PL 08/06/03PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Wednesday, August 6, 2003
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONSENT BUSINESS
4. PUBLIC HEARING
· 4.1 Case 03-10
Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Motor Fuel Facility, a
Convenience Store with Gasoline and Car Wash and Site/Building
Plan Review, 9456 Medicine Lake Road, Sinclair Oil Corporation,
Petitioner
· 4.2 Case 03-14
Variance to Allow Construction of a Freestanding Sign Three Feet
From the Property Line, 9400 36th Avenue North, Randy Rau/
Brooklyn Center Service, Inc./The Perfect Car Wash, Petitioner
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1
5.2
Report of Design & Review Committee - August 14, 8 a.m.
Report of Codes & Standards Committee - August 28, 7 a.m.
6. OLD BUSINESS
6.1
Miscellaneous Issues
· Council Action on July Planning Cases
~' Klipstein variance, denied
6.2 City Center Task Force - Next meeting on August 7
7. NEW BUSINESS
7.1
7.2
7.3
Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 8, 2003
Review of City Council Minutes of June 23, 2003
Review of EDA Minutes of June 23, 2003
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. TI',
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.
Al If the Planning'Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the
planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this
meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting.
B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next
Commission meeting.
Planning Case:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: August 6, 2003
Report Date: August 1, 2003
03-10
Sinclair Oil Corporation
9456 Medicine Lake Road
Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Motor Fuel Facility, a Convenience Store with
Gasoline and Car Wash and Site/Building Plan Review
I1.
III.
Section 4-16(e)(4)h
Section 4-16(e)(5)
Section 4-16(e)(7)
Section 4-33
Section 4-35
Property Specifications
Zoning:
Location:
Request
The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a convenience store with gasoline and a
car wash and site/building plan review, pursuant to Sections 4-16(e)(4)h, 4-16(e)(5) and (7), 4-33 and
4-35 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
Zoning Code References
Conditional Uses CB, motor fuel faCility, canopy
Conditional Uses CB, convenience store with gasoline
Conditional Uses CB, car washes
Administration - Conditional use permit
Administration - Site plan review
Adjacent Land Uses:
Site Area:
Building Area:
CB, Community Business
The site is located on the northeast quadrant of Highway 169 and Medicine
Lake Road
Located directly to the north and east of the site are R-4 high density
residential apartments (Hillsboro Court), residential to the west across
Highway 169, and commercial properties to the south across Medicine Lake
Road.
39,999 square feet or .9183 acres
Lot Area Ratios:
Proposed building:
Proposed car wash:
Proposed canopy:
2,800 square feet
960 square feet
2,448 square feet
Existing Existing Proposed Proposed
Green area 25,664 square feet 64.16% 22,091 square feet 55%
Building area 1,157 square feet 2.89% 3,774 square feet 10%
Paved area 13,178 square feet 32.95% 14,135 square feet 35%
Planning Case Report 03-10 Page I 8/1/03
Planning District: No. 16; The Comprehensive Plan specifically identifies new commercial lart,L
uses in the southwest comer of this distdct through redevelopment of th
Sinclair gas station site.
IV. Background
Sinclair Oil Corporation proposes to construct improvements on its property at 9456 Medicine Lake
Road. The submitted site plan includes new motor fuel facilities, a new 2,800 square foot convenience
store, a new 960 square foot car wash building, and other site improvements. The project is proposed
to take place in two phases. The first phase would include replacing fuel storage tanks, pipes, and
dispensers and constructing a canopy over the dispensers. The second phase would include replacing
the existing building with a 35-foot by 80-foot convenience store and constructing a 24-foot by 40-foot
car wash building. The request requires site plan review and conditional use permits to allow a motor
fuel facility, a convenience store with gasoline, and a car wash.
V. Petitioner's Comments
The petitioner submitted correspondence dated June 27 with the original application. The narrative was
expanded upon with submission of their revised plans. The July 25 correspondence states, "Sinclair Oil
Corporation proposes to construct improvements on the Sinclair property at 9456 Medicine Lake Road.
The completed project will consist of new underground storage tanks, underground piping, fuel
dispensers, a canopy over the dispensers, a new convenience store, a new car wash building and
related appurtenances. A phased approach is proposed consisting of two phases. It is planned to
complete the first phase of construction during the summer and fall of 2003 and complete phase two
and finish the project during the summer of 2004.
