040516 Planning1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONSENT BUSINESS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
7:00 p.m.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
4.1 PC 16-04, requests for an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP),
and CUP for deferment of required parking at 7107 42 Avenue North, New Hope
Bowl Lounge, Inc. petitioner.
4.2 PC 16-05, requests for rezoning, and subdivision and platting of the property located
at 6065 Louisiana Avenue North, City of New Hope Economic Development
Authority, petitioner.
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1 Design and Review Committee - next meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 14,
2016.
5.2 Codes and Standards Committee - next meeting?
6. NEW BUSINESS
7. OLD BUSINESS
7.1 Approve March 2nd, 2016, Planning Commission Minutes.
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
Petitioner must be in attendance at the meeting
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: April 5, 2016
Report Date: April 1, 2016
Planning Case: 16-04
Petitioner. New Hope Bowl Lounge, Inc.
Greg Bender, owner/operator
Address: 7107 42nd Avenue North
Project Name: New Hope Bowl CUP Amendment
Project Description: Expansion of outdoor deck
I. Type of Planning Request
A. Amendment to existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) condition of approval limiting size of
outdoor deck.
IL Zoning Code References
Section(s) 4-33 Administration _ Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
4-3 (13) - Deferment of Required Parking
III. Property Specifications
Zoning: CB, Community Business
Location: 7107 42nd Avenue North
Adjacent Land Uses: Community Business to the north and northwest, R-3 Medium Density
Residential to the west, R-1 Single Family Residential south, and residential
to the east in the city of Crystal.
Site Area: 2.44 acres, or 106,355 square feet
Building Area: 27,160 square feet (140 feet by 144 feet)
Planning District: Planning District 11. The Comprehensive Plan supports promoting private
reinvestment into commercial sites along 42nd Avenue. It specifically
encourages improvements to the subject site and building to enhance its
aesthetic appearance.
IV. Background
The applicant, New Hope Bowl Lounge, Inc., is requesting an amendment to a CUP condition of
approval that was approved in 2008 in order to expand the size of an outdoor deck and a CUP for a
Planning Case Report 16-04 Page 1 4/5/16
deferment of required parking. The initial request for a CUP to construct two seasonal volleyball courts
was brought forth to the Planning Commission on December 4, 2007. After several neighbors expressed
concerns at the meeting, the item was tabled to allow the applicant and staff time to meet with
neighbors and address their concerns. The request was again considered at the January 8, 2008
Planning Commission meeting where the commission recommended approval with an 8-3 vote. One of
the conditions of approval limited the size of the deck to be constructed. The request was approved at
the January 14, 2008 City Council meeting.
The applicant has indicated that the existing deck, which is 1,564 square feet (23 feet x 68 feet), is not
sufficient in serving the needs of spectators and participants during volleyball league play. An
amendment to the previously approved CUP is necessary to allow for the expansion of the deck. The
applicant is requesting to add 920 square feet (23 feet x 40 feet) of area to the deck at the northeast side
of the building, to be used from May through August in conjunction with a volleyball league. The
proposed expansion would move the privacy fence 40 feet closer to the east property line. It would
remain approximately 38 feet away from the property line. Since the installation of the volleyball courts
and deck in 2008, the New Hope Police Department has not received any complaints related to
volleyball activities. The proposed deck would eliminate four existing parking spaces. The applicant
has requested a CUP for deferred parking as they feel that the site has sufficient existing parking to
meet the needs of the business during both the summer and winter months.
V. Zoning Analysis
A. Plan Description
1. Parking
The applicant indicated on the original application that summer months are "slow" for the
business and the reduction in parking spaces will not impact the amount of necessary
parking. The deck expansion eliminates four parking spaces permanently, resulting in the
following number of available spaces per season:
# of parking spaces
Winter 166
Summer 141
While the establishment has been operating within the city for many years without parking
issues, it is under parked according to city code. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
CUP for a deferment in required parking. The deferred parking CUP allows businesses to
utilize a lesser parking supply provided that the demand be documented. Additionally, the
applicant must reserve enough space on the site to build parking in the future, if necessary.
The amount of reserved space must equal the amount of parking shortage and is referred to
as the "proof of parking" area. Staff does not believe the loss of four parking spaces will
significantly impact the overall parking supply for either summer or winter months,
however, the applicant is required to provide proof of parking for the number of stalls that
would be removed with the expansion. The applicant has designated the southwest corner
Planning Case Report 16-04 Page 2 4/5/16
of the site as the proof of parking area and indicates that four spaces could be added, if
necessary.
As a condition of CUP approval, a restrictive covenant must be recorded against the
property that mandates the construction of the proof of parking area should the city
determine that the demand for on-site parking exceeds the available supply. The covenant
would also protect this designated area from any other construction activity.
2. Setbacks and Screening
The applicant has proposed a deck expansion toward the northeast property line, which
would make it flush with the east wall of the building. The proposed addition to the deck
would make it approximately 38 feet from the side property line, meeting the 10 -foot
setback requirement for the CB zoning district. The privacy fence would move 40 feet closer
to the east property line as compared to its current location. A 7 -foot privacy fence would be
constructed on both ends of the deck to act as a sound and noise buffer for the adjoining
properties. Note that original plans called for an 8 -foot fence but the size was later
decreased. The abutting residential property to the east is a wooded backyard, which
includes a neighboring fence.
3. Lighting
The applicant indicates that there are no changes planned for the exterior lighting. The
original plan shows six light fixtures around the two volleyball courts.
4. Hours of Operation
The applicant indicates that there are no changes planned for hours of operation for the
volleyball courts. The original plan indicated that the courts would be used Sunday through
Thursday from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
5. Circulation and Access
Access to the deck is limited to the bowling center only. The access point would not be
changed with the proposed expansion. Emergency exits would continue to remain at both
the north and south ends of the deck.
6. Outdoor Dining
Outdoor dining and services is a permitted accessory use by administrative permit and the
applicant meets the conditions outlined in Section 4-16 (d) (4). According to the applicant,
food and drinks are served inside and patrons can bring them out to the deck. No outdoor
service is provided on the deck. During the winter months, outdoor furniture is stacked and
stored at the northwest corner of the deck.
B. Zoning Code Criteria
1. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment
Planning Case Report 16-{}4 Page 3 4/5/16
Criteria. The Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the 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.
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.
Findings. The Comprehensive Plan supports promoting private reinvestment into
commercial sites along 42nd Avenue. It specifically encourages improvements to the
subject site and building to enhance its aesthetic appearance.
b. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent present and future
anticipated land uses.
Findings. The proposed use of the site is consistent with allowable uses in the CB
district where outdoor dining and services is an allowed accessory use.
c. Performance standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance
standards contained in this Code.
Findings. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards
contained within the Code as previously approved.
d. No depreciation in value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the
area in which it is proposed.
Findings. Increasing the size of the outdoor deck will not depreciate the area's value.
The applicant is proposing to improve screening of the deck with a 7 -foot privacy fence
at both ends, which will act as a sound and noise buffer for the adjoining properties.
e. Zoning district criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed use
meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts.
Findings. Staff has concluded that the proposed use complies with all other zoning
district criteria.
f. In business districts (CB):
a. Traffic. The proposed use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion.
Findings. The proposed increase in deck size will have a minimal impact on
traffic.
b. Nearby residences. Adjacent residentially -zoned land will not be adversely
affected because of traffic generation, noise, glare, or other nuisance
characteristics.
Findings. The applicant has been operating the volleyball courts and
outdoor deck since 2008 with no reported police issues. Staff does not
anticipate that increasing the size of the deck will impact nearby residences.
Planning Case Report 16-04 Page 4 4/5/16
The proposed increase in deck size will have a minimal impact on traffic.
The applicant is proposing to screen the deck at both ends with 7 -foot
privacy fences to limit noise. Hours of operation (Sunday through Thursday
from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) will remain unchanged, as will outdoor
lighting.
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 nonshopping traffic or general unsightliness.
Findin&s. The proposed deck expansion not impact existing nearby
businesses in a negative manner.
C. Design and Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee met on March 17, 2016. The committee was generally
supportive of the request for an amendment to the CUP.
D. Approval
1. Type of Approval
a. Conditional Use Permits
2. Timeline
a. Date Application Received: March 11, 2016
b. End of 60 -Day Decision Period: May 10, 2016
c. End of 120 -Day Decision Period: July 9, 2016
IV. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of parcel, including those in the city of Crystal, were notified by retail
and a legal notice was published in the Sun Post newspaper. An adjacent land owner who lives in
Crystal visited with staff at city hall to express some concerns and learn more about the project and
plans to attend the public hearing.
VIII. Summary
The applicant is requesting an amendment to a CUP condition of approval that was approved in 2008
to expand the size of an outdoor deck. The applicant has indicated that the existing deck is not
sufficient in serving the needs of spectators and participants during volleyball league play, therefore,
an amendment to the existing CUP is necessary in order to expand the deck. The applicant is
requesting to add 920 square feet (23 feet x 40 feet) of area to the deck at the northeast side of the
building, to be used from May through August in conjunction with a volleyball league. Since the
installation of the volleyball courts and deck in 2008, according to the New Hope Police Department,
there have been no complaints at the property related to those activities. Removing the condition of
approval would eliminate the deck size restriction related to the CUP and would allow the deck to be
expanded to the east.
