. Landscaping plan correction, snow storage identification,
identify refuse enclosure door material, and match survey and
site plan area.
Planning Commission to waive review of final plat.
The plan is subject to review and approval of the Shingle Creek
Watershed District.
of pylon sign to be
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Barrick, Landy
Motion carried.
Buggy, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien,
Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City
Council on April 12 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance.
PC01-09
Item 4.3
Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Discussion of
neighborhood issues regarding 9220 Bass Lake Road, Tharp Family
Partnership, Petitioner.
Chairman Svendsen stated that staff would introduce the matter and then the
Commission would take public comments. All comments should be limited to
three minutes.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, community development director, explained that the City
Council had requested that the Planning Commission review Planning Case
01-09 in response to some neighborhood concerns that were raised at a
recent City Council meeting during the open forum session. The Planning
Commission should consider the issues and make recommendations.
Neighborhood residents were invited to express their viewpoints at the
meeting and the property owner and/or his representatives were invited to
attend.
In 2001, Tharp Family Partnership was granted a conditional use permit to
allow the conversion of the office/warehouse building at 9220 Bass Lake Road
to convert the building from a single use to a multi-use building, subject to
certain conditions. Exterior changes were proposed for the building including
new parking lots, installation of windows along the north and west sides of the
building, and a new entrance on the southeastern side of the building.
Extensive renovation on the interior of the building is currently under
construction to create offices for tenants, as needed.
Several residents from the neighborhood have been complaining to the city
since last spring about several issues related to the property: loss of privacy
with the installation of windows on the north side of the building, late night
lights from the windows, lack of buffering/screening between the residential
and office use. Staff coordinated a meeting with the property owner and
residents in August 2003. Everyone who attended looked at the property from
inside and outside the building, as well as from the back yards of the adjacent
Planning Commission Meeting 10 April 6, 2004
residents. As a result Of that meeting, the property owner agreed to take some
measures to address the concems, such as the installation of blinds, light
timers, etc. Staff thought the matter had been resolved between the property
owner and the residents. In February 2004, staff received correspondence
from adjacent property owners regarding light glare from the windows. Staff
has been working with all parties to try to get the issues resolved on a staff
level, but have not been successful. Staff advised the neighbors to take their
concerns to the City Council and then advised the City Council to refer the
matter back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The
residents were invited to attend this meeting to express their opinions. Staff
hopes that some agreement can be reached.
Mr. Shawn Tharp, Tharp Family Partnership, came forward to reiterate that
last fall they met with the neighbors to try and get the matter resolved. They
walked through the inside of the building and around the exterior. At that time
no promises were made as to the installation of blinds. A letter was provided
to staff stating that the light timers would be adjusted, the cleaning people
would shut the doors. Additional correspondence was received from the
neighbors and Mr. Steve Tharp, father, inquired of the neighbors to see what
they would like to have happen. Three or four of .the neighbors indicated they
would prefer blinds rather than any kind of shrubs. Blinds were ordered -
some were backordered and a couple were misordered - which delayed the
process. As of March 28, all of the existing windows have been blinded, in
compliance with what his father had promised the neighbors. Shawn Tharp
stated that it was his understanding that they were allowed to have no more
than one foot candle of power crossing the property line. M&E Engineering,
Inc., consulting engineers, took readings with all of the blinds open and all of
the lights on during the evening of March 23 and found that at no point along
the property line were the petitioners in violation of the ordinance.
Commissioner Oelkers asked for clarification on the timers for the lights. The
timers were originally set for 30 minutes and have been reduced to 10 to 15
minutes. American Financial Marketing, whose offices are on the north side of
the building, closes at 5 p.m. and the cleaning person comes in about 5:30 or
6 p.m. to vacuum, etc. This space is approximately 11,000 square feet and
may take one to one and one-half hours to clean. The cleaning person has
been asked to shut lights off when finished. Another tenant does their own
cleaning so there should be no lights on at night unless someone works after
normal business hours. All windows on the north side of the building have
blinds as of March 28. The light meter readings were conducted and the
results were less than city standards. Svendsen added that at the Design and
Review meeting, it was mentioned that the times were installed on all lights as
an energy saver. Mr. Tharp pointed out that the outside offices have timers,
but the inside area could not have timers installed. He stated that someone
called his father late one day in the evening to have lights shut off and his
brother drove to the building at approximately 10 p.m. to do so. He pointed out
that they feel they have done everything that has been asked of them and
have gone above and beyond as well.
Chairman Svendsen opened the floor for comments.
Ms. Georgia O'Brien, 9241 59th Avenue, came forward. She stated her
comments would be made with reference to the Mid America Financial Plaza
property at 9220 Bass Lake Road. She questioned the City Code with
reference to having sufficient screening prior to the installation of windows in
an industrial building adjacent to residential properties. Ms. O'Brien stated she
felt there was not sufficient screening. Most of the trees along the building
were on the homeowners' properties. If she removed any of her trees, she
would not have any screening. Friends and neighbors told her they would not
want to live in a house where a company of strangers and cleaning people
Planning Commission Meeting 11 April 6, 2004
could watch their children playing in the back yard or see inside their house.
,She felt that may impact the value in her home or she may have trouble
selling it. Her privacy had been invaded. She stated that she did not
remember any neighbors making a statement that blinds would be preferred
over shrubbery. They had talked about the fact that it would take a long time
for shrubbery to grow tall enough for ample screening. Her home was at the
north end of the building where the property slopes downward and the
windows to be installed there would be level with the second story of her
home. She has tall cottonwood trees with no branches Iow enough to screen
those windows. She has one tree that would provide some screening planted
too close to the house by the previous owners and needed to be removed.
Two other trees that would screen her deck were planted too close together
and one of those trees needed to be removed. Upon removal of those trees,
she would have no screening. Ms. O'Brien stated she felt she now had to put
up with the windows and blinds and no other screening. She thought the
Council had stated that there should be sufficient screening. As a resident,
she felt that the Council should treat the businesses and residents in the same
manner. She is proud of the fact that all of the neighbors maintain their homes
and property, which displays a very attractive and inviting place to live. She
stated that the residents and business do not have problems being friends;
the issue is sufficient screening for the privacy of the homes, children, and
back yards, Another problem is the back of the building where the grass has
been dug up and there are piles of dirt. Last fall, water settled in the ditch and
produced large amounts of mosquitoes. She was asking the Council
members to consider the residents' situation and feelings. She stated the
neighbors across 59th Avenue were also upset about the way this situation
was being handled and were concerned that the city may treat them in the
same manner if a similar situation arose. Ms. O'Brien mentioned that she
would like to talk to adjacent property owners of the Ryland development to
see if city planners had informed them of the development and the proposed
screening. She mentioned at the last Council meeting she attended one of the
Council members had inquired of the developer whether they had discussed
their plans with the residents. Residents should be asked for their opinion prior
to approval. She thought that if there was only a problem in their neighborhood
that she may have overlooked something, but that may not be the case. She
only received one public hearing notice that stated the building would be
converted from a one-tenant building to a multi-tenant building. She did not
know the building would be changed until the owner came to her home to
show her the plans, and she told him at that time that she objected to the
windows on the north side and the invasion of privacy. His response was that
the plans had already been approved. She stated she has lived in New Hope
for nine years and this was the first city that she did not get the entire agenda.
Ms. O'Brien stated that the Planning Commission should take into
consideration what this neighborhood is experiencing.
Commissioner Hemken inquired what would be acceptable screening and Ms.
O'Bden responded that there was no acceptable screening now due to the
fact that there was no shrubbery or sufficient trees. The only thing may be a
highway type fence. A six-foot fence would not be sufficient for her property
because that would not be tall enough. She stated she had inquired whether
the owners could put shutters on the outside of the windows so if the shutters
were closed no one could see in or out. The owner had indicated that the
windows to be installed would be the same as on the south side of the
building. She felt the Commission members would not want this type of
situation in their back yard, and two members responded that they lived near
similar situations. Ms. O'Brien indicated that possibly large evergreen trees
would be acceptable from the middle to eastern portion of the building
because the ground was higher and the windows were lower. It was clarified
that the north side of the building did have grass and an irrigation system
when Prudential was utilizing the building. The leaves were raked and the
Planning Commission Meeting 12 April 6, 2004
property kept up. ?l'he ditch always had grass in it, not like the mud now. She
thought some type of sewer line had been installed, but water still stands in
the ditch.
Bill and Trish Gabrys, 9209 59th Avenue, came forward. Mr. Gabrys gave
staff a couple letters from residents who could not attend this meeting: Vince
and Lorraine Grimaldi, 9224 59th Avenue, and Taryn and Linda Buchring,
5808 Gettysburg Circle. He mentioned an email to Mr. McDonald that
explained the neighborhood residents did not feel the blinds were a sufficient
resolution to the situation. Mr. Tharp had given the residents an option of $400
each for plantings or blinds on the windows. The residents had determined
that $400 was not sufficient to provide screening. Mr. Gabrys stated that the
blinds had now been installed, however, the office workers pull the blinds to
the top of the window leaving the windows bare. There was no control over
what goes on inside the building. He remembered talk about an eight-foot
wood fence the full length of the building, and thought Mr. Tharp was now
adamant about not installing this fence. Due to the downward slope of the
topography, if the fence was placed at the property line, it would not provide
any screening. Screening would be more effective if the fence could be placed
half way up the hill. He stated his wife is a teacher and is home during the
summer and enjoys being outside in the back yard. They have abandoned the
garden in the back yard due to people from the office building watching them,
which they felt was an invasion of their privacy. Mr. Gabrys stated that they
purchased this home because there were no Windows on the north side of that
building and felt the home to be more valuable because of the privacy
afforded them, and that privacy had now been taken away. Not all value is
monetary. He stated that value had been stripped from the residents so the
business could profit from it. He suggested that the windows yet to be installed
be glass block to bring in light, but would be better in terms of pdvacy for the
residents.
Mrs. Gabrys stated they researched the City Code as it related to screening
between a commercial building and residential. The code states that a green
belt should be a planting strip designed so that it provides complete visual
screening to a minimum height of six feet. A photo taken from the deck of the
Gabrys home was shown of the building taken during the winter with no
leaves on the trees. Summertime provides minimal screening. The screening
was not acceptable and not according to code. Mr. Gabrys indicated that part
of the conditions were that an eight-foot fence be installed, and Mr. Tharp had
agreed to put it in. He mentioned his June 14, 2003, letter and the July 23,
2001, Council minutes that indicate a fence was discussed and needed. After
further discussion by the Council, only a fence on the westernmost portion of
the property was required. The residents were not questioned about what they
felt would be appropriate. Mr. Gabrys stated they had not attended the
Planning Commission or City Council meetings in July 2001. He stated that
the mayor had visited the residential sites during that time and he seemed to
be concemed because residents were raising issues. Mr. and Mrs. Gabrys
both agreed there was a major compatibility issue between the residents and
the business, they feel the code had not been enforced, and the screening
was totally inadequate. They were asking for a resolution to this long-standing
problem. Mr. Gabrys stated he felt ashamed that the Council approved the
request. After being asked whether or not they received the initial public
hearing notice, the Gabrys stated they do not believe they did. Mr. Gabrys
stated that not all of the neighbors had received the notice for this meeting.