"The first phase would consist of removing the existing islands, dispensers, piping, underground storage
tanks, etc. and installing new double wall fiberglass underground storage tanks, double wall product
piping, "pay-at-the pump" dispensers and a new canopy over the new dispensers. Two underground
storage tanks are proposed to be installed. These will consist of one 12,000-gallon tank for one product
and one 12,000-gallon compartmentalized tank, which will hold two products. The compartmentalized
tank will have one 7,000-gallon compartment and one 5,000-gallon compartment. Four dispensers are
proposed with controls and electronics to accept credit cards "at-the-pump." One 24-foot by 102-foot
canopy on eight columns is proposed to cover the dispensers. Canopy lighting will consist of 16 lights
mounted on the canopy deck. The lights will have fiat lenses and will be mounted flush with the canopy
deck panels.
"Phase two would consist of constructing a 35-foot by 80-foot convenience store and a 24-foot by 40-
foot car wash building with all the related equipment and controls. The existing building would be
removed. The final grades with all curbing, paving and perimeter lights are to be completed as the
buildings near completion. Landscaping is proposed to be completed as the entire project is finished.
"Sinclair Oil Corporation plans to operate this facility as a company location with company employees.
Three grades of petroleum are proposed to be offered for sale. Delivery of petroleum will be by Sinclair
Trucking and Sinclair can control delivery of product to specific times of the day. With the proposed
dispensing equipment, Sinclair will be installing the necessary controls to enable customers to purchase
petroleum on a 24-hour basis. The necessary signage, shutoff switches, phone locations, etc. will be
reviewed with city officials prior to installation during construction.
"The convenience store will offer cold and hot drinks with fast foods and general merchandise. Sinclair
does not display or offer outside sales on a regular basis. Should this type of sales be desired, Sinclair
would ask the city of New Hope for permission to do so and usually for a very short period, one-time
basis only. The car wash will operate in conjunction with the convenience store. Deliveries of supplies
for the convenience store and the car wash are planned to be accomplished through the front door of
the convenience store and through the side service door of the car wash.
Planning Case Report 03-10 Page 2 8/1/03
"Sinclair Oil Corporation plans to make a substantial monetary investment at this site and operate it for
many years into the future. Therefore, Sinclair Oil Corporation requests that the city of New Hope grant
a conditional use permit to construct and operate the proposed Sinclair convenience store with gasoline
sales and a car wash."
VI, Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified, as well as the cities of Plymouth and Golden
Valley, and staff has received no comments.
VII. Development Analysis
B. Zoninq Code Criteria
Site and Buildinq Plan Review
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 pdor to the issuance of any building
permits by the building official pursuant to the procedure established by this section.
In making recommendations and decisions upon site and building plan review applications, the staff,
Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the compliance of such plans with the following
standards:
1. Consistency with the various elements and objectives of the city's long range plans, including
but not limited to the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Consistency with the purposes of this code.
3. Preservation of the site in its natural state, insofar as practicable, by minimizing tree and soil
removal, and designing any grade changes so as to be in keeping with the general appearance of
neighboring developed or developing areas.
4. Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces with the terrain and with
existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the proposed development.
5. Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features including:
a. Creation of an internal sense of order for the various functions and building on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community.
b. Appropriateness of the amount and arrangement of open space and landscaping to the design
and function of the development.
c. Appropriateness of the materials, textures, colors, and details of construction as an expression
of the design concept of the project and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and
neighboring structures and functions.
d. Adequacy of vehicular, cycling and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, intedor drives
and parking, in terms of location and number of access points, general interior circulation,
separation of pedestrian, cycling and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking
so as to be safe, convenient and, insofar as practicable, compatible with the design of
proposed buildings, structures and neighboring properties.
6. Creation of an energy-conserving design through design, location, orientation and elevation of
structures, the use and location of glass in structures, and the use of landscape materials and
site grading.
7. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for such matters
as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and those
Planning Case Report 03-10 Page 3 8/1/03
aspects of design, not adequately covered by other regulations, which may have substanti~t
effects on neighboring land uses.
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 general welfare,
public health, and safety. In making this determination, to allow a conditional use permit application,
the city may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings, similar uses already in existence and
located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the
premises, or on any adjoining roads, and any other factors bearing on the general welfare, public
health, and safety from the approval of the conditional use permit.