Planning Case Report 16-{}4 Page 5 4/5/16
IX. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the CUP amendment related
to the deck, with the following conditions of approval:
1. The condition of approval related to deck size that was approved in 2008 shall be eliminated while
the remaining nine conditions shall remain as follows:
a. On site traffic circulation patterns must be maintained and the east property line shall be
posted as a fire lane.
b. Court lighting shall be directional toward the courts and shall not exceed that shown in the
photometric plan submitted with the application.
c. Court lighting shall cease at 10:00 p.m.
d. No public address system shall be authorized.
e. The petitioner shall be responsible for court security and no direct court access from the
parking lot shall be allowed.
f. Petitioner shall police the grounds daily for trash.
g. Petitioners shall make the east building exits, exit only, including the installation of panic
hardware.
h. Access to the courts shall be restricted to persons over age 21 or legal drinking age.
i. The volleyball courts may be open seven days per week during the daytime, but only
Sunday through Thursday in the evenings.
2. The applicant shall amend the outdoor dining and services administrative permit to reflect changes
related to the deck addition.
3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the deck addition.
Based on review of the application for a CUP for deferment of required parking, staff recommends
approval of the CUP with the following conditions:
1. A restrictive covenant shall be recorded against the subject property that mandates the construction
of the proof of parking area, if the city finds that the demand for on-site parking exceeds the
available supply. This covenant will also preserve the proof of parking area from any other type of
construction.
2. The applicant must submit a revised site plan that includes the parking stall dimensions and
setbacks for the proof of parking area.
Attachments
■ Application and plans (March 11, 2016)
• Revised application and plans (March 29, 2016)
• Planning Consultant memo (March 14, 2016)
Aerial image
• Photos of existing deck and surrounding area
Planning Case Report 16-04 Page 6 4/5/16
REAR 1 12016
PLANNING
APPLICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL
City of New Hope, 4401 Xylan Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428
Basic Fee Deposit
Case No.�'
Planning Deadline
Receipt No.
Received by t
Name of Applicant: re- 4 t -A d � 't �f �hone: YSY- 0 7 1 a
Applicant Address_o�� 1�1r• L!/_._ _ 5-r• M I GXGI e / , RX/
Street Location of Property: Q '1 PID:
Legal Description of Property:
OWNER OF RECORD: Name: Grnci Be-lidee
Address: ;? ;� 3 Sr ,V [.V. - _ 5--r, M e
Home Phone: 4W -1-V11- 02&1 Work Phone: ]g3 `5-37-932.1 Fax:
Applicant's nature of Legal or Equitable Interest:
S�S "3 761,
Type of Request: (pertaining to what section of City Code) CL4 e iV Our
G19A 00"G! e- C , I-
Please outline Description of Request: (use additional pages if necessary)
Our J cc -'O Aj e FaS-1 60on er
O f! f zR
Why Should Request be Granted: r. U rrCA 1 SAR L e I
a
el
Applicant acknowledges that before this request can be considered and/or approved, all fees, including the
basic zoning fee and any zoning deposits (as outlined in the attached application materials) must be paid to
the city. There are three city consultants — legal, planning, and engineering - that generate additional
expenses. Expenses incurred that exceed the amount of the zoning deposit will be billed and are the
responsibility of the applicant.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that state law requires that the development review be completed
within 60 days from the city's acceptance of this application. If the development review cannot be
completed within 60 days, regardless of the reason, the city shall extend the review completion deadline
an additional 60 days as also permitted by state law. Development review shall be completed within 120
days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant in writing. The Community
Development Department will notify you of all meetings.
Signed:
F9
Fee Own print or type name)
Applicant Other than Owner (print or type)
FOR CITY USE ONLY
Evidence of Ownership Submitted: Yes No Required
Certified Lot Survey: Yes No Required
Legal Description Adequate: Yes No Required
Legal Ad Required: Yes No Required
Date of Design & Review Meeting:
Date of Planning Commission Meeting:
Approved: Denied:
By Planning Commission on:
Approved: Denied:
By City Council on:
Subject to the following conditions:
EXHIBIT A
An undivided 1/3 interest in and to:
MAR 1 12016
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block, 1, Rockford Park, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in
the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Hennepin County, Minnesota.
ALSO:
That part of Lot 10, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 324, Hennepin County, Minnesota°
described as follows:
Commencing at a point in the East line of said Lot 10 distant 916.6 feet North of the Southeast
corner thereof; thence West at right angles to the East line of said Lot 10 a distance of 191.6 feet
to the point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence continuing West on the West
extension of the last described line a distance of 167 feet; thence North parallel with the East line
of said Lot 10 a distance of 408.1 feet more or less to the Southerly right of way of State
Highway No. 55 as now laid out and constructed; thence Easterly along said right of way line a
distance of 167.09 feet more or less to a point distant 191.6 feet West of the East line of said Lot
10; thence South parallel with the East line of said Lot 10 to the point of beginning, except the
North 150 feet thereof.
This deed is given in satisfaction of that certain Contract for Deed between Gertrude M. Bender,
as Seller, and Gregory J. Bender and Louie A. Bender, Purchasers, entered into on January 1,
2000, recorded February 2, 2000, as Hennepin County Recorder Document No. 7253323 and
filed for registration on August 10, 2000, as Hennepin County Registrar of Titles Document No.
3304718.
13121273901 exampd
?fo7�r�
/U IMAIJ or)
PEAR 1 1 20 .
r
�Hl
Tr -
I
OA )4
5C.0
fiii��i�i`��il�`
63
I
P, '' 2,
Ci
Gi goe 1✓
MAR 1 12016
!U✓Y! i I Ulm p ,.? 5 -.
71
/ _
Gi goe 1✓
MAR 1 12016
!U✓Y! i I Ulm p ,.? 5 -.
r
N
' R t
fr
/Lop -
fl 6-
ff
„ ("- x 6-1 f
2016
After many years of volleyball, we find the number of teams and their audience has grown too
large for our current deck to accommodate everyone comfortably. We respectfully request
permission for, and propose the following:
-Expand our existing deck to the Eastern end of our building. (23' X 40')
-Increase the seating on our deck for volleyball season (May -Aug)
-The deck will align with the Eastern edge of the building and the volleyball courts. We
will provide a 7' privacy fence on both ends of our deck to act as a buffer to the
adjoining properties. Our setback will still be 38' from the Eastern property line,
neighboring fence, and trees.
-The additional deck space will cause a loss of 4 parking spaces. To address this, we
would like to add 9 new spaces in the Southwest corner of our property.
All other items on the CUP remain unchanged. There will be no new lighting, and hours will
also remain as in the original CUP. Access to the deck will be from the bowling center only.
Customers will place orders with the bar staff in the bar, and our staff will assist in delivering
these orders.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg Bender
Tom Bender
Owners
PRt4AACII
F�wa 15
7' 7OkLt.
rr
' HIS s eaf loo
Rurlod El> } a
twn fit,(k TO
61,WV! A C6c55
coo
mitE
13-M EW400ARE
�4.3e7 948kE6iS�FEt6,IW1E
�'„'"� O alw1 S= MAR 2 9
41-M =F=Y%W WWW S9QkA E
WO -V 4A
IS
16
..-------A-Aa)'Trost
34fVu4xAtjcic-'--
0
i1
�
_ P=
�� w
One Space is 9'X ll'
-- LNW - NNNNA 96U.&ANNINI i,.6j "M. ii.6� � -
NJ!
Vo!i.0
ova:,
T'hN, kiftwaroa-vill be 85
The at
X;35
the additional Parking,
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS" INC,
4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM:
To: New Hope Planning Commission
From: Alan Brixius 1 Ryan Grittman
Date: March 14, 2016
RE: New Hope Bowl Outdoor Deck Expansion — CUP Amendment
BACKGROUND
In 2007, the City approved a conditional use permit to allow the bowling alley to setup two
outdoor volleyball courts that are accessed by a permanent deck. The deck size was limited
to 1,564 square feet.
New Hope Bowl has now submitted an application for a conditional use permit amendment
to expand their outdoor deck. The request is to add 920 square feet (23 feet x 40 feet) of
area to the northeast side of their building. Currently, there is a deck located on north side
of the building that measures 1,564 square feet (23 feet x 68 feet). The deck is used in the
summer months from May through August in conjunction with a volleyball league.
The applicant has indicated that the current deck is not sufficient in serving the needs of
spectators and participants during volleyball league play, therefore, an amendment to their
conditional use permit is necessary in expanding their deck.
The subject site is zoned CB, Central Business. While the district does not specifically
reference "accessory outdoor recreation", the district does make an allowance for
"accessory outdoor sales and services" as a conditional use. To accommodate the
proposed activity, the City had allowed the applicant to apply for a conditional use permit to
allow the volleyball courts for seasonal use.