Commissioner Brauch informed the Gabrys that a posting of the notice was
published in the SunPost as well. Mrs. Gabrys stated that they are involved
with city activities and are involved with the community. She admitted that they
do not read everything in the newspaper. She still felt it was the responsibility
of the Planning Commission to enforce the code and it was not being enforced
in this situation. One resident was at the July 2001 Planning Commission and
Planning Commission Meeting 13 April 6, 2004
City Council meetings and the windows were still installed in the building and
the screening was not there. It also seemed that the privacy issue of residents
at the other end of the block was glazed over possibly due to lack of
representation. A question was raised as to the distance from the deck in the
photo to the windows in the building and the response was about 31 feet'to
the property line and about another 40 feet to the building. Ms. Gabrys added
that the lights from the building and being able to see in was a big issue. The
blinds that have been installed are not always down and the cleaning people
leave lights on. They do not feel they should have to call the owner of the
building whenever the lights are left on. Mrs. Gabrys stated they want a fence
or something to block the windows. She felt the shrUbbery would not
accomplish that and anything planted now would not grow that fast. Mr.
Gabrys wondered why screening between residential and commercial
properties was in the code and if it was for privacy. Mrs. Gabrys stated that the
proposed landscaping plan looked good on paper, but in reality the site should
be looked at to determine what was living and healthy. In summer when the
trees were leaved out it looks a lot different than in winter when there are no
leaves. Mr. Gabrys noted that when they toured the building in August, it was
obvious there were clear views to the homes and the screening was not
adequate. The Commission asked what their suggestion was to remedy the
situation. Mr. Gabrys responded that a fence would be good but it would either
need to be very high at the property line or placed part way up the
embankment toward the building.
Mr. Jim Rieder, 9301 59th Avenue, whose home was located just north of the
west end of the building, approached the podium. He stated the existing fence
ends between his property at 9301 and Ms. O'Brien's property at 9241 59th
Avenue. He stated he had conversations with the Tharps regarding cleaning
up the property. From their side of the fence to the west, trees had been
planted and some seeding done. Mr. Rieder stated he takes a lot of pride in
his back yard and he would like to have a conversation with the Tharps
sometime soon about their plan for cleaning up the pond/ditch area and to get
a timeline for when the work would get done. The fence in that area does not
go all the way to the ground and there is black dirt in that area which should be
fixed. It was confirmed that the Rieders had received the public hearing notice
in June 2001 because Mrs. Rieder was in attendance and spoke at the
meetings. Mr. Rieder confirmed that the existing fence was done nicely and
sodding was done on the business side of the fence. He would like the portion
of the property on his side of the fence cleaned up.
Mr. Steve Lovcik, 9225 59th Avenue, came forward stated that his property
was screened with a green belt, however, it is not sufficient. The trees on the
Tharp property are old and were pruned, but he was hoping the trees would
be replaced. Due to the fact that his property was located where the property
slopes and the windows are very high up, his suggestion would be either a 16-
foot high fence or evergreen trees that do properly screen. A shorter fence
could be installed if it were located partway up the hill. Mr. Lovcik confirmed
that he had received the public hearing notice and he had attended the
Council meeting. He stated that he had emailed correspondence to the city.
Ms. Ingrid Neu, 9217 59th Avenue, stated that her home was adjacent to
where the first wave of windows were installed. She stated that the lights are
usually off at night. The grass was bad at the back of the building where trucks
had driven over it and she hoped that this summer seed could be planted. She
stated there was no screening between her property and the building as she
can see people working in the office from her kitchen window, especially in
winter. She suggested some shrubbery and/or fir trees. The shrubbery would
help more when residents are in their back yards. Her house is the highest in
the neighborhood so she looks down at the building. The trees on her property
are sufficient at this time. Ms. Neu stated that here home had.been sold and
Planning Commission Meeting 14 April 6, 2004
they would be moving at the :end of April. She indicated she was speaking for
the family moving into her hOUse. She confirmed that she had received the
public hearing notice, but did not know at the time what it was for or what it
meant. The notice did not state that windows would be installed. Ms. Neu was
asked what her suggestion would be and she responded that evergreens
would be better than a fence, because a fence would not be attractive to look
at all the time. She was asked whether the trucks drove over her property and
she replied that the trucks were on the Tharp property and the tracks were still
there where the grass had been disturbed. A commissioner inquired whether
her property had been difficult to sell or whether the property value had
depreciated. Ms. Neu stated that the property was not difficult to sell and her
realtor confirmed that the building itself may have had some effect but the
windows did not affect the value of the property. It was discussed that some of
the residential properties have a fence in the back yard. Ms. Neu and her
neighbor have a chain link fence and the property at 9201 59th has a six-foot
wood fence. She stated that she can see the parking lot and Bass Lake Road
from her windows.
Mrs. Gabrys interjected that there had been discussion previously of
connecting the fence all the way from west to east on the Tharp property.
Mr. Lance Tharp, Tharp Family Partnership and general contractor for the
complex, came forward. He stated that the only truck traffic that would have
disturbed any ground on the east side of the building would be an eight to 12-
foot strip for a bobcat to get in to remove the pieces of concrete, which
happened in February. They pay a lawn service every year to come in and do
raking and pick up debris. When the utilities were installed near the western
end of the building, some piles of dirt were left and he stated he had done the
grading so the water would drain away from the building. He would be
removing the pile of dirt. On the north side of the building, there are 20 to 30
trees and shrubs, such as Norway pines and possibly cottonwoods. The trees
that one of the residents mentioned removing are 12 to 15-inch Norway pines
which are taller than the top of the building. They cleaned up all the lower
dead branches. The existing fence conforms to the requirements of the
original CUP. The fence was placed there to restrict children and pets from
accidentally getting into the pond. The fence was placed on the berm adjacent
to 9301 and offset the fence along the property line by about eight to 10 feet
due to underground utilities. They did not use any heavy equipment in the area
west of the building other than a two-man posthole digger to try and not
disturb the ground. There was still some dirt work to complete that runs along
the fence line. In addition to the greenery requirements, they were required to
install six to eight-foot tall evergreen trees. They purchased and installed 30
trees and planted them along the back line. Approximately five trees have died
will be replaced. The problem with placing a fence close to the building would
not let in much light and placing the fence at the property line interferes with
utilities. Additional work will be completed this year near the west comer of.the
building near the dumpsters. Mr. Tharp indicated that Ms. O'Brien was the
person that insisted that the sign be changed from an illuminated sign on the
west side of the building to a non-lighted sign. He stated that his father has
tried to be a good neighbor and meet with the neighbors to take suggestions.
Lance stated he also plowed some driveways during the winter a year ago to
be nice since he had the equipment there, however, the residents did not
appreciate it so he did not plow any residents' driveways this year. He stated
he had cut down some cottonwood trees for Mr. Feldberg at 9315 59th
Avenue at the time they were constructing the fence. They also helped out a
couple of the other neighbors with some landscape edging. At this time they
have installed between $3,000 and $5,000 worth of blinds on the building that
was not required as part of the conditional use permit granted in 2001. Due to
the large amount of trees and cottonwoods near the pond, the drain does get
plugged with leaves and branches and the landscaping company had been
Planning Commission Meeting 15 April 6, 2004
advised to unplug the drain. During very heavy storms leaves and debris that
comes through the easement plugs the drain which then plugs the pond. The
rest of the windows for the building would be installed as tenants are identified.
The cedar fence that was installed, is approximately 425 feet long and cost
$17,000, which was a provision of the CUP. In order for the homes adjacent to
the western part of the building where the windows are higher to have any
type of effective screening, a fence placed at the lowest part of the ditch would
have to be 30 feet high. There are approximately five to ten 10 to 20-inch
Norway pines along the back of the building. It would not be feasible to bring in
large enough trees to screen the yet-to-be installed windows on the west end
of the building. The old irrigation system was removed and new irrigation lines
have been installed, however, the patchback work had not yet been
completed. Mr. Tharp stated they have discussed mulching the entire north
side of the building because it is difficult for any grass or landscaping to grow
in that area. He stated when the light meter readings were done, there were
no readings higher than .03 foot candle at the property lines. The readings
were taken with all of the lights on and the blinds up. The windows in the area
currently under construction have poly placed over all of the windows and all
the blinds were closed. Sheetrock was placed in front of other doors where
lights could not be turned off to shield it from the residents.
Mr. Tharp reported they are trying to do all they can to be good neighbors. He
stated there was never any mention of a fence running the entire length of the
building. In order to do that it would need to be placed at the bottom of the hill
or placed mid-point and remove the trees on the property.
Chairman Svendsen questioned where construction traffic would come onto
the property. Mr. Tharp stated that the last windows to be installed were on the
west end of the building and construction traffic would enter from the west
side. Due to the fact that the building is 20 or 30 feet tall there, that back area
is the darkest place and grass or sod does not grow there, which was why he
felt mulch would be a better idea. Svendsen reiterated that restoration of
existing landscaping would be started soon. Tharp stated that they would be
restoring the grass where they could and staining the fence (one side was
stained last fall). Dead trees would be replaced. There was some work to do
on the east side of the new parking area.
Discussion was initiated on the trees in the rear yard at 9209 59th, and Mrs.
Gabrys stated that maple trees were tall enough to be above the windows,
leaving them totally exposed. The amur maple tree is about 12 feet from the
building. The first two windows on the east end of the building were not
installed. Nine windows were installed last February and five additional
windows were installed this past spring. The windows vary in size - two or
three panes each. The windows are being installed as they get tenants.
Hemken questioned why the new trees were dying and Mr. Tharp stated, he
did not know, but those trees would be replaced. It was estimated that the cost
of an eight to 10 foot tall evergreen tree would cost $1,000.
Hemken pointed out that there are nine unhappy neighbors and wondered
what could be done. Mr. Tharp responded that they had done everything they
could to make them happy, but would take suggestions.