2. Cdteria 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.
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. Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general cdteda, the proposed use meets the
criteda specified for the vadous zoning districts:
B. 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.
Conditional Uses, CB
(4) Auto repair (major and minor), motor fuel facilities is a conditional use in a CB district.
1. Safety - Regardless of whether the dispensing, sale or offering for sale of motor fuels and/or
oil is incidental to the conduct of the use or business, the standards and requirements
imposed by this code for motor fuel stations shall apply. These standards and requirements
are, however, in addition to other requirements which are imposed for other uses of the
property.
2. Motor fuel facilities - Motor fuel facilities are installed in accordance with state and city
standards. Additionally, adequate space shall be provided to access gas pumps and allow
maneuverability around the pumps. Underground fuel storage tanks are to be positioned to
allow adequate access by motor fuel transports and unloading operations do not conflict with
Planning Case Report 03-10 Page 4 8/1/03
circulation, access and other activities on the site. Fuel pumps shall be installed on pump
islands.
3. Area - Minor auto repair sites shall have a minimum lot area of 22,500 square feet. Major
auto repair sites shall have a minimum lot area of 30,000 square feet and minimum lot width
of 130 feet.
4. Compatibility - Motor fuel facilities shall be accompanied by a commercial building having a
minimum floor area of 1,600 square feet. The architectural appearance and functional plan of
the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or areas to cause
impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance
of the lot.
5. Surface/drainage - The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure or
plantings shall be surfaced with either concrete or bituminous to control dust and drainage.
Site surfacing and drainage are subject to the approval of the city.
6. Curbing - A curb not less than six inches above grade shall separate the public sidewalk
from motor vehicle service areas.
7. Green strip - At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than five feet shall
be landscaped and screened in compliance with subsection 4-3(d)(3) of this Code.
8. Canopy - Canopies located over pump islands shall be allowed as accessory structures
subject to the following specifications:
1. Canopy setbacks shall be a minimum of ten feet from the property line. Adequate visibility
both on and off site must also be maintained.
2. Canopies shall not be allowed in rear yards not abutting a public street.
3. Maximum canopy height may not exceed 20 feet, and shall provide a minimum clearance
of 14 feet.
4. Canopy facades may not exceed three feet in height.
5. Reflected glare or spill light may not exceed four-tenths foot candles, as measured on the
property line when abutting residentially zoned property and one foot candle measured
on the property line when abutting other commercial or industrially zoned property.
6. Signage may be allowed on the canopy as permitted in subjection 3-4(f)(5) of this Code.
9. Stacking - Magazining or stacking space is constructed with screening subject to the
approval of the city.
10. Pedestrian traffic - An internal site pedestrian circulation system shall be defined and
appropriate provisions made to protect such areas from encroachments by parked cars or
moving vehicles.
11. Noise - Noise control shall be as required in the noise control section of this Code.
12. Outside storage - No outdoor storage except as allowed in compliance with subsection 4-
16(e)(9) of this Code.
(5) Convenience store with gasoline - Grocery and/or food operations, with convenience gas (no
vehicle service or repair), provided that:
a. Permitted uses - The retail sales involve uses or activities which are allowed in LB and CB
districts.
Planning Case Report 03-10 Page 5 8/1/03
b. Sanitation - Any sale of food items is subject to the approval of the county who shall provid~
specific wdtten sanitary requirements for each proposed sale location based upon applicab.
state and county regulations.
c. Licenses - The non-automotive sales shall qualify for ad be granted an annual food handling,
retail sales license or other license, as circumstances shall require, in addition to the
conditional use permit.
d. Outdoor sales/display - Outdoor sales shall be subject to a separate conditional use permit
consistent with subsection 4-16(e)(3) of this Code.
e. Hours of operation - The hours of operation shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 12 p.m. unless
extended by the City Council.
f. Motor fuel facilities associated with a convenience store shall be subject to all the specifications
of an auto repair, as outlined in subsection 4-16(3)(4) of this Code.
(7) Car washes. Car washes (drive through, mechanical and self-service) provided that:
a. Compatibility - The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall
not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values
or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot.
b. Stacking - Magazining or stacking space is constructed, with screening, to accommodate that
number of vehicles which can be washed dudng a maximum 30-minute period and shall be
subject to the approval of the city.
c. Surfacing/drainage - The entire area other than occupied by the building or plantings shall be
surfaced with bituminous surfacing and surrounded by continuous perimeter concrete curbing.