ANALYSIS
Parking. On the original application, the applicant indicated that the summer months are
the "slow" season for bowling and the reduction of parking spaces during this time will not
affect the availability of spaces. The expansion of the deck appears to remove four parking
spaces permanently, making the total for the winter months 166 spaces, and the total during
the summer 141 spaces. The loss of four stalls will not impact the parking supply for either
summer or winter events.
Setbacks. The deck expansion will be toward the eastern property line. The deck will be
flush with the east wall of the building. The building and the deck will be approximately 38
feet from the side property line, meeting the 10 -foot setback requirement for the CB district.
Outdoor Dining. On the original appiication, the applicant indicated that food and drinks
will be allowed on the deck, but no wait staff will service the area. The applicant shall
indicate if this is still the intent after the deck expansion. It should be noted that outdoor
dining and services is an allowed accessory use by administrative permit.
If the applicant wishes to provide food and drink service, the following will be necessary:
a. The applicant shall be required to submit a site plan and other pertinent information
demonstrating the location and type of all tables, refuse receptacles, and wait
stations.
b. Access to the dining area be provided only via the principal building if the dining
area is a full service restaurant, including table waiting service.
C. The size of the dining area is restricted to 30 percent of the total customer floor
area within the principal structure.
d. The dining area is screened from view from adjacent residential uses in
accordance with subsection 4-3(d)(3) of this Code.
e. All lighting be hooded and directed away from adjacent residential uses in
accordance with subsection 4-3(d)(5) of this Code.
The applicant demonstrates that pedestrian circulation is not disrupted as a result
of the outdoor dining area by providing the following:
Outdoor dining area shall be segregated from through pedestrian circulation
by means of temporary fencing, bollards, ropes, plantings, or other methods,
and shall be subject to review and approval by the city council.
2. Minimum clear passage zone for pedestrians at the perimeter of the
restaurant shall be at least five feet without interference from parked motor
vehicles, bollards, trees, tree gates, curbs, stairways, trash receptacles,
street lights, parking meters, or the like.
3. Overstory canopy of trees, umbrellas or other structures extending into the
pedestrian clear passage zone or pedestrian aisle shall have a minimum
clearance of seven feet above sidewalk.
g. The dining area is surfaced with concrete, bituminous or decorative pavers or may
consist of a deck with wood or other flooring material that provides a clean,
attractive, and functional surface.
2
h. A minimum width of 36 inches shall be provided within aisles of the outdoor dining
area.
Storage of furniture shall not be permitted on the sidewalk between November 1
and March 31. Sidewalk furniture that is immovable or permanently fixed or
attached to the sidewalk shall not be subject to the storage prohibition of this
section. However, any immovable or permanently fixed or attached furniture must
be approved as part of the administrative permit application.
Additional off-street parking shall be required pursuant to the requirements set forth
in subsection 4-3(f) of this Code based on the additional seating area provided by
the outdoor dining area.
k. Refuse containers are provided for self-service outdoor dining areas. Such
containers shall be placed in a manner which does not disrupt pedestrian
circulation, and must be designed to prevent spillage and blowing litter.
I. Rooftop dining facilities shall be permitted provided they meet all applicable
conditions as listed herein and in addition:
Provide permanent walls of fencing around the periphery of the dining area
at a minimum height of 42 inches to ensure the safety of persons/property.
2. Any permanent structures, including divider walls, trellis work, etc. be
included as part of the building upon which they are located and are subject
to the building height limitations as specified in subsection 4-16(f)(3) of this
Code.
3. The submitted plans for a rooftop dining facility as well as the building upon
which the proposed outdoor dining is to occur is subject to review by the city
building inspector. The inspector will determine whether the building is
structurally capable of handling the additional weight of persons and
equipment.
Project Narrative 1 Plan. The applicant must provide a deck detail showing proposed
access, seating, pedestrian circulation, and exterior lighting. A narrative must be provided
describing how operation, screening, noise control, and furniture storage.
Hours of Operation. The original application indicated that the volleyball courts will be
used Sunday through Thursday from 6pm until 10pm, at which point, the lights will be shut
off for the evening. The applicant shall clarify that this is still the intent of the volleyball
courts after the deck is expanded. It should be noted that the City has not received any
complaints regarding noise or lighting related to the volleyball courts.
3
Lighting. The original site plan shows six light fixtures around the two volleyball courts.
The applicant has not indicated a change to any of the light fixtures. If the applicant wishes
to include additional lighting, the submittal of a new photometric and light plan will be
necessary.
Screening. The current east side of the deck is screened with an eight -foot -high privacy
fence to keep noise and lighting away from adjacent residential property. The deck
expansion will move the privacy fence forty -feet closer to the east property line. The fence
and deck will stili be approximately 38 feet away from the property line after expansion. It
should be noted that the abutting residential property is a wooded backyard.
CONCLUSION
The applicant has been seasonally operating two volleyball courts since 2007. During that
time, the activity has been popular among league participants and spectators. The
volleyball courts allow the business to retain employees and generate business during the
otherwise "slow" season. The applicant has also operated in a manner that has not
generated any complaints regarding noise or lighting. The expansion of the deck will allow
the volleyball leagues to continue to operate and bring business to the area. The request for
a change to the conditional use is relatively small compared to the current operation on site.
The following requirements will be necessary in processing this conditional use permit:
1. A narrative the explains that no wait staff will service the deck, or an application to
allow wait staff on the deck subject to the conditions outlined in Sec 4-16(d)(4) and
noted above.
2. The applicant provides a deck detail showing proposed access, seating, and
pedestrian circulation.
3. The applicant provided a narrative describing operation, screening, noise control, and
furniture storage on the deck.
4. The applicant submits a narrative stating that the proposed hours are to remain bpm
to 1 Opm Sunday through Thursday.
5. The applicant submits a narrative indicating that the lighting on site is to remain the
same or submit a photometric and light plan.
4
i
iL
-
�, d a I dll . /IHV1 l2W 41it ;kh
k
OF
A
MOT 41
6
--cA ire;
a --
OTT
��`` _ � •rte.{ -
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: April 5, 2016
Report Date: April 1, 2016
Planning Case: 16-05
Petitioner: Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope
Address: 6065 Louisiana Avenue North
Project Name: Louisiana Avenue lot split
Project Description: Staff requests to rezone and subdivide a parcel in the R-4 High Density Residential
District. The rezoning and subdivision would facilitate the construction of two new
detached single family homes.
Planning Request: Staff is requesting a rezoning of the parcel from R-4 High Density Residential to R-2
Single and Two Family Residential. The parcel is currently un -plated. Therefore, staff
is proposing to subdivide the parcel and create two equally sized lots that meet the
base standards for lot size in the R-2 District.
I. Type of Planning Request
A. Rezoning
B. Subdivision and platting
II. Zoning Code References
Section:
III. Property Specifications
Current Zoning:
Proposed Zoning:
Location:
Adjacent Land Uses:
Current Site Area:
Proposed Lot Areas
4-30 Administration - General
4-32 Administration - Amendments (rezoning)
Chapter 13 - Subdivision and Platting
R-4 High Density Residential
R-2 Single and Two Family Residential
6065 Louisiana Avenue North
R-2 Single and Two Family Residential to the North, R-4 High Density
Residential to the West and South and park and open space to the East.
,69 acres or 30,000 sq.ft. (4,500 sq.ft. will be dedicated as street right-of-way)
.29 acres or 12,750 sq.ft. per lot
Planning Case Report 16-05 Page 1 411116
Planning District: Planning District 2. The Comprehensive plan advocates for aggressive scattered
site redevelopment within District 2 and directs the city to actively pursue the
redevelopment of low value single family neighborhoods in the area.
IV. Background
The City of New Hope Economic Development Authority (EDA) purchased the property located at 6065
Louisiana Avenue North on November 16t" 2015. When the EDA acquired the property, the site was
occupied by a vacant and severely distressed home with two detached garages. The EDA purchased the
property with the intention of redeveloping the site by removing all existing improvements and splitting
the lot into two single family parcels. The demolition of the home and removal of the related structures is
scheduled to be complete by the end of April.
6065 Louisiana Avenue is currently zoned R-4 High Density Residential. The EDA is requesting to rezone
the property to R-2 Single and Two Family Residential in order to facilitate the development of two single
family detached homes. When looking at the surrounding area, staff feels that the requested rezoning will
promote a reasonable land use transition with adjacent properties.
In conjunction with the rezoning, the EDA would like to subdivide the parcel and create two equally sized
lots. The parcel is currently un -platted. Therefore, to complete the subdivision, the EDA must formally
complete the platting process. The base parcel dimensions provide sufficient area and width for the
creation of two appropriately sized single family R-2 lots.
V. Zoning Analysis
1. R-2 Lot Width Standards (single family)
2. R-2 Lot Area Standards (single family)
Required Minimum
Proposed
Lot 1 Block 1
70 feet
75 feet
Lot 2 Block 1
70 feet
75 feet
2. R-2 Lot Area Standards (single family)
3. Easements
The submitted survey shows the required utility and drainage easements along the perimeter of
each proposed lot.
Planning Case Report 16-05 Page 2 4/1/16
Required Minimum
Proposed
Lot 1 Block 1
8,400 sq. ft.
12,750 sq. ft.
Lot 2 Block 2
8,400 sq. ft.