Mrs. Gabrys was concerned that resolving the compatibility issue with
landscaping was that the plantings could die or not be watered or not placed
to be an effective screening. ,She stated she would like to see a fence to
separate the properties. She wondered, if grass does not grow on the north
side of the building, trees probably won't either. She didn't see any resolution
for the residents who live farther to the west where the windows would be
higher on the building. Mrs. Gabrys wondered if it would be appropriate to
Planning Commission Meeting 16 April 6, 2004
revoke the CUP. She suggested analyzing what type of windows should be
installed, such as a block that would let light in but workers couldn't see
through. What was the purpose of the windows - to let light in or to give the
workers a nice view to look at while they were working. She stated that they
desire a fence. Last year they planted seven pine trees at seven feet tall and
the total cost for the trees and planting was about $2,000.
Commissioner Brauch thanked the residents for coming to address the
Commission. He stated that as planning commissioners they take their
voluntary job seriously, especially when it came to commercial versus
residential properties. In this case, the commercial use was already in place.
He stated he questioned the residents if they received the public hearing
notice because of the old saying that "government is controlled by those who
participate." As a Planning Commission it had sometimes gone to ridiculous
levels to try and address issues brought forward by residents in attendance at
the meeting. In this case for whatever reason, only one resident came to the
Planning Commission meeting and brought some issues forward which were
addressed at the time. If others were not able to attend, that was their choice.
In effect, it takes leverage away from the Planning Commission because at
that time, as a commission, requirements could be attached to the request. In
this case, the facts have not changed, the windows were always on the plans
and the plans were available for inspection at city hall prior to the meeting for
anyone who could not attend the meeting. In 2001, residents brought up a
concem about the water retention pond and that was addressed along with
the fence on the western end of the property. Some of the screening issues
on the western end of the property were addressed due to concerns raised.
No one else came forward then so the concerns of the windows are being
heard for the first time tonight. It is unfortunate these items are being brought
forward at this time because the Planning Commission does not have the
same leverage now as it would have had in 2001. The permits and building
are in place and the petitioner has moved forward with the project and has no
other choice from an economic standpoint. At times the Planning Commission
has put stringent requirements on petitioners at the request of residents, and
sometimes the petitioner did not move forward with the project due to those
requirements. All of those issues are in the past, and Commissioner Brauch
stated he heard the concems of the residents and didn't disagree with their
concems. He also heard from the owners of the building and cannot disagree
with them either. Any fix, whether it would be a fence or landscaping, would be
an expensive proposition. The choice would be difficult to make. He had seen
a willingness by the owner of the building to work with the residents in trying to
resolve some of these issues, such as the timers and blinds, which have been
installed at their expense when it was not a requirement of the conditional use
permit. Tonight the owners stated they would do more landscaping and
grading. Based upon the conditions presented to them at the time of the
application, they have completed the items requested by the Planning
Commission. Brauch was not sure if any conditions changed at the City
Council meeting because he was not at that meeting. At this meeting there
have been suggestions for a fence or landscaping, neither of which will make
everyone happy. Brauch stated that he felt the right course of action would be
for the residents to meet with the owner of the building and try to work through
the situation. He reiterated that the Planning Commission does not have the
right to force any other conditions on the building owner.
Chairman Svendsen commented that with regard to city ordinances for light
issues and the ensuing discussion, the Commission felt that the issue of
green separation would be adequate. With regard to the windows on the
building and the privacy issue, he suggested that the residents close their
drapes, the same as anyone else would do in a similar situation. Tharp Family
Partnership had complied with all the issues raised at the Design and Review
Committee, including the fence. At no time was it recommended that the
Planning Commission Meeting 17 April 6, 2004
fence continue the entire length of the building. The trees were discussed.
Svendsen stated he heard what the residents were saying, however, at this
point, the ordinance had been met.
Commissioner Oelkers concurred with Commissioner Brauch and Chairman
Svendsen. Oelkers initiated discussion on the size of the windows and
whether or not the original plan was approved with double or triple windows.
He questioned whether the eight to 10 pine trees that would be replaced could
be relocated on the north end of the building where additional screening was
needed. It was noted that some of the trees were located near the ponding
area. He mentioned that the drainage issue should be resolved at this
property, however, there were many areas of the city where drainage was a
problem.
Mr. Bill Gabrys spoke again regarding the July 2001 Planning Commission
minutes where there had been some discussion of and a recommendation
from staff for an eight-foot cedar fence along the north property line. Oelkers
explained that the fence shown on the approved plans ends at the west end of
the building. Gabrys stated he felt that there had been other discussion of a
fence along the north preperty line and that the length of the fence was
whittled down to only be placed at the very west end of the property, which
was one of the conditions of the CUP. He thought that since representation
from the neighborhood was not at the Planning Commission meeting in 2001
that the screening .for the north side of the property and the adjacent residents
were forgotten and the city did not care.
Brixius interjected that Mr. Gabrys' reference was to the June 27 planning
report's summary and recommendation which was modified to include
construction of an eight-foot cedar fence from the west end of the existing
fence to the west end of the site. Actual recommendation was from the west
end of the building to the west end of the site, which was approved. Gabrys
insisted on clarification on what happened to the mentioning of screening or
fencing for the northem border as recommended by staff. Brixius stated he
believed that the modification resulted from the public hearing and
recommendation from the Planning Commission. Svendsen pointed out that a
recommendation from the Design and Review Committee meeting on June
14, 2001, was that consideration be given to the north landscaping/buffer
adjacent to the residential area with an eight-foot cedar fence including new
trees west of building. Gabrys insisted that on July 23 staff recommended an
eight-foot cedar fence along the north property line.
Ms. O'Brien wondered about the code section that states planting strips shall
be designed to provide complete screening to a minimum height of six feet.
She stressed that there is no sufficient screening. With all the talk that the
Tharp family is taking care of the neighbors, there still is not sufficient
screening and she wanted to know why. She wondered what kind of screening
would be in place when the new windows are installed on the western end of
the building. A six foot fence would not help and it would be impractical to
construct a 30-foot fence. Plantings will not grow in the shaded area. Ms.
O'Brien wondered what the solution was for her property. With regard to not
attending the July 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the notice stated the
building would convert from a single tenant to a multi-tenant building. The
notice did not say anything about plans to change the building. She thought
the building would not change and the use would not affect her. Svendsen
responded that a notice for a change, whether it was for a conditional use
permit, variance, etc., was minimally worded due to publication costs in the
local newspaper. The.ordinance states that a notice be published in the local
paper and the notice is sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the
subject site. It would be up to the residents themselves to get the facts if they
are interested.
Planning Commission Meeting 18 April 6, 2004
Mr. Sondrall clarified that this matter was a zoning or land use issue relative to
the Council approving a conditional use permit for a multi-tenant building in an
R-O, residential office zoning district. There are conditions in the code that
need to be met to allow the use and as long as those conditions are met, the
City Council has no choice but to grant the CUP to allow for the use. Relative
to the windows and the amount of windows that were constructed or are yet to
be constructed was not a zoning or land use issue, it would be a building code
issue. The city may not be able to restrict the number of windows in a building
as long as the windows comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. The
city cannot enact its own building code. As long as the windows meet the
building code requirement, the windows would probably be legal. There is the
perception of a privacy issue which might have some bearing on the land use
or zoning code issue. The chairman pointed out that a person can contro~
what goes on inside his own house through the use of drapes or window
coverings, etc. Mr. Sondrall stated that, in his opinion, legally, if a person was
outside on their deck or in their yard, that person was in the public. He felt that
any court would conclude that there was no expectation of privacy if a person
was out publicly. Some back yards are more private than others, which may
be why some people choose to purchase various properties. Whether
someone from the Tharp building was looking at a resident on the deck or
whether someone on the street was driving by or walking along the property
line and looking at them, he thought the city could not enforce a land use
planning issue based on the fact that someone may not want to be viewed
sitting on their deck. The city would be on tenuous ground if it attempted to
justify a particular change relative to the existing CUP on that basis alone.
Sondrall suggested that after listening to the comments from the residents,
staff, the Planning Commission and/or the City Council should review the
conditional use permit to determine whether there had been any violations
with regard to the number or kind of windows to be constructed and what was
submitted with the original plans. The only leverage at this time would be to
argue that there may have been a violation of the CUP and the city would
initiate an action to revoke it unless the applicant complied with some other
provision. Sondrall stated that he had not heard anything that would lead him
to recommend to the Planning Commission or City Council that the city could
win a revocation matter of this CUP in court. The city would be hard pressed
to suggest to the properly owner that the city would revoke the CUP unless
they did XYZ. He thought that the best thing to do would be to keep the Tharp
family and residents talking to each other with city staff facilitating as a
mediator, with the petitioner understanding that the city does have the power
to revoke the CUP and review the CUP to be certain it was being complied
with.
Brixius added that the replacement of the existing landscaping at the rear of
the building was reasonable and staff could probably work with the Tharps to
get the replacement trees relocated. A question was raised whether or not-the
landscaping had been complied with. Brixius responded that most of the
planting on the back was existing landscaping, i.e., the cottonwoods and amur
maples. McDonald interjected that the city still was holding a financial
guarantee on this project. Typically, at the end of a project the applicant
requests release of their bond, and the city engineer and building official check
to be sure all conditions have been met prior to releasing the bond. Oelkers
commented that he felt the city was asking the Tharps, as a gesture of good
will, to replace trees that are dying that they were not required to plant. He
stated they had been reasonable in trying to be good neighbors.
Commissioner Buggy stated he was hearing that the existing trees were too
tall for proper screening. He suggested that the neighbors and the Tharps look
at the north area and find a way to invest in mid-height shrubs and trees that
would help with that space at ground level. This should be able to be
accomplished without too great of an expense. He thought the blinds and
Planning Commission Meeting 19 April 6, 2004
timers were a good idea. He stated he had worked in office buildings in the
past where it was required that the blinds were kept down at all times. He
wondered whether the blinds could be fixed and secured at the bottom so the
tenants could not pull the blinds up to the top. He inquired if the cleaning
people were instructed to close the blinds in the offices each night. He felt that
no type of screening or fencing would block second or third story windows
from view.
Svendsen asked that discussion on this issue be continued and the residents
and Tharps should work together to resolve the issues. It was noted that it
was still too early in the year to do any landscaping or planting work. It was
suggested that the Tharps meet among themselves and determine if there
were any further steps they could take to alleviate the situation. Another
suggestion was for shared costs for screening for a mutually acceptable end.
Brixius stated that the code suggests two types of screening for this
commercial-residential situation: fencing or landscaping. In the original format,
staff looked at the existing landscaping and determined it was sufficient
because there would be no exterior activity occurring. Oelkers interjected that
he remembered discussion on the placement of the fence, whether it would
be placed on the lot line and if that would accomplish the desired effect and
whether or not a fence would interfere with drainage.