Site surfacing and drainage is subject to the approval of the city.
d. Access - Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with
through traffic movement and shall be subject to the approval of the city.
e. Noise - Provisions are made to control and reduce noise in accordance with the noise control
provisions of this Code.
Development Review Team
The development review team reviewed the plans on July 16 and was supportive of the
redevelopment. The following comments were offered: show number of cars to be stacked in lane
for car wash, time limit of car wash and do doors close automatically, possible reduction in driveway
width, contact Hennepin County for curb cut permits, landscaping, irrigation system, signage, hours
of operation, lighting, water and sewer service, fire department connection, provide calculations for
storm water runoff, storm water pond or cash fee, site drainage, soil contamination with old tanks,
road easement along Medicine Lake Road, provide second exit from building, and correct current
encroachment on west side.
Design & Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner on July 17, was supportive of the
request, and discussed the same comments as reviewed by the development review team. There
was also additional discussion regarding screening on the east property line. Revised plans were
submitted by the applicant to address the issues raised by the review committees.
Plan Description
The revised plans include the following details:
Planning Case Report 03-10 Page 6 8/1/03
1. Site Data Summary-
Zoning CB - Community Business
Site Area 39,999 Sq. Ft. (.9183 Acres)
(Sq. Ft.) (%)
Building 3,774 10
Parking Lot/Sidewalks 14,135 35
Green 22,091 55
Total 39,999 100
2. Zoning - The property is zoned CB and the proposed uses are conditional uses in the CB,
Community Business District. There are no lot area or width minimums in this district.
3. Setbacks - The setback requirements for the CB district are compared to the site plan, as
follows:
Building Required Proposed Compliant?
Front: South 20 feet 105 feet Yes
Rear: North 30 feet 59 feet Yes
Side: East 10 feet 56 feet Yes
Side: West 20 feet 64 feet Yes
Canopy Required Proposed Compliant?
Front: South 10 feet 32 feet Yes
Side: East 10 feet 38 feet Yes
Side: West 10 feet 59 feet Yes
Height 20 feet maximum 16 feet Yes
Fac,,ade 3 feet maximum 3 feet Yes
The proposed buildings and paving comply with setback requirements. There are two existing
encroachments on the property. Paving that does not meet the side yard setback from the west
property line will be removed with Phase 2. Drive aisle paving from the apartments to the north
encroach slightly over the north property line. This existing condition will remain unchanged.
4. Road Easement - The submitted survey notes that the Hennepin County parcel map and
adjoining legal description refer to a seven-foot road easement along the south line of the
property; however, the certificate of title does not mention any such road easement. If the
easement does not exist, it should be provided as a condition of approval of this application.
5. Soil Conditions - Because this site has had a motor fuel station use, the applicant should
provide the city with documentation regarding whether any site contamination exists due to
current or previous uses.
6. Canopy - The proposed canopy over the pump islands complies with the setback, height,
clearance, and facade height requirements of Section 4.165(4)(h) of the Zoning Ordinance. The
canopy will be 16 feet high and 24 feet wide. The canopy will be 102 feet in length. The canopy
face will be three feet in height.
7. Required Parking - Motor fuel stations are required to have at least five off-street parking
spaces plus three off-street parking spaces for each service stall. There are no service stalls;
therefore, five parking spaces are required for the motor fuel station use. This requirement is
fulfilled by parking at the pump islands.
Planning Case Report 03-10 Page 7 8/1/03
The convenience store requires one off-street parking space for each 200 square feet of flo~,~
area. The convenience store has 2,520 square feet of net floor area (2,800 x .9); therefore, '~
parking spaces are required for this use. The plan complies with this requirement by providing
14 parking spaces. All of the parking spaces comply with the city's dimensional standards. One
ADA parking stall with ramp is provided in front of the C-store.
The parking summary is as follows:
Proposed Building Required Noted on Plan Actual Shown
Fuel Station - No Service 5
Convenience Store 13
14 14
ADA Parking Stalls
Surface Parkin~
8. Circulation and Curb Cuts - Transport tractor and trailer paths and a delivery truck path are
illustrated on the site plan. Drive aisles and curb cuts have been sized to accommodate truck
maneuvering. City engineer and city manager approval of the curb cuts are required because
they exceed 26 feet in width. Because the site is being redeveloped, the accesses are also
subject to Hennepin County review and approval.
9. Car Wash - The submitted building elevations illustrate that the car wash building is compatible
with the convenience store building. Car stacking for ten cars is illustrated on the site plan. The
applicant must provide information about water consumption related to the car wash.