12,750 sq. ft.
3. Easements
The submitted survey shows the required utility and drainage easements along the perimeter of
each proposed lot.
Planning Case Report 16-05 Page 2 4/1/16
4. Subdivision Procedure
Approval of the minor subdivision requires formal review and approval from the City Council
since the parcel is not part of a recorded plat.
Because the parcel is un -platted, the current property boundaries extend into the middle of
Louisiana Avenue North. As part of the final plat approval, the area of the parcel that is part of the
roadway will have to be dedicated to the city as street right-of-way. This dedication will be
included on the final plat in the form of a "public area dedication statement".
5. Park Dedication
As part of the subdivision, the city will be required to pay park dedication fees in the amount of
$1,500.
6. Rezoning
The property is currently zoned R-4 High Density Residential. However, the property contains one
parcel and a single family home. The city is requesting the property be rezoned to R-2 Single and
Two Family Residential. The property is adjacent to R-2 zoning to the north; R-4 zoning to the south
and west; R-1 Single Family to the northeast; and park and open space to the east.
The request to rezone the property to R-2 would be consistent with adjacent properties to the north
of this parcel and provide a transition from medium density residential (twin homes from the
north) to high density residential (from the south). A rezoning to R-2 would be consistent with the
adjoining properties.
7. Zoning Code Criteria
1. Rezoning
Any request to change the zoning classification of a property requires City Council
Approval. The Planning Commission and City Council shall consider possible effects of the
proposed amendment. Its judgment shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following
factors:
(1) The character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of an amendment.
Findings. The parcel is unusually large for one single family home. The area to the south
contains multifamily buildings and the area to the north contains twin homes. The single
family home on this parcel is isolated from other single family uses to the northeast.
Increasing the density of the subject site is consistent with the development patterns of
adjacent properties.
Planning Case Report 16-05 Page 3 411116
(2) 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.
Findings. The Comprehensive Plan supports redevelopment of low value distressed
residential properties in this area of the city. Medium density land use options are
preferred. New single family homes promote ownership, long term maintenance and ease of
resale.
2. Subdivision and Platting
It is the purpose of this chapter to make certain regulations and requirements for the
subdivision and platting of land within the city pursuant to the authority contained
in Minn. Stat. 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 and to assist the subdivider in
harmonizing their interests with those of the city at large.
Findings. The EDA has submitted the required preliminary and final plats for review. Both
plats include the required contents. The proposed subdivision divides the existing parcel
into two equal sized lots that meet the size requirements of the R-2 zoning district.
VI. Design and Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee reviewed the case on March 17. The committee was in favor of the
proposed project and rezoning, and was excited to see an application for redevelopment of New
Hope's single-family housing stock.
VII. Approval
b. Type of Approval
Rezoning — quasi-judicial
Subdivision and platting — quasi judicial
c. Timeline
1. Date Application Received: March 11th, 2016
2. End of 60 -Day Decision Period: May 10th, 2016
3. End of 120 -Day Decision Period: July 9th, 2016
VIII. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of parcel were notified by mail and a legal notice was published in the
SunPost newspaper. Staff has received no inquiries regarding the proposal.
Planning Case Report 16-05 Page 4 411116
IX. Summary
This proposal provides an opportunity for substantial reinvestment in one of New Hope's residential
neighborhoods. Additionally, the proposal meets direct objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan.
When looking at the surrounding area, staff feels that the requested rezoning and subdivision will
promote a reasonable land use transition with adjacent properties.
Additionally, the proposal will add one new single-family housing unit to the city. This addition will
increase the economic output of the subject property by maximizing the development potential of the
site.
X. Recommendation
Based on review of the application, staff recommends approval of the rezoning, preliminary plat and
final plat with the following conditions:
1. Upon completion of the subdivision, the EDA shall pay park dedication fees totaling $1,500.
2. The final plat is subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney.
Attachments:
• Planning consultant memorandum
• Application and applicant narrative
• Area zoning map
• Concept home layout
• Preliminary and final plat
Planning Case Report 16-05 Page 5 4/1/16
► NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff Sargent
FROM: Alan Bmdus 1 Ryan Grittman
DATE: March 14, 2016
RE: New Hope - 6065 Louisiana Ave. North — Subdivision and Rezone
FILE NO: 131.00 - 16.03
BACKGROUND
At your request, we have identified issues associated with the City's request to subdivide
and rezone a 30,000 square foot vacant parcel of land located at 6065 Louisiana Avenue
North into two residential parcels.
The subject property was purchased by the New Hope Economic Development
Authority in November of 2016. At the time of purchase, the property was occupied by a
vacant, distressed home and detached garage.
The subject site is zoned R-4, High Density Residential and is un -platted. The EDA is
requesting a rezoning of the property to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential; and a
subdivision to split the lot into two single family lots.
To accommodate the proposed subdivision a formal submission to plat the property is
necessary.
In review of the submitted application materials, the following comments are offered:
Rezone. The property is currently zoned R-4, High Density Residential.
However, the property contains one parcel and a single family home. The
applicant is requesting the property be rezoned to R-2, Single and Two Family
Residential.
The property is adjacent to R-2 zoning to the north; R-4 zoning to the south and
west; R-1 Single Family to the northeast; and a park to the east (in the City of
Crystal).
The request to rezone the property to R-2 would be consistent with adjacent
properties to the north of this parcel and provide a transition from medium density
residential (from the north) to high density residential (from the south). A rezoning
to R-2 would be consistent with the adjoining properties.
The City Code outlines 2 criteria when considering a rezoning request:
The character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of an
amendment.
Comment. • The parcel is unusually large for a single family home. The
area to the south contains multifamily buildings and the area to the north
contains twinhomes. The single family home on this parcel is isolated from
other single family uses to the northeast which are also on smaller lots.
2. 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.
Comment. The Comprehensive Plan supports redevelopment of
distressed properties and affordable housing in the City. Therefore, a
rezone and subdivision is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. New
single family home units are the preferred development option to promote
ownership, long term maintenance and ease of resale.
Subdivision Procedures. Approval of the requested subdivision requires formal review
and approval from the City Council since the area is not part of a recorded plat.
The subdivision process assumes that no right-of-way dedication will be required. This should
be confirmed by the City Engineer.
Lot Dimensions. The current parcel is 30,000 square feet with a width of 150 feet. The
two lots that are proposed will be approximately 15,000 square feet with a 75 -foot width.
Each lot will be conforming with the 8,400 square foot requirement and 70 -foot width.
Easements. Appropriately, both proposed lots are provided perimeter drainage and utility
easements which are consistent with Subdivision Ordinance requirements.
Park Dedication. As part of the subdivision, the applicant shall submit a park dedication fee
of $1,500 ($750 per parcel).
Existing Trees. It appears that some significant trees exist upon the subject site. To the
exist possible, future home construction should attempt to retain such trees.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested subdivision and rezoning with an
understanding that no setback variances with be necessary to accommodate the
construction of homes upon the two proposed lots.
APPLICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL
City of New Hope, 4401 Xylan Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428
Case No. /(0-0 T
Planning Deadline''ri-�
Receipt No.
Received by
Alf" -
Basic Fee Deposit
Name of Applicant: Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope Phone: 763-631-6114
Applicant Address: 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope MN, 55428
Street Location of Property: 6065 Louisiana Avenue North PID:05-11-82-12-10-017
Legal Description of Property: (Please See Attached)
OWNER OF RECORD:
Address:
Home Phone:
Name: "Same as Applicant"
Work Phone:
Applicant's nature of Legal or Equitable Interest: Owner
Type of Request: 4-32 Administration - Amendments (Rezoning)
Chapter 13 - Subdivision and Platting
Fax:
Please outline Description of Request: The EDA would like to rezone the property from R,4 High Density
Residential to R-2 Single and Two Family Residential. The parcel is currently un -plated. The EDA is
proposing to subdivide the parcel and create two equally sized lots that meet the base standards for lot
size in the R-2 District. The EDA intends to sell the lots in order to facilitate the development to two new
single family detached homes.
Why Should Request be Granted: (Please See Attached Narrative)
G:1CommDCAPLANNWGIMISC ITEMSINanninit application.doc (01.13)
Applicant acknowledges that before this request can be considered and/or approved, all fees, including the
basic zoning fee and any zoning deposits (as outlined in the attached application materials) must be paid to
the city. There are three city consultants — legal, planning, and engineering - that generate additional
expenses. Expenses incurred that exceed the amount of the zoning deposit will be billed and are the
responsibility of the applicant.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that state law requires that the development review be completed
within 60 days from the city's acceptance of this application. If the development review cannot be
completed within 60 days, regardless of the reason, the city shall extend the review completion deadline
an additional 60 days as also permitted by state law. Development review shall be completed within 120
days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant in writing. The Community
Development Department will notify you of all meetings.