Mr. Sondrall stated that condition, as are all requirements that the city
establishes for a CUP, are factually driven, therefore, the definition for
reasonable screening in the code would not be clear as that would be based
on one's viewpoint and perception as an individual. The court would look at it
from an arbitrary and capricious standard. The city laid out what it thought was
reasonable screening in the resolution, which was the addition of the fencing
and other shrubs, but the court may say that is an arbitrary requirement. Some
people like fencing and some do not. Fencing would not screen the higher
windows and city planners would have a different viewpoint on fencing versus
shrubbery.
Oelkers wondered if this discussion was continued and placed on the agenda
again, if it would be up to the Planning Commission to just make a
recommendation or whether public input would again be sought. Sondrall
stated that this item would not need to be forwarded to the City Council if a
resolution could be found between the residents and petitioner concerning
what needed to be done. At the present time, unless there was justification for
a revocation of the CUP, this matter would not need to be returned to the City
Council. This was just a discussion because of a concern. What satisfaction is
there for the residents? If the two parties can work out the details, that would
be the end of this matter. There is no determination at this time that the
petitioner had violated the conditions of the CUP. It if would be determined
that there are violations of the CUP, there should be a staff recommendation
about that which would come back to the Planning Commission and those
findings would then be forwarded to the City Council and the Council would
determine what to do.
Svendsen stated that from this discussion the CUP had not been violated and
the ordinance had been met. The homeowners could still work with the
property owner to rectify the remaining issues. He did not see anything else
the Commission could do. Brixius suggested several options to alleviate
concerns with glare and privacy issues. Staff could meet with the Tharps to
determine the feasibility of relocating eight pine trees to the back of the
building, look at the options for having the blinds permanently fixed to the
bottom of the windows, and other site improvements, such as grass. The city
code states that if a tree dies, it has to be replaced. After staff and the property
owner meets, that information could be brought back to the Planning
Commission. McDonald added that the purpose of the discussion tonight was
Planning Commission Meeting 20 April 6, 2004
for the residents to bdng their concems forward. Zoning and legal issues could
be reviewed. The property owner could determine if any other changes could
be made. The petitioners could be invited back. He suggested that the City
Council would like to see these issues resolved through the Planning
Commission, if possible.
Hemken reiterated that the neighbors are frustrated and should not be put off.
Brixius suggested that this matter be placed on the May Planning Commission
agenda to determine a proper outcome. O'Brien suggested that some sort of
awning be utilized. Oelkers interjected that through discussions at the Design
and Review meeting, one of the reasons for the windows was to allow some
natural light into the building. If an awning was placed on the windows on the
north side, that would eliminate any sunlight that might otherwise come in. The
windows increase the value of the property for an office use.
One of the Tharp representatives added that the north elevation plan from the
original planning packet showed the windows on that side of the building.
Chairman Svendsen directed that thismatter be placed on the May 4 Planning
Commission agenda and informed the residents they were welcome to attend.
Mr. Gabrys reminded the commissioners that six months of the year there are
no leaves on the trees.
PC04-06
Item 4.6
Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.6, Request for platting
of property, rezoning, Comprehensive Plan amendment, and concept/
development stage planned unit development approval, 5620 Winnetka
Avenue North, Armory Development/Master Development Group, Petitioners.
Chairman Svendsen stated that the petitioner would be submitting revised
plans and had requested that this issue be tabled. Svendsen advised the
Commission that a special meeting would be held on Tuesday, April 20, at 7
p.m. to consider this planning case.
MOTION
Item 4.6
Motion by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by Commissioner O'Bden, to
table Planning Case 04-06, Request for platting of property, rezoning,
Comprehensive Plan amendment, and concept/ development stage
planned unit development approval, 5620 Winnetka Avenue North,
Armory Development/Master Development Group, Petitioners.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Bardck, Landy
Motion carried.
Buggy, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien,
Design and Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met with the
petitioners in March with the petitioners and also held a special meeting on the
screening issue. He added that staff was expecting several applications for
the April meeting. The Committee will meet on April 15 at 7:30 a.m. The
Committee will review the revised Winnetka townhome plans on that day as
well.
Codes and Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
Hemken reported that the Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in
March.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
Commissioner Oelkers reported that sales for the Ryland Homes townhOmes
were going well and units were selling approximately $25,000 higher than
Planning Commission Meeting 21 April 6, 2004
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
previously stated.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner
O'Brien, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of March 2, 2004.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
McDonald informed commissioners that GTS training was available and
anyone desiring to attend should contact city staff.
There were no announcement.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
ctfully ~
submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 22 April 6, 2004
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
March 22, 2004
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
ROTATING VOTES
CONSENTAGENDA
New Hope City Council
Page 1
The New Hope City Council met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice
thereof; Mayor Enck called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
The City Council and all present stood for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Council Present:
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
Sharon Cassen, Councilmember
Don Collier, Councilmember
Mary Gwin-Lenth, Councilmember
Steve Sommer, Councilmember
Staff Present:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator
Doug Debner, Assistant City Attorney
Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist
Shari French, Director of Parks & Recreation
Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Gary Link, Director of Police
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Daryl Sulander, Director of Finance
Vince VanderTop, City Engineer
Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember
Sommer, to approve regular meeting minutes of March 8, 2004, with one
correction. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion was made by
Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Cassen, to approve the
work session minutes of March 15, 2004 (5:55 p.m.) with one correction.
Voting in favor: Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; Abstained: Enck;
Absent: None. Motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember Collier,
seconded by Councilmember Cassen, to approve the work session minutes of
March 15, 2004 (6:30 p.m.) with one correction. All present voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Juanita Hoffe, 4632 Flag Avenue North, suggested extending the open forum time
allotment or making formal presentations under a different agenda section. She
opined that 15 minutes may not allow all interested persons an opportunity to
address the council. Ms. Hoffe also urged the council to reconsider holding a
public meeting regarding the water supply options.
Please note that votes taken on each agenda item are called by the secretary on a
rotating basis; however, the written minutes always list the Mayor's name fzrst
followed by the Councilmembers in alphabetical order.
Mayor Enck introduced the consent items as listed for consideration and stated that
all items will be enacted by one motion unless requested that an item be removed
March 22, 2004
MOTION
Consent Items
FINANCIAL CLAIMS
Item 6.2
RESOLUTION 2004-59
Item 6.4
RESOLUTION 2004-60
Item 6.6
RESOLUTION 2004-61
Item 6.7
LIVABLE
COMMUNITIES
STORM WATER
ANALYSIS
Item 8.1
New Hope City Council
Page 2
for discussion. Items 6.1, 6.5, and 6.8 were removed from the agenda for
discussion later in the meeting.
Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember
Cassen, to approve all remaining items on the Consent Agenda. All present
voted in favor. Motion carried.
Approval of financial claims through March 22, 2004.
Resolution approving contract with Trugreen Chemlawn for 2004 weed spraying
services.
Resolution authorizing payment for 80 Mhz radio equipment acquisition for West
Metro Fire-Rescue District.
Resolution rescinding award of City of New Hope public improvement contract
bulk asbestos and environmental hazards survey to Legend Technical Services and
authorizing staff to see quotes (improvement project no. 751).
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Presentation of the Livable
Commumties Redevelopment Area Storm Water Analysis Report, and motion
accepting the report from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, & Associates.
Mr. Vince VanderTop, City Engineer, explained that the report presents the results
for the stormwater analysis performed for four redevelopment areas within the
Livable Communities Redevelopment Area. The redevelopment areas have been
identified as: Boisclair/CVS, Winnetka Townhomes, Winnetka Green, and Bass
Lake Road/Yukon.
Mr. VanderTop explained the stormwater goals in priority order:
i) provide sufficient flood storage to meet city water quantity requirements
2) provide sufficient pond wet storage volume to meet both city and
watershed water quality requirements
3) reduce the flood elevation at the Boisclair apartments
4) provide upstream drainage and ponding improvements to improve pond
performance at the comer of 58th and Sumter Avenues, and maintain or
decrease discharge rates to existing regional storm sewer.
He reviewed design requirements and stated the 100-year storm event peak runoff
rates for the redevelopment area should not exceed existing conditions rates. The
ponds should meet NURP wet volume standards or a maximum phosphorus
outflow concentration of 200 ppb, whichever is more restrictive. The ponds should
maintain a 3-foot average depth, and the ponds should include a 10-foot wide
safety/aquatic bench below the pond normal water level (NWL).
The design should provide stormwater ponding for all four redevelopment areas to
meet both water quantity and water quality requirements, provide sufficient inlet
and pipe capacity on the east end of Winnetka Green redevelopment area such that
the existing 100-year overland flow rate (7 cfs) to the St. Raphael's Church
parking lot is not exceeded, provide additional pipe and inlet capacity at the low
point at 56th and Wisconsin Avenues to reduce the overflows to the Boisclair
Apartments, provide additional pipe capacity between the Boisclair apartments and
the pond to reduce the flood elevations at the apartments, convert the existing
walkout basements/garages in the Boisclair Apartments into full basements with
lookouts to provide sufficient freeboard between the flood elevation and the
livable space within the apartments, and identify and expand the pond at
58th/Sumter with future projects to provide additional flood storage capacity within
March 22, 2004
MOTION/ACCEPT
REPORT
Item 8.1
G. O. BONDS
Item 10.1
New Hope City Council
Page 3
the pond. The additional volume will increase the pond design storm event from a
10-year event to a 25-year event.
Mr. VanderTop illustrated the proposed improvements and ponding areas to meet
both city and watershed stormwater requirements. He commented that the
proposed ponding locations are subject to change. He stated the stormwater
improvements will be funded by the redevelopment with the exception of the
58t~/Sumter area improvements.
Mayor Enck asked Mr. VanderTop to update the Council on the status of Elm
Grove Park.
Mr. VanderTop explained that the low portion of Elm Grove Park will be a
permanent pond. The city could choose to coordinate the installation of new play
equipment with the church and neighbors for trails and other park amenities.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth inquired of the additional information needed
relating to the Boisclair Apartments.
Mr. VanderTop explained that an elevation survey is necessary for a precise
measurement. He suggested converting the walkout basements into full basements.
Councilmember Collier questioned the definition of an aquatic bench.
Mr. VanderTop explained that space is a premium as it relates to ponding areas.
The ponds typically have deep grades. The aquatic bench is a safety measure to
provide a "10 to 1 bench" surrounding the pond prior to the dropoff..
Councilmember Sommer questioned whether the city should submit a cost
estimate for the improvements at 58th/Sumter to Shingle Creek Watershed. Mr.
VanderTop noted costs are not required by Shingle Creek, but the cost estimates
would be helpful to the city for planning its capital improvement program.
Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, to accept the Livable Communities Redevelopment Area Storm Water
Analysis Report prepared by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, & Associates. All
present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Resolution relating to
$4,080,000 general obligation tax increment bonds, series 2004; authorizing the
issuance, awarding the sale, fixing the form and details, and providing for the
execution and delivery thereof and the security therefore.