10. Building Architecture - The proposed convenience store will have a red brick exterior finish
with a green metal roof. The architectural design represents a striking contrast to the existing
building on the site. The total area of the convenience store building is 2,800 square feet. The
building is 80 feet in length by 35 feet in width and is one story tall. The building is 19 ~ feet in
height. The total area of the car wash building is 24 feet by 40 feet or 960 square feet. The car
wash building is 17 feet in height.
Building materials will be consistent around each structure. Red brick will be used on the exterior of
the convenience store building on all sides. Red brick will also be used on all sides of the car wash.
The sides of the trash enclosure will be brick, the front of the trash enclosure appears to be wood
gates (material not specified). The roof will be metal on both the convenience store building and
car wash building. The color of both roofs will be green. The 13-foot by 24-foot mechanical
enclosure located at the northeast side of the convenience store will be brick.
The entryway will extend forward and will be mostly glass with a 15.2 square foot wall sign above
glass double doors. Two single doors will be on the rear of the building, one at the rear will access
the mechanical area and one will be an emergency exit. On each side of the entryway will be four
windows, totaling 259 square feet per side. Car wash exit and entrance doors, each being nine feet
wide and ten feet tall for a total area of 90 square feet, appear to be glass.
The 2,800 square foot convenience store will include the following areas: cashier area, food and
drink sales, food counters, accessible restrooms, coffee bar, four booths, walk-in cooler,
backroom office, and storage area.
11. Refuse Container/Enclosure - The refuse container will be stored in the trash enclosure. The site
plan shows the trash enclosure on the west side of the car wash stacking entrance. The trash
enclosure will be approximately 77 square feet. The exterior site elevations indicate that the trash
Planning Case Report 03-10 Page 8 8/1/03
enclosure will be a six-foot high wall with red bdck that will match the building. A decorative cap will be
placed on top of the enclosure wall. The gate appears to be wood.
12. Landscaping/Screening - Apartment garages are located north of the property and an
apartment building is located to the east. Screening of the proposed Sinclair parking lot and
stacking space is required. Nine Austrian pine trees will supplement existing deciduous trees
(Russian Olives) along the north property line. A six-foot high cedar fence is proposed along
much of the east property line for screening. The fence must provide a complete visual screen to
a minimum height of six feet. As noted in the lighting section of this report, the fence should
extend at least 25 feet further south than is shown on the site plan to provide screening of
bollard lights. Norway maple trees are proposed west of the fence. Three additional Norway
maple trees should be provided so that Norway maple trees are planted along the entire east
property line. The landscape plan notes that a system will be designed and installed to irrigate
landscape areas.
The boulevard area next to Medicine Lake Road is currently in rough condition. Staff
recommends that all of the grass in the boulevard area be replaced with sod and the sidewalk
be repaired or replaced as necessary. This work should be done in Phase 1 of the project.
The landscape schedule provided is as follows:
Item Size Quantity Actual
Noted Shown
Yew-Taxus Cuspidata 18"-24" 11 11
Euonymas Alatus Compacta 5 Gal 5 5
Viburnum, Willow Wood 5 Gal 3 3
Pinus Redcone, Dwarf Austrian Pine 5 Gal 1 1
Day Lilly I Gal 26 26
Juniper, Calgary Carpet 5 Gal 8 8
Pine, Mugho 5 Gal 8 8
Pine, Austrian 4'-5' 9 9
Acer/Plantinoides, Norway Maple 8'-10' 6 6
Rhus Aromatica "Gro-Low" (Low Grow Fragrant 35 35
Sumac)
Asclepias Inclamnata (Marsh Milkweed - Lowest 4" Pots 50 45
Area)
Heliopsos Helianthoides (Early Sun Flower) 4" Pots 50 44
Total Items 212 201
All disturbed areas will receive sod. Eleven thousand one hundred and fifty square feet of the
site is planned for sod. As requested at the Design & Review Committee meeting, sod will be
replaced in the entire boulevard area. The majority of the west and north portion of the property
will receive sod. Existing grass along the north property line and the east side of the property are
planned to remain and be undisturbed.
Several trees will remain undisturbed on the site. Twenty Russian Olive trees at the north end of
the site are proposed to be retained. Also, three pine trees will not be disturbed, one on the east
side of the property and two on the west.