Signed:
Fee Owner: Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope
Executive Director, Kirk McDonald
Applicant Other than Owner (print or type)
Evidence of Ownership Submitted:
Certified Lot Survey:
Legal Description Adequate:
Legal Ad Required:
FOR CITY USE ONLY
Yes_X No Required
Yes /\ No Required
Yes No Required
Yes, LNo Required
Date of Design & Review Meeting: 1-1 1 f
Date of Planning Commission Meeting:
Approved: Denied:
By Planning Commission on:
Approved: Denied:
By City Council on:
Subject to the following conditions:
6065 Louisiana Avenue Summary Narrative
Background
The City of New Hope Economic Development Authority (EDA) purchased the property located at
6065 Louisiana Avenue North on November 16th 2015. When the EDA acquired the property, the
site was occupied by a vacant and distressed foreclosed home with two detached garages. The EDA
purchased the property with the intention of redeveloping the site by removing all of the structures
on the property and splitting the lot into two parcels in order to facilitate the development of two
single family detached homes.
Rezoning
6065 Louisiana is currently zoned R-4 High Density Residential. The parcel has never been platted
and staff speculates that the parcel is a by-product of the New Hope/Crystal separation as the
property is located on the border of both cities. The single family home that was on the site when
purchased by the EDA was built in 1953. As such, staff is unsure of how or why the parcel was
zoned R-4.
The EDA is requesting to rezone the property to R-2 Single and Two Family Residential. When
looking at the surrounding area, staff feels that the requested rezoning will promote a reasonable
land use transition with adjacent properties. Directly north of the subject property there are four
twin -home units that are zoned R-2. The properties to the west and south are zoned R-4 High
Density Residential and across the street to the east, there is a city park.
Subdivision
In conjunction with the rezoning, the EDA would like to subdivide the parcel and create two equally
sized lots. The parcel is currently un -platted. Therefore to complete the subdivision, the EDA must
formally complete the platting process. The minimum lot width for single family homes within the
R-2 district is 70 feet and the minimum lot area is 8,400 sq.ft. The subject property has a width of 150
feet and total area of 30,000 sq.ft. The base parcel dimensions provide sufficient area and width for
the creation of two appropriately sized lots.
--go .�
I
f
_ R-4 = High Density
F
R-2 = Single and Two Fai
' • I = Single Family
I1 ff
jd
�r
711 1a sOA Lu \ I ((/ r All
7+ 1S 62nd Ave. N.
New Nope. MN 55429 0073Adj.L,e Oarxr: I
I / � Cuxster 4 c7nyshwC Jenhaas I
C073 L— Are. N.
New Nape. MN 55429
� N 89°2941` W 200.00 I
__________..________________________ _____
I
I I I
I
O0,LLI
e
1
I I
IX� jj' ft�4
o ~�� L� j o UTIL1TYdDl241NAGEFAS MFM75
a d y Wag. tnae.t. LLC � � �----------- --- ---- ---------------------- ----- - ----J Q Qi ARF SHOWN THUS:
.� 9°2941' W 200.00
4601 FaE5N>r&Iwi. x650 Adpeurrg Owrver: ,
5t. lean Paas. MN 55456 1 n - Gty ofQAW I I
------------ .._______ ________________________ ¢ 'u 3 610Or— Ave.N. IS
r'wmawi lk.�gvf ,i Z fn aysW, MN I 51
I I r I I
Z __ ail
0
Ed.[ang wrlprwGmenF. rro[ bca[ed. , ? N
! p Nb scale
4 2 i J Serng 5 feat,, -dth and ado r.?g lot
Gnus and 10 feet In mdth and adJamng
right of way;, e5.
.,d_-
I I
I+ Ito
I I
_ 1%aao a5.gq i
N 89°29'41" W 200.00oc
�r
1 I
I
Aepegay owA m._ e: 1
4601a�d. 065
0 II
,
I
5E. Laaa Pars; MN 55416 I
I
Brncaarmk. Top ole dhydmd m hdeeecdm oP
67,d AV.�ac Nmlb end IyaiaiBne Aa+e, N, e.weleewgea..inee.
TdeValim=574.84 kn
SCALE IN FEET
0 20 40 SO
11/1 F
ELIMINARY PLAT FOR:
EW HOPE
28
77 NOTES:
Plap"AM—; GM LS&W. Are. N.. New Hap.. MN 55428
Pmpany IdanSFDOM Ntmhm pr.119QW%.881]
Enledne Imine Opm.kall.n-R-4 Hlgh Daly Rentlm111d DWI
PlnpoW mn`g clnaairyoLlon-R-281nglo- and Nro- FamAY l2eeftlenrt.l T7777'Y777
LOTRELIUM MSIVTSFDAR-2
Lol Me:8Atg1xIA
LUL YAdm:IOtwel
Buutlbg Hagrt 21R' elwlm IX 82 h.! svhldleverls OreaOer.
Raepind S.W., 9elNlnb fer R -T.
Fmnl Yard: 25 feel
sm.ram' 10fee1-Yeuee,5laelgn, jn
Rear Yard: 25 Wt
TddA.. of Fmpery=50000.4ft
Toll numb—1 pmpvaad Lah= 2
Me mpmpmed Loh
W71 - 12750 eqA
La12 - 127505gA
Owner.
Eammmn: Devebpmenl Au Nmtyd New Hope
4401 W. Areola N
Nee Hope, MN 55129
Oly Cf Nm Hope 1 Cunmun.y I]ewluIXnem
4401 Xy.. Avenue N
New Hope, MN F m
Aun: A— CWT.h ]535315714
Legal Description
Th. Nanth 1SO fam ofd. Fsa120o fendhmw fh. N.alhaa.t QuaHer atb.
Northwea[ Qu.rtcrM3na5m 5, iowalsldp ]]8, Rangc2l, ly1Hg south af.11na
dasm3ed m fo0oays: Co.uaencing m a pohp in tha north Base of the Noss6eest
Qumlea644.5fam Eaulfrancieamtkw srmoaa-41he.ae Southxx Iy.L
m anile m the right of 104 degree4 40 minim. a dish.ce of 289.8 t at to ie aahlal
poi.1 of bcgimin8 uftha Lha b ba dnmb,d, dumce wee m u poim 9n the re01a
line n£nw lelY HighaaydisHma1275.61 ful a]swhlaMciy from theddi line
of said Section.
(Title amanitmene shaving legal deaedptian and eneements ofsermd notpmvidedl
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Mc DONALDS ADDITION TO
CITY OF NEW HOPE
Far:
City of New hope
CERTIFICATION
ma. nA'eaemarlk.mxn em.am RW d m Mor Imomla5an Roalded by r L
Iwdiry wal..aplan. epvaabatlen, ar repodvrea prep by
er aider my deo aupervlelm, ene.ar I ama.1y U®,wVd
Mb 8urwyar WerSrlwra d eb 81Ne el MHraeda
Oa4ntl lh�17drymry,P018////a7 � y///j
Gnp.yR mn.IMp. w. 248
SURVEYS COMPANY INC.
AANp sLvWE117R5
1501 75RD A4-ENVE N.
OR(1OK4YN PARK, MN 65928
]8.9-5863003 ph -
7855808. I-
ewn
IfelhislPGW7Mtlp Faun 105548 hmla an 547114
F.ee yd- 115-21-hl—rat-keen.ldeadd—be.V.4,ewh"-nm„'eFeM16.+�reryFieE 8h7@4.drq
+
C1rYlE'AEW
MCDONALDS ADDITION TO CITY OF NEW HOPE
I
a
e�0 I a
z
LLI
8 I � j Q
e
n $
I r
- m NBB°2an•w2aad'o'T
w
o�_________________________-_� �______________� Z
Z I I j O S
y
W 200.00
I
I ! v
i
N><arxu.exxxn:sm naasp PnPSRxrs, Tml ua�Nn.Jln�r Sram,ndromd�r Aodmriy,e Mlnnaoa Pnwlr h:ay."'Pm•mn"drd=�a��'�.,o.l er ldl,,.;.�,r@.n..1:rt riny.nmalr G,nm.aF:l:nin snn�
Tha Ym3150fm Wdu Faar2110fm NIMl gnotVheN¢WwI Q,eNvnldc Wrtlwa Qm.urof5aneu 5,Tm-od�iFl 11 A, &:nge 2l, hfN�^�^falineA Yrd aa[o0onx fummmomgarapoirc n1¢omhFlrknfineVnnl,�. Q�unu Waa fm
xael Num d�m.vn,..,l a,r°r.a:wga,.nr_s'."1'�¢,Ny.,a"rn�_ma""4!'r.fllu'L�'r.,wnnllnll,..d;rl»nr<nrmm�._r.mrn�-..,nlie,rurn.�:mins�rrh.n'.wn,l..�roa:�nrn,.u'rr,,.l.:r.mar am.r n...,rrna�.rk xllg,vr
dlwov zaul e� mua:mee,lys,m, de amd, I.e n(.md sKan.