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, reported that the sale of the bonds will finance
the acquisition and site preparation costs of the redevelopment parcels within the
Livable Communities area. He stated the tax increment bonds use the incremental
taxes generated by the redevelopment improvements to repay the principal and
interest due over the life of the bonds.
Mr. Donahue introduced Ms. Christy Myers, Public Financial Management. Ms.
Myers explained that there were eight bidders and the best rate was submitted by
Miller Johnson Steichen Kirmard Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, for a true
interest rate of 3.8118%. She stated city officials did recently meet with Moody's
and they reaffirmed the city's A1 bond rating. She stated the bonds will be repaid
over a 20-year period.
Mayor Enck noted that Public Financial Management was formerly known as
March 22, 2004
RESOLUTION 04-62
Item 10.1
TRAFFIC SAFETY
GRANT
Item i0.2
RESOLUTION 04-63
Item 10.2
CHILD ABUSE
PREVENTION
Item 10.3
RESOLUTION 04-64
Item 10.3
NATIONAL CRIME
VICTIMS' RIGHTS
Item 10.4
RESOLUTION 04-65
Item 10.4
New Hope City Council
Page 4
Evensen Dodge, and he thanked Ms. Myers for her assistance over the years.
Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION RELATING TO $4,080,000 GENERAL
OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 2004; AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE, AWARDING THE SALE, FIXING THE FORM AND
DETAILS, AND PROVIDING FOR THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY
THEREOF AND THE SECURITY THEREFORE." The motion for the
adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Sommer,
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck,
Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same:
None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city
clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.2, Resolution accepting traffic
safety grant.
Mayor Enck announced that the city received a grant for $3,000 that will be used
for enforcement of the seat belt law.
Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, interjected that the fine is $85 for motorists
found in violation of the seat belt law.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT." The
motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by
Councilmember Cassen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following
voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was
attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.3, Resolution proclaiming April
2004 as Child Abuse Prevention Month in the city of New Hope.
Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING APRIL 2004 AS CHILD ABUSE
PREVENTION MONTH IN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE." The motion for
the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Cassen,
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck,
Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same:
None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city
clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.4, Resolution recognizing April 18-
24, 2004, as National Crime Victims' Rights Week.
Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING APRIL 18-24, 2004, AS
NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK." The motion for the
adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Cassen, and
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck,
Cassen, Collier, Gwin~Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same:
March 22, 2004
WATERSHED
CLEANUP WEEK
Item 10.5
RESOLUTION 04-66
Item 10.5
WEST METRO FIRE-
RESCUE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
Item 11.1
MOTION/ACCEPT
RESIGNATION
Item 11.1
CONSENT ITEMS
REMOVED - -
BUSINESS LICENSE
Item 6.1
New Hope City Council
Page 5
None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; Whereupon the resolution was declared
duly .passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city
clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.5, Resolution proclaiming April 17-
24, 2004, as the Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup Week.
Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING APRIL 17-24, 2004, AS THE
GREAT SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED CLEANUP WEEK." The motion
for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember
Cassen, and upon x~ote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the
same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by
the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 11.1, Motion accepting Steve Reed's
resignation from the West Metro Fire-Rescue Board of Directors and appointing
Sharon Cassen to the Board.
Mayor Enck expressed his gratitude to Steve Reed for his past contributions to the
fire board. He noted that Steve is a long-time New Hope resident and he will be
missed. Councilmember Collier pointed out that Steve volunteered in other
capacities as well including the Citizen Advisory Commission and the Golf Course
Clubhouse Task Force, just to name a few.
The council expressed support for the appointment of Councilmember Sharon
Cassen to serve on the Fire Board.
Motion by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to
accept Steve Reed's resignation from the West Metro Fire-Rescue Board of
Directors and to appoint Sharon Cassen to the Board. All present voted in
favor. Motion carried.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion the Consent items that were removed, Item
6.1, Approval of business licenses.
Mr. Doug Peterson, Lan Game Centers, was recognized. He reported that he
recently opened a gaming business at 4311 Winnetka. He requested a text
amendment to the city code as he does not feel the city's ordinance covering video
games is applicable to his business operations where customers play computer
games on various leagues.
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, pointed out that the present ordinance prohibits
being open for business from 1:00-6:00 a.m.
Mr. Peterson explained that the store typically opens at 2:00 p.m. and closes at
10:00 p.m. on weekdays and on weekends is open from noon to midnight or 1:00
a.m. He explained that Tuesday nights are popular as there are 3,000 teams
competing nationally. He asked permission to have a lock-in once or twice a
month so customers could remain at the store all night.
The council expressed support for approval of the business license under the
present city code and directed staff to review the ordinance. Mr. Peterson was
advised of the city's curfew ordinance and that lock-ins would not be permitted
March 22, 2004
MOTION/
BUSINESS LICENSE
Item 6.1
WAIVE FEES/LIONS
CLUB
Item 6.5
MOTION/WAIVE
FEES
Item 6.5
IMP. PROJECT 751
Item 6.8
MOTION
Item 6.8
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 12.1
New Hope City Council
Page 6
under the present ordinance.
Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember
Collier, to approve license to Lan Game Centers and to direct staff to review
the video game ordinance. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 6.5, Motion to approve waiving the
fees for temporary sign permits for New Hope Lion's Club annual pancake
breakfast to be held on April 25, 2004.
Councilmember Cassen pointed out that the pancake breakfast will be held at the
Plymouth Middle School. She noted the Lion's Club traditionally held the
breakfast at the Cooper High School, but will no longer be able to utilize that
location due to the the kitchen reconfiguration.
Mayor Enck thanked the Lion's Club for their contributions and encouraged the
community to attend the pancake breakfast on April 25.
Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember
Sommer, to approve waiving the fees for temporary sign permits for New
Hope Lion's Club annual pancake breakfast to be held on April 25, 2004. All
present voted in favor. Motion carried
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 6.8, Motion awarding environmental
services proposal and authorizing staff to begin coordinating remediation
activities, 5550 Winnetka Avenue North (improvement project no. 751).
Councilmember Cassen acknowledged that the site is ineligible for Petrofund
reimbursement. She questioned whether the city could have been proactive when it
initially purchased the property in order to have avoided incurring the cleanup
costs ranging from $33,000 to $57,000. She commented that the city purchased the
property with the intent of redevelopment.
Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, explained that the city utilizes the services of
environmental consultant Doug Bergstrom. He noted the property was approved
for above grade use and the comprehensive plan designated the property for
commercial use. He explained that the city was not anticipating a housing
development at the site. He also commented that the city acquired the property for
a lower price as the soil contamination issue was taken into consideration of the
purchase price. He expressed doubtfulness that the city could have taken any steps
at the onset to have made the site eligible for Petrofund reimbursement at this time.
Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, to award environmental services proposal and authorizing staff to
begin coordinating remediation activities, 5550 Winnetka Avenue North
(improvement project no. 751). All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Exchange of communication
between members of the city council.
Mayor Enck
· Invited residents to attend the March 23 water fair at Sandburg Middle School
(6-8 p.m.) to learn more about the water supply options.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth
Encouraged community to attend the remodeling fair on April 3 from 9 am - 3
pm
City Manager Donahue
· Announced that the Council will meet on April 5 to conduct the oath of office
March 22, 2004
ADJOURNMENT
for Mayor Collier and Councilmember Doug Andersen and to conduct
commission interviews.
Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember
Cassen, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no further business to come before
the Council. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope City
Council adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
New Hope City Council
Page 7
March 22, 2004
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
April 12, 2004
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLLCALL
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
ROTATING VOTES
CONSENT AGENDA
New Hope City Council
Page 1
The New Hope City Council met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice
thereof; Mayor Collier called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
The City Council and all present stood for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Council Present:
Don Collier, Mayor
Doug Andersen, Councilmember
Sharon Cassen, Councilmember
Steve Sommer, Councilmember
Council Absent: Mary Gwin-Lenth, Councilmember
Staff Present:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator
Doug Debner, Assistant City Attorney
Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist
Shari French, Director of Parks & Recreation
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Dale Reed, Operations Manager
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Vince Vander Top, City Engineer
Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember
Sommer, to approve regular meeting minutes of March 22, 2004. All present
voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer,
seconded by Councilmember Cassen, to approve the work session minutes of
April 5, 2004. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion was made by
Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember Andersen, to approve the
executive session minutes of April 5, 2004. All present voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Bill & Trish Gabrys, 9209 59th Avenue North, presented photographs relating
to the commercial property at 9220 Bass Lake Road. Mr. McDonald advised
that the Planning Commission discussed the screening issue at length and
continued the item to the May 4 planning commission meeting.
Juanita Hoffe, 4632 Flag Avenue North, advised the council that many
residents are interested in attending a public meeting at least two weeks prior
to the council's vote on its decision regarding the city's water supply system.
She indicated a petition is forthcoming.
Please note that votes taken on each agenda item are called by the secretary on a
rotating basis; however, the written minutes always list the Mayor's name first
followed by the Councilmembers in alphabetical order.
Mayor Collier introduced the consent items as listed for consideration and stated
that all items will be enacted by one motion unless requested that an item be
April 12, 2004
MOTION
Consent Items
BUSINESS LICENSES
Item 6.1
FINANCIAL CLAIMS
Item 6.2
RESOLUTION 2004-69
Item 6.4
RESOLUTION 04-70
Item 6.5
RESOLUTION 2004-71
Item 6.6
IMP. PROJECTS 714,
716, 719, 723, 755, 761,
748, 757, 758, 762, 763,
764, 765 and 768
Item 6.7
RESOLUTION 04-72
Item 6.8
RESOLUTION 04-73
Item 6.9
RESOLUTION 04-74
Item 6.10
RESOLUTION 04-75
Item 6.11
BID/DUPLICATOR
Item 6.12
BID/PORTABLE
FENCING
Item 6.13
PUBLIC HEARING
Item 7.1
New Hope City Council
Page 2
removed for discussion. Item 6.14 was removed from the agenda for discussion
later in the meeting.
Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember
Sommer, to approve all remaining items on the Consent Agenda. All present
voted in favor. Motion carried.
Approval of business licenses.
Approval of financial claims through April 12, 2004.
Resolution ordering published notice and public hearing on sale of 4317 Nevada
Avenue North 0mprovement project no. 734).
Resolution supporting Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation (NCRC)
Hennepin County transit oriented development grant application for their proposed
project located at 4301 and 4317 Nevada Avenue North (improvement project no.
734).
Resolution awarding city of New Hope public improvement contract bulk asbestos
and environmental hazards survey to Angstrom Analytical in the low quote
amount (improvement project no. 751).