The following new landscaping is proposed for the site:
Eleven yew - taxus cuspidata will be placed along the northern base of the building. Five
euonymas alatus compacta will be placed along the western base of the building. Three
viburnum, willow wood will be placed between the yew - taxus cuspidata on the northern portion
Planning Case Report 03-10 Page 9 811103
of the building. One pinus redcone, dwarf Austrian pine will be placed at the west entrance of tl~
car wash stacking lane. Twenty-six day lilies will be planted on the site, 12 east of the e~,._
parking lot entrance off Medicine Lake Road, nine at the west entrance of the car wash stacking
lane and five lining the base of the southwest corner monument sign. Eight juniper, calgary
carpets will be placed east of the east parking lot entrance off Medicine Lake Road. Eight
muhgo pines will be planted at the site, six east of the east parking lot entrance off of Medicine
Lake Road and two at the eastern base of the southwest comer monument sign. Nine Austrian
pines will be planted on the northern portion of the property, north of the building. The pines are
noted that a three-foot watering basin will be constructed around each tree. Six
acer/plantinoides, Norway maples will be planted along the west property line beginning an
estimated 80 feet north of the south property line spaced approximately 13 feet apart.
To aid in screening the western property, a six-foot cedar fence will be installed in combination
with the Norway maples. The Norway maples will be planted on the western side of the screen
fence and are proposed to be eight to 10 feet in height at the time of planting. The fence will
begin 80 feet north of the south property line and extend an estimated 118 feet to the northwest
property line.
Per the plans, a drainage pond/garden will be constructed at the southwest portion of the
property. Thirty-five rhus aromatica "gro-low" (Iow grow fragrant sumac) will be planted on the
west side on the drainage pond/garden. Fifty asclepias inclamnata (marsh milkweed - lowest
area) will be placed in the middle/lowest area of the pond/garden. Fifty heliopsos helianthoides
(early sun flower) will be planted around the lowest area. Both the milkweed and sun flower will
be placed in clusters of seven to nine plants.
Per the project narrative, landscaping is proposed to be completed when the entire project is
finished.
13.
14.
Snow Storage - Four areas on the site are proposed for snow storage, three along the north
portion of the property and one at the west end of the property.
Lighting -The canopy details note that the lights in the canopy will have fiat lenses with
recessed lights. The canopy details also note that only the Sinclair sign and logo will be
illuminated, and the green stripes and white fascia will not be illuminated.
The planner's report states that the proximity of lighting to the adjacent multiple-family
residential use east of the property is a concern. The lighting plan has been revised to replace
pole lights with bollard lights. Although this has greatly reduced the light intensity along the east
property line, the maximum intensity of one foot candle at the property line is exceeded adjacent
to the bollards. To reduce the light level to an acceptable level, we recommend extending the
cedar fence along the property line at least 25 feet further south than is shown on the site plan
and designing the bollard lights to direct lighting only to the west. Extending the fence will screen
the bollard lights from the apartment building. Detailed drawings of the proposed pole, wall, and
canopy lights have been provided. A detailed drawing of the proposed bollard lights must be
provided.
The following lighting will be added to the site: Ten 400 W lamps mounted at 16 feet, four located
under the gas pumping canopy, three lining the car wash drive aisle, one at the eastem edge of
the parking lot and one at each curb cut. The July 25 narrative states that the canopy lights will
have fiat lenses and will be mounted flush with the canopy deck panels. Six 100 W lamps mounted
at nine feet-three inches, three on the north convenience store building wall, one on each east and
west side and one on the west wall of the car wash building. Sixteen 400 W lamps mounted at 16
feet, all located under the gas pumping canopy.
Planning Case Report 03-10 Page 10 8/1/03
Per the request of the Design and Review Committee, four 100 W bollard style lamps will be
placed along the east portion of the property south of the trash enclosure along the fire lane. The
bollard style lamps were requested to reduce lighting along the residential property to the east, but
still maintain adequate lighting for the site.
As required, the lighting plan indicates foot-candle contours at the property line. The contours
are identified with foot-candle measurements.
15. Fire Code - A fire department connection is required at the building. The floor plan illustrates
this connection at the northeast corner of the building in a storage area. The site plan shows that
the area adjacent to the fire department connection will be striped and signed as a fire lane. A
"no parking" sign will be installed at the front of the lane. Also, three "no parking/tire lane" signs
will be installed south of the trash enclosure. The proposed fuel dispensing equipment will be
operational 24 hours per day. Signage for the fuel dispensers must comply with fire code
regulations and is subject to the review and approval of the fire marshal. Based on building
occupancy, a second exit to the building is required and is illustrated along the north wall on the
floor plan. The floor plan notes that the building will have a sprinkler system.