HwavmeJ Jc nese mb. s,:r. rycJ rod pLmlu Mv1xyR.1LO5 wn1'IxoN'In cn�' cIPYries x11PF. ,m,l d,ee 6ercF-,L.Lae mile I"hti. 6+c P'Jdk �r 5v...r tlu pnhbe wa, and M. n cmmn C.Al areadrvunYe PR'."- r eh,n>, a, aepNn
lnrimcu vbl,¢rsdd.Cla o!?tLvil,.[<f.,mem�nelrynmw.imhevly.vPf or. Wltie buM.urynx:vdpJuc, hvrwecd rhrxpn,ev wbeag¢d b, binW'*nFwalN>_a.r,J 3Fl�
CITYr NL- 110Hi[CONUYrCDeYEIAPM!'hl'U.TIIU&rdY
BY
SrATn OIuLiv�LSOTh
[UVLV2'S' OF
'INe furchoiliyircmnxrn we uSewirJY.J bcrtvc "et1:;_'6s u! 2D aafWye(Mee x„pe Pu.unuenn i,gnerc AwU.iy,
nn hchelFM tle.,nlwndm-
�'nnry l'uMk .'¢9�PPlmrn�n. NI'fu,neraim h'P"c"
I Cnfl¢.3.['me�du MrcbynudfT durdis phreea PrcprcdMmcmom:rvgdincx wprnhlabsdvlem.tl.Irinnxe3laed smv.mru de3ly.,><al:ue.om, der rFin pluha<urmlupnanedin oFlAc homdur T:Ihndm.x.,—.�..I dcn and h3c].att
rmNy'deiyarcd an ddnylee rhes ell mon,m<ra Mpincd un diLplu 6mxbcm.re mu be«r+rcty l¢rady, �neyvn.ien.0 wrc.• .. nM rerhMros 4fi«dmMin¢.um 9uwu5¢lim'11A1t1.Slfod. ]smucbe Ma nYtlIN ¢mran: en vlwen netl
5 .kdwzhb ph,; Ne.
OUNIWr a..u[ m—
G�Lpertly1mdSunyuc
nATEArnnrwn lienee Nk:AYY2
.N
(11'NINNY.SeTT.1
WcNrr OP IJlinnxPllr
11d,:,m,mmre9. aAe,>o"eya h.rnnmr nn dae_a,ynr _w�br x'�,n.P..,rh.
QY,unr?a Pdued NNv) uom?146P C ;, in,llmurnn. NT «mw'wim c�ixe
U7IIlIY6 aWNAGE EA5EMPMS
ARP VIC"THIS:
I s
No scar
Bei; s cee m mgr. ,ma:yc.wy �
N,az.>r�d Ior�r,A lwu,ad:damn
FORn R MMB OFT MRAT TYEE UNE OF
1MENY!1MOF9EMIONCWO MIP118, RNNOE2115
145SUmwwuE uuUn100.MWWEST.
SCALE IN FEET
0 40 60 720
xarora I� Irn•.r,eY !<xlvr x-! rvr nes n.neNr
I 9Ff AHO Mn,TFCJ dveyduSFN„rk�r 2a992,
IaNtss omexxn5e Nolro
* (A'YOi�IIX/A"!!?A1Yr..bON Pd'F NP'tP1'M
Iw-_r95 oamcixx Noso
�1+, wxoa-s curAswnrczY,>,w�r. uNlrs, orrr,_,as-Noay.
The Gregory Group, IncL d.b.a.
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY
LAND SURVEYORS
ca,my<�x w,_x:c .,d. _ _
le.dmra..nnr«Ire;qr,-nr Px,a Hnye,aNilmem pW,l'eh,W;mrtnnueaod r^FldaTu r.med d„Ie pre.ennml.ezpoea Winlarvau nPoren rM�day nr .2},_
I.rn nr1aF� xnRa
Sy By
Ch1'�L
9IAlT. IIT MMTR4rYl'A
rx11:>,n'rn�
FF X,-PVnra.eemse,.cN. w., b tlSYfinc rin ddr_ b60 rL—. h'R<�n L�WURI'T, �fnlo+
Qn of i:.v �i't• ♦rmmc w. w., IvdT c>7n+nmmd Pnl.Vc, ,., 6ehdf niuld w'iwn'en
(iAncrurc)
(1,arnN mme)
�liure PAlr Cnumy, IAnoevna
\f. GnnmVniun P.cryro
9TSInTSN'r A�111 RPJ.l. R4TA'IR SFAl'If.FS. Hennelanf y,\f dnti
t NcrM¢mr}rhu tlec rues rylahlc lovxl ln:m ymnlnrchrmPrid kw l.nJ daen7,eJ rm Al, pe.nrrw lSS_dynf 2f�.
?,fu l Y. Clm ry,,, Om¢Pue [®II Nnddec
SLmVkYnlviSlUN. n.mr.pv CanIT, Alhvxrw
Av-.,enluN m,e3mlma,5mJ931iib5 h'Jd✓rxe pl.r Fes ben ennm,d.nb_aeor
ITd'r..Yxb, NrnnPln l;nunn�Sulvcyrn i1Y
eornn• nSr.Genxq n.nmwn cnnn I., �m I.
1hrnSYn,drp d,e de MlTMydrsolMr➢ON0.1]150.nOTt%Ri TnCY1Y UPxE9C HOPP. a,arameLd'nl lMsuFlkc ddednYN M___„
_tdeek_nt
AIeWO MnCmdQ, xelimpin Caunly Remrdn eJ' ry4nly
M1M1V mnur�dYySee. S. Teep. IIB.R21 56
MittePn �'vY Ha' mores ,dR n\a[
__
ra+.+W: ee-. 5. ey f/B•R21
669.9l2TF26l9.9d1a�
NPemtwe BY'WE les IN Cf9lf9 - ___.__.__.__.____._._._._._J,___.__.__._____._______
7
Peer
{ 6d!
I
T
X11 __. r.__
��__.___._.__.____._,____.____
-NW
lie .yrn Gouuy-•^r kmu, Iemr Jaw
II
r!r !1
�r
Co¢9x.(5,T
F4 b
i!r_
I
I
Ilb
IIVJ
N
I
!I
' N 89°2S'41' W 200,00
4 'r
1l111��
I
a
e�0 I a
z
LLI
8 I � j Q
e
n $
I r
- m NBB°2an•w2aad'o'T
w
o�_________________________-_� �______________� Z
Z I I j O S
y
W 200.00
I
I ! v
i
N><arxu.exxxn:sm naasp PnPSRxrs, Tml ua�Nn.Jln�r Sram,ndromd�r Aodmriy,e Mlnnaoa Pnwlr h:ay."'Pm•mn"drd=�a��'�.,o.l er ldl,,.;.�,r@.n..1:rt riny.nmalr G,nm.aF:l:nin snn�
Tha Ym3150fm Wdu Faar2110fm NIMl gnotVheN¢WwI Q,eNvnldc Wrtlwa Qm.urof5aneu 5,Tm-od�iFl 11 A, &:nge 2l, hfN�^�^falineA Yrd aa[o0onx fummmomgarapoirc n1¢omhFlrknfineVnnl,�. Q�unu Waa fm
xael Num d�m.vn,..,l a,r°r.a:wga,.nr_s'."1'�¢,Ny.,a"rn�_ma""4!'r.fllu'L�'r.,wnnllnll,..d;rl»nr<nrmm�._r.mrn�-..,nlie,rurn.�:mins�rrh.n'.wn,l..�roa:�nrn,.u'rr,,.l.:r.mar am.r n...,rrna�.rk xllg,vr
dlwov zaul e� mua:mee,lys,m, de amd, I.e n(.md sKan.
HwavmeJ Jc nese mb. s,:r. rycJ rod pLmlu Mv1xyR.1LO5 wn1'IxoN'In cn�' cIPYries x11PF. ,m,l d,ee 6ercF-,L.Lae mile I"hti. 6+c P'Jdk �r 5v...r tlu pnhbe wa, and M. n cmmn C.Al areadrvunYe PR'."- r eh,n>, a, aepNn
lnrimcu vbl,¢rsdd.Cla o!?tLvil,.[<f.,mem�nelrynmw.imhevly.vPf or. Wltie buM.urynx:vdpJuc, hvrwecd rhrxpn,ev wbeag¢d b, binW'*nFwalN>_a.r,J 3Fl�
CITYr NL- 110Hi[CONUYrCDeYEIAPM!'hl'U.TIIU&rdY
BY
SrATn OIuLiv�LSOTh
[UVLV2'S' OF
'INe furchoiliyircmnxrn we uSewirJY.J bcrtvc "et1:;_'6s u! 2D aafWye(Mee x„pe Pu.unuenn i,gnerc AwU.iy,
nn hchelFM tle.,nlwndm-
�'nnry l'uMk .'¢9�PPlmrn�n. NI'fu,neraim h'P"c"
I Cnfl¢.3.['me�du MrcbynudfT durdis phreea PrcprcdMmcmom:rvgdincx wprnhlabsdvlem.tl.Irinnxe3laed smv.mru de3ly.,><al:ue.om, der rFin pluha<urmlupnanedin oFlAc homdur T:Ihndm.x.,—.�..I dcn and h3c].att
rmNy'deiyarcd an ddnylee rhes ell mon,m<ra Mpincd un diLplu 6mxbcm.re mu be«r+rcty l¢rady, �neyvn.ien.0 wrc.• .. nM rerhMros 4fi«dmMin¢.um 9uwu5¢lim'11A1t1.Slfod. ]smucbe Ma nYtlIN ¢mran: en vlwen netl
5 .kdwzhb ph,; Ne.