Motion approving demolition plans and specifications and authorizing
advertisement for bids (improvement project no. 714, 716, 719, 723, 755, 761,
748,757, 758, 762,763,764, 765 and 768).
Resolution Awarding city of New Hope demolition contract to RJK Contracting in
the low bid amount of $67,519 (improvement project no. 760, 753, 741,756, 758,
and 734).
Resolution approving plans and specifications for the 2004 crack repair and seal
coat project; ordering advertisement for bids.
Resolution to implement police officer retirement incentive program - September
30, 2004 through December 31, 2004.
Resolution approving agreement between the city of New Hope and Best
Technology Systems, Inc. for 2005-2007 range cleaning and decontamination -
$8,322/year maximum.
Approval of quotes submitted for duplicator for city hall facility and authorization
to purchase from metro sales for $7,702.08.
Approval of quotes submitted for portable fencing materials for Lions Park
ballfields and authorization to purchase from Crown Fence & Wire Company for
$3,911.24.
Mayor Collier introduced for discussion Item 7.1, Public Hearing - Resolution
modifying the restated redevelopment plan and tax increment financing plans for
redevelopment project no. 1.and tax increment financing districts nos. 80-2, 81-1,
82-1, 85-1, 85-2, 86-1, 02-1, and 03-1 .(special law); creating tax increment
financing district no. 04-1 (special law) and adopting a tax increment financing
plan relating thereto (improvement project no. 733).
April 12, 2004
MOTION
Item 7.1
PLANNING CASE
04-02
Item 8.1
New Hope City Council
Page 3
Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, explained that the
public hearing was scheduled for tonight, but the planning approval for the
development has been delayed and will not be presented until the April 26 council
meeting; therefore, staff is recommending continuing the public hearing for two
weeks.
Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember
Andersen, to continue the public hearing to the council meeting of April 26,
2004. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mayor Collier introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Planning case no. 04-02, request
for preliminary plat approval of Science Industry Center 3rd Addition and
site/building plan review, 8801 Science Center Drive, Science Center Drive LLC,
petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, explained that agenda
items 8.1 and 8.2 involve New Hope companies seeking preliminary plat approval.
He conveyed his gratitude to both companies for desiring to remain in New Hope
and for the exceptional efforts with submission of building plans as well as
cooperation during the planning process.
Mr. McDonald indicated the proposed development involves construction of a
21,600 square foot office/warehouse building at 8801 Science Center Drive. The
planning commission reviewed the planning case at its meeting of April 6 and
recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined within the resolution.
Mr. McDonald distributed a revised resolution that clarified condition number 7
(Northland Mechanical provides an indemnification and hold harmless to Avtec
Properties in connection with construction and maintenance of storm water pond
located on property owned by Avtec Properties and located within a drainage
easement in favor of the city).
Mr. McDonald stated Northland Mechanical Contractors Inc. has been located at
2900 Nevada Avenue for the past 18 years and has outgrown the current space.
They desire to remain in New Hope and desire to purchase a 1.76 acre parcel of
land located on the west end of 8801 Science Center Drive.
He stated Science Center Drive LLC was formed by the owners of Northland
Mechanical Contractors Inc. and their family to build a larger building that will
meet the current and future needs of Northland Mechanical. They are proposing to
split off and purchase a portion of property currently owned by CSM Equities, Inc.
located in the Science Industry Park area and build a new facility.
The property is located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection at Boone
Avenue and Science Center Drive. The applicant has proposed construction of a
21,600 square foot building comprised of 8,400 square feet for office area, 13,200
square feet for warehouse, and 7,600 square feet for bulk equipment storage.
Subdivision of the plat will create two separate parcels. The building would be
placed on the northeast comer of the new lot (lot 1).
The city has notified the applicant that the plat would be subject to the city's park
dedication fee requirements.
Mr. McDonald described the proposed building materials, signage, loading areas,
parking area, lighting plans, and landscape plan as contained in the planning
report.
Mr. Vince Vander Top, City Engineer, pointed out that the property's irregular
April 12, 2004
RESOLUTION 04-76
Item 8.1
PLANNING CASE
04-04
Item 8.2
New Hope City Council
Page 4
shape posed a challenge, and he commended the apphcant for the quality of the
proposed development.
Mr. Vander Top illustrated the site drainage and explained that the applicant has
reached an agreement with the adjoining property owner (Avtec Finishing
Systems) to comply with the city's ponding requirements. He stated plans require
review by the Shingle Creek Watershed. He reviewed the sanitary sewer easement
and the egress easement that assures transportation movement so that trucks can
enter and leave the property.
Councilmember Cassen pointed out the existing utility easement will be
encumbered by the parking areas. She questioned whether the applicant has been
advised of potential parking lot damage to access utilities. Mr. Vander Top
indicated the issue has been discussed with the applicant. He illustrated the
manhole locations and stated public works can access the line for routine
maintenance without entering the fenced area. He stated that staff did share with
the applicant that if more extensive work is needed or if public works has to
replace the line, restoration of the parking lot will be the responsibility of the
applicant.
Councilmember Cassen questioned whether the road provides the required turning
radius for tracks.
Mr. Vander Top confumaed that the plans contain adequate turning radius and
egress out the driveway and parking lot. Council suggested the placement of
signage such as "one-way traffic, tracks only".
Mr. Richard Tieva, co-owner of Northland Mechanical Contractors, was
recognized. He explained that there will be an electric gate at the egress location
for trucks leaving the property. He stated they only receive three or four semis per
week. The gate will be closed at all times except when trucks are leaving the
property. Mr. Tieva explained the agreements in place with Avtec including hold
harmless clauses. He commented that the mezzanine will provide storage for large
bulk tools, Mr. Tieva stated the building size should be adequate for their needs for
the next ten years including space for one tenant. He noted if their business
expands, they will have the option to utilize the tenant space.
The council thanked Mr. Tieva for his efforts and expressed support for the
proposed development.
Councilmember Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 04-02,
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF SCIENCE
INDUSTRY CENTER 3aI~ ADDITION AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN
REVIEW, 8801 SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE, SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE
LLC, PETITIONER." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
was seconded by Councilmember Cassen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Collier, Andersen, Cassen, Sommer; and the
following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: Gwin-Lenth;
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the
mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Collier introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Planning case no. 04-04, request
for preliminary plat approval of AC Carlson Addition and site/building plan
review, 8901 Bass Lake Road, A.C. Carlson, petitioner.
Mr. Ken Doresky, community development specialist, stated the petitioner is
requesting preliminary plat approval for property to be known as AC Carlson
April 12, 2004
New Hope City Council
Page 5
Addition and site/building plan review to allow construction of a 17,130 square
foot office/showroom/warehouse at 8901 Bass Lake Road. He stated AC Carlson
Company has been in business for over 50 years and is presently located at 7550
Bass Lake Road. He stated the planmng commission reviewed the request at its
meeting of April 6 and recommended approval subject to conditions outlined in
the resolution.
Mr. Doresky explained that the applicant has owned the undeveloped site for
several years. The subject property consists of two separate parcels at the southeast
comer of Bass Lake Road and International Parkway that would be combined on
the plat. The property is adjacent to a DNR wetland to the south. No variances or
conditional uses are requested with the application.
Mr. Doresky indicated the applicant has been directed to coordinate with the city
engineer regarding drainage and pond locations. The applicant will also review the
feasibility of eliminating or reducing the amount of retaining wall on the south
portion of the property if the city allows some encroachment on park property.
From a staff perspective, this could improve the aesthetics of the site, would
reduce the project costs to the applicant by $50,000 to $100,000 and eliminate
long-term maintenance issues related to the wall. The applicant has been notified
that the plat would be subject to the city's park dedicate fee requirements of
$2,500 per acre totaling $7,375 for this site.
Mr. Doresky shared West Metro Fire-Rescue District's recommendation that the
fire department connection be located at the south comer of the retail portion of
the building, and the curb area south of the retail facility be posted fire lane at the
south end of the retail building.
Entrance to the property will be via International Parkway. The traffic circulation
plan includes truck traffic entering on International Parkway and traveling along
the rear portion of the properly and exiting onto Bass Lake Road (for eastbound or
westbound travel). Access to the property from Bass Lake Road will be prohibited
and appropriate signage will be posted. Egress onto Bass Lake Road is intended to
be restricted for tracks only.
Mr. Doresky illustrated the proposed plans (including elevations, landscaping,
lighting, and signage plans), and indicated that all plans meet the city code. He
confmmed that the landscaping proposed for the north side of the building will
contain a variety of shrubs and trees of various heights to make the large wall
aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. Vince Vander Top, City Engineer, reported that the site is set up for water and
sewer service.
Next, Mr. Vander Top reported on transportation issues. He stated the primary
customer and truck access will be off International Parkway. The access was
moved as far south from the Bass Lake Road intersection as possible. He stated
staff recommends that "no left mm" signage be placed in the median on Bass Lake
Road as well as "no entrance" at the business' driveway entrance on Bass Lake
Road, and this signage is acceptable to Hennepin County.
Mr. Vander Top stated the site plan requires the sidewalk on Bass Lake Road to be
extended to International Parkway.
He discussed drainage and ponding requirements. He stated there are options to
optimize the storm water collection. He commented that the city's clay soils are
not conducive to infiltration, and he reviewed this with Shingle Creek Watershed.
He stated rather than having an infiltration basin, the site could have storm water
April 12, 2004
New Hope City Council
Page 6
ponds sized to meet water quality requirements. If necessary the applicant could
install infiltration strips or vegetation at the outlets of the ponds. The city has
asked the applicant, in conjunction with Shingle Creek Watershed, to reconfigure
the ponding design. Mr. VanderTop stated relocation or possible elimination of the
proposed pond would allow the pylon sign to be placed closer to the northwest
comer of the property to improve visibility of the store's entrance.
Mr. VanderTop stated a retaining wall is currently proposed and if the city
permitted some grading across the city's adjacent property, it is feasible to change
the grading plan and reduce the size and cost of the retaining wall and its long-
term maintenance. This would require a parmership between the city and
applicant.
Discussion ensued regarding the lack of visibility of the property's entrance point.
The council suggested a sign variance for placement of a small driveway entrance
sign near International Parkway.
Councilmember Cassen inquired whether additional landscaping will be placed
within the northwest area if the ponding area is eliminated. Mr. Vander Top stated
the pond might be reduced but probably not totally eliminated. He noted the plan
changes would likely be approved at a staff level unless otherwise directed by
council.
Mr. McDonald indicated the £mal plat will be presented at the next council
meeting. He expressed his intent to have the ponding details resolved by that time
in order to present to the council.
Mr. Bill Kranz, construction manager, was recognized. He reported that the
architect of record, Todd Young of KKE Architects, was unavailable tonight. Mr.
Kranz supported placement of the pylon sign as close as possible to the property's
northwest comer. He clarified that the building's exterior will be painted block
(with rock face block on the lower part and plain block on the upper). The north
elevation mirrors the west elevation. He expressed support for council's suggestion
regarding a small monument sign identifying the property's entrance. He indicated
their agreement to work on the final landscape plan once the ponding issue is
resolved.
Mr. Dave Carlson, co-owner of AC Carlson, was recognized. He reported that the
poor soils dictated the buildmg's placement on the property. Mr. Carlson
commented on the ease of accessing the site from the International Parkway due to
the traffic signal. He stated truck traffic is minimal (approximately four to five
deliveries per quarter). Mr. Carlson stated they hope to break ground May 1 st and
be open for business by September 1. He questioned whether the council would
consider designating the $7,500 park dedication fee to the city's outdoor theater
program.
The council thanked the Carlson family for their extensive community
involvement and for remaining in the city. The council advised Mr. Carlson that
they would consider his request regarding the park dedication fee at a future work
session.
Ms. Juanita Hoffe, 4632 Flag Avenue North, was recognized. She pointed out the
importance of business retention and noted the two long-time businesses on
tonight's agenda that desire to remain in the city. She credited staff for business
retention and complimented staff for supporting business relationships.
Mr. James Fackler, 4031 Nevada Avenue North, suggested synchronizing the
traffic lights on Bass Lake Road to accommodate track traffic egress onto Bass
April 12, 2004
RESOLUTION 04-77
Item 8.2
IMP. PROJECT 759
Item 8.3
RESOLUTION 04-78
Item 8.3
New Hope City Council
Page 7
Lake Road.
Mr. Dave Anderson stated the tracks do not travel during rash hour. He stated
truck delivery to the property will be minimal with four to five tracks per quarter
between 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. He stated the company's delivery trucks will generate a
greater amount of truck traffic, but they will access Bass Lake Road via
International Parkway due to the convenience of the traffic signal.
Mayor Collier indicated the situation can be monitored and the city could consider
traffic modifications if necessary.
Mr. Vander Top interjected that the traffic engineer does not anticipate an issue
with the present sequencing of traffic lights.
Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 04-04,
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF AC CARLSON
ADDITION AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW, 8901 BASS LAKE
ROAD, A.C. CARLSON, PETITIONER." The motion for the adoption of the
foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Andersen, and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Collier, Andersen,
Cassen, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained;
None; Absent: Gwin-Lenth; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed
and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Collier introduced for discussion Item 8.3, Resolution ordering construction
of and awarding contract for construction of the 2004 street infrastructure
improvement project no. 759.
Mr. Dan Donahue, city manager, stated the city received seven bids and the low
bidder was Doboszenski & Sons for a base bid of $2,195,485.19 plus $19,256.60
for Alternate 1 and $9,471.80 for Alternate 2. He indicated the bids were favorable
and were less than the engineer's estimate.
Mr. Vince Vander Top, city engineer, reviewed the scope of the project and
illustrated streets in the southwest comer of the city. He explained that Alternates
1 and 2 involve storm water improvements in the area of 50t~ Avenue and Xylon
Avenue. Alternate 1 is the storm water infrastructure work in the street right-of-
way that staff recommends completing prior to this year's seal coat project in the
same neighborhood. Alternate 2 is additional storm water work that would be
connected to the storm water pipe in Alternate 1, and would drain a large low area
in the backyards of a number of homes. The award of Alternate 2 is contingent
upon the acquisition of necessary easements.
He stated the project costs will be funded by the utility fund, the street
infrastructure fund, assessments, and the storm water fund. He reviewed the
project schedule and indicated it is anticipated that construction will begin later
this month and be substantially completed this fall.
Mr. Donahue noted that the City of Crystal is undertaking a similar street project
this year, and will be assessing half the cost or $4,100 per benefited residential
property.
Mayor Collier pointed out that the city is adhering to the study previously
conducted by Good Pointe Technology as it relates to street projects.
Councilmember Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION ORDERING CONTRACT FOR THE
Aprill2,2004
COMMISSION
APPOINTMENTS
Item 11.1
MOTION
Item 11.1
CONSENT ITEMS
REMOVED - -
TIF DISTRICTS
Item 6.14
RESOLUTION 04-79
Item 6.14
New Hope City Council
Page 8
CONSTRUCTION OF THE 2004 STREET INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 759." The motion for the adoption of the
foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Andersen, and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Collier, Andersen,
Cassen, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained;
None; Absent: Gwin-Lenth; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed
and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Collier introduced for discussion Item 11.1, Motion appointing Darm Allen
and David Slatosky to the Citizens Advisory Commission; James Fackler to the
Human Rights Commission; Mary Arnold to the Personnel Board; and Sue Wallace
to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Advisory Council.
Mayor Collier reported that the council conducted candidate interviews on April 5,
and was forttmate to have more apphcants than commission vacancies.
Motion by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to
appoint Darin Allen and David Slatosky to the Citizens Advisory Commission;
James Fackler to the Human Rights Commission; Mary Arnold to the Personnel
Board; and Sue Wallace to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Advisory
Council. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mayor Collier introduced for discussion the Consent item that was removed, Item
6.14, Resolution calling for a public hearing on the modification of the restated
redevelopment plan for redevelopment project no. 1; modification of the tax
increment financing plans for tax increment financing districts nos. 80-2, 81-1, 82-
1, 85-1, 85-2, 86-1, 02-1, 03-1 (special law) and 04-1 (special law).
Councilmember Sommer acknowledged the intent to add 7901 Bass Lake Road to
the TIF District. He questioned whether the development proposed for 7901 Bass
Lake Road is seeking financial assistance.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, reported that including
this property to the TIF district benefits the city. He stated the developer is not
requesting financial assistance.
Councilmember Cassen initiated discussion regarding the property at 5539
Winnetka Avenue and questioned the reason it is omitted from the TIF district.
Mr. McDonald explained that the city has little control of the development since
the properties are being purchased by a private developer. He reported on the
proposed land swap between the developer and the school district for the southern
portion of 5539 Winnetka. He noted the school district's parcel to the west is
included in the TIF district.
Councilmember Cassen commented that this issue was discussed with the
developer as part of the recommendation by the Livable Communities Task Force.
She expressed disappointment that the city has no leverage to include the property,
but acknowledged understanding of the circumstances of the situation involving a
private developer.
Councilmember sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
MODIFICATION OF THE RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1; MODIFICATION OF THE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICTS NOS. 80-2, 81-1, 82-1, 85-1, 85-2, 86-1, 02-1, 03-1 (SPECIAL
LAW) AND 04-1 (SPECIAL LAW)." The motion for the adoption of the
April 12, 2004
CITY
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 12.1
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 12.2
ADJOURNMENT
foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Andersen, and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Collier, Andersen,
Cassen, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained;
None; Absent: Gwin-Lenth; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed
and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Collier intrOduced for discussion Item 12.1, Council input on city
communications.
The council reviewed recent city communications.
Mayor Collier introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Exchange of communication
between members of the city council.
Mayor Collier
· Reported that he will be attending the North Metro Mayors Assoc. Board of
Directors Meeting on April 14 at which time former Mayor Enck will be
honored.
· Referred a letter from Stanley Kugler to staff regarding a request for removal
of the hockey rink boards at Northwood Park. Council asked staff to consider
removal of boards as appropriate at other parks as well.
Councilmember Cassen
· Advised that she and Councilmember Sommer will be attending the West
Metro Fire District Board of Directors meeting on April 14 at 7:00 p.m.
· Announced future community events:
Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital is holding an open house on April 24.
Vehicle Fair is being held on April 24 at the Crystal Community Center
from 10 a.m. to noon.
)~ Re-opening celebration is scheduled for May 18 at Hidden Valley Park.
Councilmember Andersen
· Reported that he will be attending a DARE awards program at Sonnesyn
Elementary School on April 13. Other members of the council also shared
plans to attend various DARE graduations.
City Manager Donahue
· Reminded the council of their April 19 work session.
· Scheduled a commission candidate interview date of May 10 at 6:30 p.m.
prior to the council meeting.
Motion was made by Councilmember Andersen, seconded by Councilmember
Sommer, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no further business to come before
the Council. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope City
Council adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
pectfully submitted,
/
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
New Hope City Council
Page 9
April 12, 2004
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTM
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
EDA Minutes
Regular Meeting
March 22, 2004
City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLLCALL
APPROVE MINUTES
IMP. PROJECT 749
Item 4
President Enck called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order
at 8:11 p.m.
Present:
W. Peter Enck, President
Sharon Cassen, Commissioner
Don Collier, Commissioner
Mary Gwin-Lenth, Commissioner
Steve Sommer, Commissioner
Motion was made by Commissioner Cassen, seconded by Commissioner Gwin-
Lenth, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2004. Voting in
favor: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth; Voting Against: None; Abstained:
Sommer; Absent: None. Motion carried.
President Enck introduced for discussion Item 4, Update regarding development
proposal for city owned property at 5501 Boone Avenue North and direction to
proceed with preliminary terms of agreement (improvement project no. 749).
Mr. Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, explained that the
development proposal is for two separate residential buildings on the site, one 41-
unit condominium building and one 35-unit affordable rental apartment building.
He stated in October of 2003, the EDA expressed support for the proposed project
and directed staff to coordinate with PPL and Krass Monroe, the city's financial
consultant to complete a tax increment financing analysis for the project. Krass
Monroe has prepared a financial analysis and determined that the site will generate
approximately $1.6 million of increment. PPL is requesting approximately $1.4
million (dependent on soil correction estimates). The city's initial investment of
$276,764 would be reimbursed with the generated increment. The market value of
the property is determined to be $252,100 (market value $760,000 less soil
stabilization estimate of $507,900).
Mr. Jim Casserly, Krass Monroe, was recognized. Mr. Casserly stated their analysis
of the proposed project has determined that the project is feasible. He stated
revenues from the increased taxes are sufficient to reimburse the city for its
investment in the land and to allow revenues to be invested in the project.
He stated the next phase would be preparation of a term sheet for presentation to the
EDA.
President Enck inquired whether the city would be guaranteed reimbursement of its
investment if all or part of the property becomes tax-exempt in the future.
Mr. Casserly indicated such a guarantee is a normal provision included in the
agreement in order to protect the city.
President Enck expressed his appreciation to Mr. Casserly and his staff for their
assistance to the city over the years.
EDA Meeting
Page 1
March 22, 2004
EDA Meeting
Page 2
Commissioner Sommer inquired regarding the city's reimbursement costs. He asked
whether the city would retain $200,000 if it provides TIF bonds for $1.6 million and
$1.4 million to PPL.