OUNIWr a..u[ m—
G�Lpertly1mdSunyuc
nATEArnnrwn lienee Nk:AYY2
.N
(11'NINNY.SeTT.1
WcNrr OP IJlinnxPllr
11d,:,m,mmre9. aAe,>o"eya h.rnnmr nn dae_a,ynr _w�br x'�,n.P..,rh.
QY,unr?a Pdued NNv) uom?146P C ;, in,llmurnn. NT «mw'wim c�ixe
U7IIlIY6 aWNAGE EA5EMPMS
ARP VIC"THIS:
I s
No scar
Bei; s cee m mgr. ,ma:yc.wy �
N,az.>r�d Ior�r,A lwu,ad:damn
FORn R MMB OFT MRAT TYEE UNE OF
1MENY!1MOF9EMIONCWO MIP118, RNNOE2115
145SUmwwuE uuUn100.MWWEST.
SCALE IN FEET
0 40 60 720
xarora I� Irn•.r,eY !<xlvr x-! rvr nes n.neNr
I 9Ff AHO Mn,TFCJ dveyduSFN„rk�r 2a992,
IaNtss omexxn5e Nolro
* (A'YOi�IIX/A"!!?A1Yr..bON Pd'F NP'tP1'M
Iw-_r95 oamcixx Noso
�1+, wxoa-s curAswnrczY,>,w�r. uNlrs, orrr,_,as-Noay.
The Gregory Group, IncL d.b.a.
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY
LAND SURVEYORS
ca,my<�x w,_x:c .,d. _ _
le.dmra..nnr«Ire;qr,-nr Px,a Hnye,aNilmem pW,l'eh,W;mrtnnueaod r^FldaTu r.med d„Ie pre.ennml.ezpoea Winlarvau nPoren rM�day nr .2},_
I.rn nr1aF� xnRa
Sy By
Ch1'�L
9IAlT. IIT MMTR4rYl'A
rx11:>,n'rn�
FF X,-PVnra.eemse,.cN. w., b tlSYfinc rin ddr_ b60 rL—. h'R<�n L�WURI'T, �fnlo+
Qn of i:.v �i't• ♦rmmc w. w., IvdT c>7n+nmmd Pnl.Vc, ,., 6ehdf niuld w'iwn'en
(iAncrurc)
(1,arnN mme)
�liure PAlr Cnumy, IAnoevna
\f. GnnmVniun P.cryro
9TSInTSN'r A�111 RPJ.l. R4TA'IR SFAl'If.FS. Hennelanf y,\f dnti
t NcrM¢mr}rhu tlec rues rylahlc lovxl ln:m ymnlnrchrmPrid kw l.nJ daen7,eJ rm Al, pe.nrrw lSS_dynf 2f�.
?,fu l Y. Clm ry,,, Om¢Pue [®II Nnddec
SLmVkYnlviSlUN. n.mr.pv CanIT, Alhvxrw
Av-.,enluN m,e3mlma,5mJ931iib5 h'Jd✓rxe pl.r Fes ben ennm,d.nb_aeor
ITd'r..Yxb, NrnnPln l;nunn�Sulvcyrn i1Y
eornn• nSr.Genxq n.nmwn cnnn I., �m I.
1hrnSYn,drp d,e de MlTMydrsolMr➢ON0.1]150.nOTt%Ri TnCY1Y UPxE9C HOPP. a,arameLd'nl lMsuFlkc ddednYN M___„
_tdeek_nt
AIeWO MnCmdQ, xelimpin Caunly Remrdn eJ' ry4nly
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 2, 2016
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; Chair Schmidt called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Steve Svendsen, Christopher McKenzie, Greg Gehring, Bill
Smith, Christopher Hanson, Jim Brinkman, Torn Schmidt,
Roger Landy, Scott Clark
Absent: None
Also Present: Jeff Sargent, Director of Community Development; Aaron
Chirpich, Community Development Specialist; Stacy Woods,
Assistant City Attorney; Al Brixius, City Planner; Chris Long,
City Engineer; Eve Lomaistro, Recording Secretary
NEW BUSINESS None
PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schmidt introduced Item 4.1, request for preliminary and final plat
Planning Case 16-02 approval, a rezoning of property from R-4, High Density Residential to PUD,
Item 4.1 Planned Unit Development, and a Site Plan Review for the construction of a
four-story, 183 -unit high amenity luxury apartment community, 8400 Bass
Lake Road, Alatus LLC, petitioner.
Mr. Aaron Chirpich, Community Development Specialist, gave
background on the planning case, elaborating that the city's Economic
Development Authority purchased the property in 2008 and demolished
the five 12 -unit apartment buildings on the site in preparation for future
redevelopment. Alatus, LLC was identified in 2015 as the preferred
developer of the site. The proposed development includes a 183 -unit, four-
story luxury apartment community with several high-end amenities.
Chirpich reviewed the platting requirements with the Planning
Commission and explained that Hennepin County will need to review the
plat to determine that the right-of-way and site access points are
acceptable. Chirpich also indicated that there are several existing
easements that will need to be vacated and several future easements that
need to be added in order for the project to be approved.
Next, Chirpich discussed the proposal to rezone the property from R-4,
High Density Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development, and went
over the required findings needed to rezone properties in New Hope. He
explained that the PUD zoning district would allow the City Council to
give flexibilities to the applicant pertaining to site design and architecture.
He explained that because of the size of the property, Alatus has requested
to take advantage of the PUD flexibilities in the following areas: Lot
density, needed to increase lot density from 24 units per acre to 52 units per
acre; Parking, to allow a reduction in the required number of parking stalls
from 2.25 per unit to 1.41 per unit; Building setbacks, to allow the patios
and porches to encroach into the required side and rear property lines.
Chirpich went on to describe the project's vehicular access into the site and
the circulation of the traffic within the site, reiterating that Hennepin
County would need to approve the relocation of the golf course driveway,
as it will be shifted onto Alatus' land, and used jointly with them. Along
with the joint use of the entry along Bass Lake Road, Chirpich also pointed
out that Alatus will rebuild the trash enclosure on the golf course property
and jointly use the location for their trash storage needs. This would
require PUD flexibility, as the trash enclosure is located too close to the
property line, as well as an easement for the joint use.
In relation to the usable open space and landscaping, Chirpich cited that
the proposed design was well thought out and impressive. The applicants
propose to place some trees within the Yukon Avenue right-of-way, which
would be allowed through the PUD zoning.
Chirpich briefly reviewed the project's proposed grading, drainage and
storm water retention areas, and explained that these elements are still
being engineered and will be finalized at a later date.
Mr. Chris Long, City Engineer, spoke about the site's needed utility
upgrades and the possibility of the city constructing a new lift station and
grinder station to help service the golf course and the proposed project. Mr.
Long also explained that the water line along Yukon Avenue would most
likely need to be upsized to accommodate the new project's capacity.
Mr. Aaron Chirpich continued the presentation by outlining the proposed
building elevations, the use of building materials, proposed signage and
the proposed lighting for the project. He stated that the building materials
were acceptable, although they did not precisely meet the requirements of
the Design Guidelines. He suggested that the proposed building materials
should be approved through the PUD zoning process.
Last, Chirpich stated that the proposal meets all the findings to support the
approval of the proposed site plan.
Property owners within 1,000 feet of the parcel were notified by mail and a
legal notice was published in the SunPost newspaper.
Chirpich concluded that staff recommended approval of the preliminary
plat, the rezoning of the property from R-4, Multiple -Family Residential to
PUD, Planned Unit Development and approval of the site plan.
When the opportunity for questions to staff arose, Commissioner Brinkman
asked when Hennepin County would approve the application. Chirpich
responded by informing Brinkman that Hennepin County reviews the plat
concurrent with staff's review and that staff would require the findings
from Hennepin County before the final plat is approved. Brinkman next
Planning Commission Meeting 2 March 2, 2016
asked whether all of the trash generated by the Alatus development would
go to the proposed trash enclosure, or if some would be stored onsite.
Chirpich indicated that all of the garbage would be disposed of in the trash
enclosure and that trash pick-up would be every other day.
Commissioner Clark commented that from a regulatory standpoint, zoning
ordinances typically cannot deal with a redevelopment property the way
they typically do with a normal vacant piece of property, and that the
proposed project is located on a very difficult, small site, so there is a need
for a Planned Unit Development. He then commended the developer and
his team, along with staff for proposing a fabulous project. The investment
into the community of over $30 million will help catapult other
redevelopment that could happen in the city. He felt that the parking
analysis performed by the developer shows that what is being proposed
for parking is more in line with the market's needs and he is confident that
the developer would not proposed building a project that is under parked.
Commissioner McKenzie asked about the status of burying the overhead
utility lines along Bass Lake Road from Yukon to Winnetka Avenue.
Chirpich indicated that staff is currently working with Xcel Energy to get
an estimate for the cost to bury the lines for the entire stretch. Director
Sargent added that a more comprehensive approach will be made to
ensure that the north side of the Bass Lake Road corridor becomes more
aesthetically appealing as a result of the project, including spacing out
street lights and removing existing power poles. McKenzie then questioned
whether the proposed upgrading of the waterline along Yukon Avenue
would trigger a large street project. Chirpich indicated that the waterline is
located in the right-of-way and should not require a disturbance of the
street when it's upsized.
Chair Schmidt motioned the applicant to come forward. Dan Werry from
Alatus presented himself to help answer questions. Commissioner
Svendsen questioned the traffic study and was concerned about the
potential stacking problems that might arise in the morning peak hours
with traffic trying to leave the site. Mr. Werry stated that there would be
about a two-second waiting period for traffic leaving the site and they
didn't think stacking would pose a problem.
Commissioner Smith asked whether the underground parking had two
dead -ends as part of the design, as was shown on the plans. Tod Elkins, the
project architect, stated that there are dead -ends, but each tenant would be
assigned their own spot. This would alleviate concerns of people having to
back out of the dead-end area when trying to find an open space.
Chair Schmidt inquired if anyone in the audience wished to address the
Commission. Being that no one spoke, he asked for a motion to close the
Public Hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 March 2, 2016
Motion Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 16-02, request for a Subdivision and Preliminary
Plat approval for 8400 Bass Lake Road, Alatus, LLC, petitioner, with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall pay a park dedication in the amount of $17,650
prior to recording the final plat.
2. The plat and title is subject to the review and approval of the City
Attorney.
3. The existing easements running through the center of the property
are vacated.
4. The final plat must establish all necessary new easements. Easement
locations and sizes must be approved by the City Engineer.
5. An easement for the applicant to extend storm sewer across the
property line into the golf course pond must be created and recorded
separate from the plat.
6. An access easement between the applicant and the city for the shared
curb cut and driveway must be created and recorded separate from
the plat.
7. An access easement must be crated and recorded separate from the
plat outlining the shard usage of the trash enclosure.
Voting in favor: Svendsen, McKenzie, Gehring, Smith, Hanson, Brinkman,
Schmidt, Landy, Clark
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion approved 9-0
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 16-02, a rezoning of the property to PUD, Planned
Unit Development and Development Stage Approval, 8400 Bass Lake Road,
Alatus, LLC, petitioner, with the following conditions:
1. The developer shall enter into a development agreement and a
PIanned Unit Development agreement with the city. This
agreement will include, but not be limited to the following:
« The plan set may be amended that defines the physical
composition of the site and building.
« Language allowing easement and right-of-way
encroachments.
Planning Commission Meeting 4 March 2, 2016
G Language for shared use of the proposed trash enclosure.
W Language for maintenance of shared facilities.
• Language indemnifying the city from any damage to private
improvements located in easements or rights-of-way.
• Language that outlines the responsibility of the owner to
restore private improvements located in easements and
rights-of-way should they be damaged.
• Language that addresses any of the agreed upon operations
that are integral to this development.
2. The city approve the development stage plans date 2-19-16 for a 183
unit apartment building with a parking ratio of 1.41 stalls per unit
for the property located at 8400 Bass Lake Road.
3. The city approve the requested setback encroachments for the decks
located on the south and east side of the building.
4. The city approves the requested setback encroachment for the drive
isles, service drive and parking lot on the east side of the building.
S. The access onto Bass Lake Road is approved by Hennepin County.
6. The site plans be revised to provide seven disability parking stalls.
7. The applicant provides a snow removal plan for the site that includes
provisions for clearing snow from the public sidewalks surround the
site.
8. The location of the proposed trash enclosure shall not interfere with
the design, location or operation of the city sanitary sewer project
along the sites east property line.
9. The applicant shall provide a description of how disability parking
users in the east parking lot will access the building.
10. The site plan shall provide a pedestrian connection to the golf
course.
11. The overhead utilities on the perimeter of the site shall be buried.
12. The City Engineer and Watershed District shall review and approve
the site grading and storm water management plans.
13. The applicant shall enter into a storm water maintenance and
management agreement with the City (to be prepared by the City
Attorney).
Planning Commission Meeting 5 March 2, 2016
14. The site utility plan shall be subject to review and final approval by
the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and Public Works.
15. The applicant will work the city and City Engineer to coordinate the
proposed sanitary sewer improvements along the eastern property
line.
16. The city shall approve the exterior building finishes as proposed on
the elevation plans dated 2-19-16.
17. The applicant shall submit a new cross section illustrating rooftop
equipment screened from a point across the street from the project
site.
18. The applicant shall shift the freestanding sign north to provide for
the required 10 -foot setback.
19. The applicant shall provide sign details for the proposed traffic
control signs.
20. The applicant will agree to work with the city to develop plans for
enhancements of the shared storm water pond located on the golf
course.
21. The applicant shall provide financial guarantee and performance
bond for landscaping and site improvements (amount to be
determined by City Engineer and building official).
22. The applicant will provide record plans or as -built drawings to the
city following project completion.
Voting in favor: Svendsen, McKenzie, Gehring, Smith, Hanson, Brinkman,
Schmidt, Landy, Clark
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion approved 9-0
Planning Case 16-03 Chair Schmidt introduced Item 4.2, request for variance related to lot width
Item 4.2 and lot area to complete a parcel subdivision at 4415 Nevada Avenue North,
City of New Hope Economic Development Authority, petitioner.
Mr. Aaron Chirpich, Community Development Specialist, gave
background on the planning case. The New Hope Economic Development
Authority purchased the property in July of 2015, with the intent to
subdivide the property to create two single-family Iots. The property has
been demolished and cleaned up in preparation for construction.
Chirpich explained what the minimum lot with and lot area standards
were for the R-1, Single -Family Residential district, and that in order to
split the property into two equally sized lots, a variance for both lot area
Planning Commission Meeting 6 March 2, 2016
and lot width on each of the properties would be required. He stated that
on two separate occasions in the past, an applicant requested the
subdivision and variance requests needed to split this property, and that
on each occasion, the City Council approved the requests. One request was
in 1963 and the other in 1974.
Next, Chirpich reviewed the zoning code criteria needed for the City
Council to approve variances for lot width and lot area, and indicated that
staff concluded that the findings support the approval of the requested
variances for the project.
Last, Chirpich stated that the property would be subject to pay a park
dedication fee of $1,500 for the subdivision.
Property owners within 350 feet of the parcel were notified by mail and a
legal notice was published in the SunPost newspaper.
Chirpich concluded that staff recommended approval of requested lot area
and lot width variances needed to subdivide the property into two
buildable lots at 4415 Nevada Avenue.
When the opportunity for questions to staff arose, Commissioner Svendsen
questioned whether approving the variances for a substandard lot would
set precedence for future developers wanting to subdivide small lots.
Director Sargent responded by saying that each variance request is unique
in its own right and should be reviewed independently. He also stated that
the Planning Commission and City Council should consider each request
in relation to the neighborhood, the size of the variance request and any
other issues that might play into the decision before acting on the request.
Pertaining to the variance request in this case, Sargent felt that the request
was a reasonable use of the land and should be approved. Alan Brixius,
City Planner, pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan was very specific
about the potential redevelopment of this area for single-family
development. Commissioner Clark stated that the proposal made sense
based on the lot width to lot depth ratio that would result after the
subdivision and single-family homes would work on the newly created
lots.
Commissioner Brinkman referred to a past City Council action denying a
lot split that would have resulted in the construction of two single-family
homes built with three -car garages and asked whether the Planning
Commission could make a condition of approval that no three -car garages
could be constructed. Chirpich indicated that most likely, two -car garages
would be constructed, but that staff would be open to a three -car garage
plan if it fit properly on the lot.
Chair Schmidt inquired if anyone in the audience wished to address the
Commission. Being that no one spoke, he asked for a motion to close the
Public Hearing.
Planning Commission Meeting 7 March 2, 2016
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Motion Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to
Item 4.2 approve PIanning Case 16-03, request for a request for variance related to lot
width and lot area to complete a parcel subdivision at 4415 Nevada Avenue
North, City of New Hope Economic Development Authority, petitioner, with
the following conditions:
1. Upon completion of the minor subdivision, the city shall pay park
dedication fees totaling $1,500.
2. The Iot areas and Iot widths depicted on the submitted certificate of
survey are approved.
Voting in favor: Svendsen, McKenzie, Gehring, Smith, Hanson, Brinkman,
Schmidt, Landy, Clark
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion approved 9-0
COMMITTEE REPORTS Chair Schmidt stated the next Design & Review Committee meeting is
Design and Review scheduled for Thursday, march 17, 2016. It is expected there will be at least
Committee one case to review.
Item 5.1
Codes and Standards Chair Schmidt stated the next Codes & Standards Committee has not yet
Committee been scheduled.
Item 5.2
NEW BUSINESS No New Business.
Item 6.1
OLD BUSINESS Motion by Commissioner Svendsen seconded by Commissioner Brinkman,
Approval of Minutes to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 2, 2016. All
Item 7.1 present voted in favor. Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Landy questioned whether the redevelopment of the
property located at 3535 Winnetka was still a viable project now that it was
understood that the estimate for construction came in too high. Director
Sargent indicated that staff met with the owner and went over some different
financing options with them, so hopefully the project will proceed as
approved.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff Sargent, Community Development Director
Planning Commission Meeting 8 March 2, 2016