Mr. Casserly explained that the financing could occur as Commissioner Sommer
outlined; however Krass Monroe is recommending that the city take a note back to
subordinate its position to debt that would be issued. The city would be reimbursed
with interest. This would build in added protection. He stated calculations would be
based on the city's land costs plus interest to cover carrying costs. Then a note
would be created so the city can reimburse itself from increased taxes after the
payment of debt service on any bonds that were issued.
Commissioner Sommer expressed disappointment that PPL has changed its position
from its original proposal of purchasing the property outright from the city.
Mr. Casserly indicated the city can sell the land but the project would need that
added cost so the issue becomes whether the city wants to sell debt upfront to
provide write down at the beginning of the project and reimburse itself upfront or if
the city is comfortable with taking a note to itself and repaying it over time.
Discussion ensued regarding the price of the condominiums and the impact that
sales prices will have on the outstanding debt and recovery of land costs. Mr.
Casserly commented that over $4 million of increment will be generated and it is
possible that the TIF district could be closed prior to the 25-year projection.
Commissioner Gwin-Lenth questioned the changes in the site plan and soil analysis.
Mr. Chris Wilson, Project for Pride in Living, responded to design changes. He
stated the size and footprint of the project has not changed. Based on marketing
advice the larger three or four bedroom units have changed to one or two bedroom
units. The buildings were moved closer to Boone Avenue to raise their presence and
the rear of the property (with the pond) will be more private. The side will face the
public works building to minimize its impact. The playground and bus stop will be
located near the rental building and the path and gardens will be near the
condominium property.
The estimated soil correction costs are based on both buildings.
Commissioner Cassen questioned the tax status of the property since PPL is a non-
profit organization.
Mr. Wilson stated both the rental building and the condominium building will be
taxable properties. He clarified that 15 of the 41 for sale units would have income
restrictions.
President Enck asked Mr. Wilson to elaborate on the tenant screening process. Mr.
Wilson stated PPL has a stringent selection criteria in order to ensure the efficient
use of the public's money. It was noted that owners of the condominiums would
have private financing and if an owner defaulted, the financial institute would
intervene. Commissioner Cassen pointed out that private mortgage insurance is
required by the lender to be placed on the property if the value is less than 80% loan
to value.
Mr. Steve Cramer, PPL, confumed that Morris Manning, Property Director, has
committed to the employment of a full-time property management position for the
New Hope properties to office at Boone Avenue Apartments.
Ms. Juanita Hoffe, 4632 Flag Avenue North, was recognized. She asked the
financial consultant to clarify the funding options.
March 22, 2004
MOTION
Item 4
IMP. PROJECT 734
Item 5
EDA Meeting
Page 3
Mr. Jim Casserly, Krass Monroe, stated the EDA purchased the property several
years ago and borrowed from available funding. So, the EDA has the right to
reimburse those funds through two different mechanisms: 1) pledge future taxes and
pay increments each year until the amount is fully repaid or 2) the city has the
option of selling a bond and including in the bond proceeds enough to reimburse
itself for the same investment. Both options will be examined as the project
proceeds.
Motion was made by Commissioner Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Commissioner
Collier, to proceed with preparation of preliminary terms of agreement based
on the financial/tax increment financing analysis completed by Krass Monroe.
Voting in favor: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth; Voting Against: Sommer;
Abstained: None; Absent: None. Motion carried.
President Enck introduced for discussion Item 5, Discussion and direction to
proceed with a purchase agreement for the NCRC development proposal, 4301 and
4317 Nevada Avenue North (improvement project no. 734).
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated staff is
requesting authorization to proceed with a purchase agreement for the sale of 4317
Nevada Avenue North to the Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation
(NCRC) Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). He stated the
property would be incorporated into their proposal to replace two blighted single
family properties with six owner-occupied twinhomes (one accessible unit).
Mr. McDonald illustrated the sites and stated the NCRC owns 4301 Nevada and the
city owns 4317 Nevada. He stated the property was designated in the
comprehensive plan for redevelopment with medium density residential use. The
EDA previously declined a proposal for development of 12 units primarily due to
the density and financial assistance being requested.
Mr. McDonald explained that CDBG funds of $83,000 were originally used to
purchase the property. Staff recommends demolition of the house at 4317 Nevada
utilizing CDBG funds (total CDBG contribution estimated at $100,000). The EDA
would sell the property to the NCRC for $1 and permit the NCRC to construct six
owner occupied twinhome units on the site. In return, the city will realize a
significant increase in taxes at the site. He stated a portion of the CDBG funds
invested in the project would also be returned to the city as program income upon
the sale of the units, and the program income could be utilized for future CDBG
eligible projects.
He introduced Kristine Madsen, Executive Director, and Julie Dtmkle, Associate
Director, of NCRC.
Ms. Madsen explained that both properties (4301 and 4317 Nevada) are
uninhabitable. The concept is for 12 owner-occupied units (six twinhomes) targeted
at $180,000 or less. She noted they have applied for several grants and are having
conversations with the West Hermepin Affordable Land Trust. Driveways and
garages would face the rear rather than the front of the property.
Discussion ensued regarding the irnplications of a land trust. It was noted that there
would be no issues relating to city ordinances with a land trust owning the property
and an individual owning the structure.
Commissioner Cassen expressed support for the project. She pointed out the need
for one-level homes in New Hope. Ms. Madsen stated the property has a slope and
they will keep the need for one-level homes in mind during the design process.
Commissioner Sommer reiterated the need for one-level homes and requested that
March 22, 2004
MOTION/PROCEED
Item 5
IMP. PROJECT 723
Item 6
MOTION
Item 6
IMP. PROJECTS
761,748, 768
Item 7
EDA RESOLUTION
04-13
Item 7
EDA Meeting
Page 4
at least two of the six structures be one-level housing.
President Enck asked that NCRC document who is responsible for maintenance of
the property. Ms. Madsen acknowledged that this issue has been part of their
discussions.
Mr. McDonald indicated the next step would be preparation of a purchase
agreement and development proposal for review by the EDA. He stated the NCRC
would be required to participate in the planning application process for rezoning and
platting, and NCRC would pay all associated fees (building permit, park dedication
fees, etc).
Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Gwin-
Lenth, directing staff to proceed with preparation of a purchase agreement and
development proposal. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
President Enck introduced for discussion Item 6, Discussion regarding 7615 Bass
Lake Road (New Hope Alano), gap request and appraisal proposal (improvement
project no. 723).
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated staff is seeking
direction regarding a gap financing request (7615 Bass Lake Road) and appraisal for
the property at 7550 Bass Lake Road. He stated it is proposed that the cost of the
appraisal (estimated at $3,000) be shared equally among the city, Alano, and AC
Carlson. Previously the city directed staff to coordinate with Alano regarding their
relocation needs. He explained that one of the buildings that would meet their
needs is the AC Carlson site at 7550 Bass Lake Road. AC Carlson is planning to
relocate to the comer of Science Center Drive and International Parkway. One of
the reasons for the gap request is due to the $695,000 asking price. An appraisal
could determine if the asking price is accurate.
President Enck thanked Alano for being a good community neighbor. He noted his
desire to find a suitable site for Alano's relocation.
Motion was made by Commissioner Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Commissioner
Cassen, authorizing the expenditure of $1,000 towards an appraisal of 7550
Bass Lake Road. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
President Enck introduced for discussion Item 7, Resolution approving purchase
agreements and relocation benefits for acquisition of three properties in the
Winnetka East housing redevelopment area (5446 Winnetka, 5512 Winnetka, and
5519 Sumter (improvement project nos. 761,748, and 768).
Mr. Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, stated staff is continuing to
coordinate the purchase of the remaining properties in the east Winnetka
redevelopment area. The resolution will approve purchase agreements for three
additional properties. He stated staff is negotiating the purchase of five remaining
properties.
Commissioner Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
"RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENTS AND
RELOCATION BENEFITS FOR ACQUISITION OF THREE PROPERTIES
IN THE WINNETKA EAST HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AREA (5446
WINNETKA, 5512 WINNETKA, AND 5519 SUMTER (IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NOS. 761, 748, AND 768)." The motion for thc adoption of thc
foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Collier, and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Casscn, Collier, Gwin-
Lenth, Sommer, and thc following voted against thc same: None; Abstained: None;
Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted,
March 22, 2004
IMP. PROJECT 724
Item 8
EDA RESOLUTION
04-14
Item 8
ENCK FAREWELL
ADJOURNMENT
signed by the president which was attested to by the executive director.
President Enck introduced for discussion Item 8, Resolution finding need to acquire
title and possession of the Winnetka Avenue East area development properties prior
to the commissioner's award, approving the appraisal of damages for each property
resulting from the taking and ratifying and authorizing all steps taken by staff to
acquire the properties (improvement project no. 724).
Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, stated the city started the legal time table in
December relative to the "quick-take" procedure. He stated there is a hearing
scheduled on April 6 for appointment of commissioners. He stated adoption of the
resolution does not prevent the city from continuing to negotiate with the owners to
acquire their property voluntarily. However, it does start the time period running
where both parties either have to agree on a purchase price or submit the issue of
valuation and damages to a commission of three persons appointed by the court.
The resolution approves the appraisal amounts that the city will pay.into court to
satisfy the requirements of Minnesota Statutes chapter 117 that allows the city to
acquire the properties under eminent domain for the redevelopment project.
Ms. Juanita Hoffe, 4632 Flag Avenue North, questioned the number of unsold
properties.
Mr. Sondrall stated the resolution lists eleven properties for condemnation action;
however purchase agreements have been negotiated on six of the properties which
reduces the number to five properties. He noted the action does not prevent
negotiations on the remaining five properties, and the city hopes it will be
successful in acquiring all of the properties voluntarily.
Commissioner Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
"RESOLUTION FINDING NEED TO ACQUIRE TITLE AND POSSESSION
OF THE WINNETKA AVENUE EAST AREA DEVELOPMENT
PROPERTIES PRIOR TO THE COMMISSIONER'S AWARD,
APPROVING THE APPRAISAL OF DAMAGES FOR EACH PROPERTY
RESULTING FROM THE TAKING AND RATIFYING AND
AUTHORIZING ALL STEPS TAKEN BY STAFF TO ACQUIRE THE
PROPERTIES (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 724)." The motion for thc
adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Collier, and
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen,
Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer, and the following voted against the same: None;
Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted, signed by the president which was attested to by the executive
director.
Prior to adjournment, the EDA recognized W. Peter Enck and wished him well in
his retirement. President Enck expressed his gratitude to colleagues and staff that he
has had the oppommity to work with over the past 33 years. He pointed out that the
School District honored him at its March 15 meeting.
Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to
adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope
EDA adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
_~/s2pectfully submittgd,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
EDA Meeting
Page 5
March 22, 2004