16. Grading and Drainage - The grading and drainage plan comply with the recommendations
found in the city engineer's memo dated July 21, 2003, and must be designed to manage all
storm water run-off from the site for both quantity and quality. Grading, drainage, and erosion
control plans are subject to the review and approval of the city engineer.
17. Utilities - Based on the size of the convenience store, it must be sprinkled, which will require
installation of a six-inch water service. The car wash will require a two-inch water service. Water
is also needed for landscape irrigation. Public works recommends that the sewer connection be
replaced when the building is replaced due to the age of the structure and uncertainty about
what has been disposed of in the sewer in the past.
18. Signage - Wall and canopy signs comply with the city's standard for sign number or area limits.
Canopy signs are not allowed to exceed 16 square feet each and are included in the total area
of wall signage. None of the proposed canopy signs exceed 16 square feet. There is also a limit
of one canopy sign per canopy fascia fronting onto a street. The signage shown on the exterior
site elevations complies with this requirement; however, the signage shown on the canopy
details sheet includes two signs on the west side of the canopy. To comply with canopy sign
limits, one of these signs must be eliminated. The existing freestanding sign is proposed to
remain and complies with setback and area requirements. Sign area limits and proposals are
summarized as follows:
Limit Proposed Status
Freestanding 100 square feet plus 16 square 80.5 square feet Compliant
Sign feet for prices
Wall and 130 square feet (15% of front 33 square feet Compliant
Canopy Signs facade)
The plan identifies that the Sinclair sign and logo on the canopy and above the front door will be
illuminated. The illuminated canopy signs (push through and back lit) will only be located on the
south and west elevations. Per the plan, the green stripe and white fascia on the canopy will not
be illuminated.
E. Planninq Considerations
The planning consultant reviewed the plans and his comments are included in this report.
F..Buildin,q Considerations
Planning Case Report 03-10 Page 11 8/1/03
The building official reviewed the plans and commented that the backroom cannot be used fr~''~
storage if room is used for second required exit from convenience store. Alternate location f~-.
second exit would be at west end of building near restrooms. Exterior door must swing in the
direction of exit travel.
Le,qal Considerations
A development agreement will be required as a condition of approval and the city attorney will be
responsible for preparing the agreement.
En,qineerin,q Considerations
The city engineer reviewed the plans and provided the following comments:
"We have received revised plans for the proposed improvements at the Sinclair station at 9456
Medicine Lake Road. The following comments relate to the submitted materials. Previous review
comments still apply to this application even though not all comments are repeated in this memo.
Site Plan
A. Plans must be submitted to Hennepin County for review of driveway accesses to Medicine Lake
Road and for proposed construction within the County ROW.
B. The existing trench drain for the car wash will drain to the sanitary sewer system. It is
anticipated that this trench drain will receive some soapy water from the car wash and exiting
cars; therefore, this should be directed to the sanitary sewer. The entrance trench drain will be
directed to the storm water pond area. Storm water drainage to the exiting trench drain should
be minimized.
C. Further detail will be required for the replacement of the site sanitary sewer and water services.
Gradinq and Draina.qe Plan
D. The storm water runoff rate will be controlled to existing conditions with the Iow/ponding area in
the SW corner of the site. Storm water calculations have been submitted demonstrating this
control.
E. Water quality treatment will be provided in a rain water garden in the SW corner of the site. The
Iow area will result in a shallow ponding area. This will trap sediments. The existing soil below
the ponding area will be replaced with sandy material to enhance filtration. Planted materials will
enhance the 'entrapment of phosphorus and other pollutants. This rain water garden
configuration will arguably match the function of a traditional NURP pond.
a. A traditional NURP pond was not provided because of the limited space.
b. A drain tile below the bottom of the pond will be connected to the downstream catch basin.
This will improve filtration through the bottom of the pond.
F. It is recommended that the bottom of the ponding area be raised to 93.5, which is the elevation
of the subsurface drain tile.
G. This site will discharge to a storm sewer that flows directly to the city of Golden Valley. We are
in the process of contacting Bassett Creek Watershed staff to review the proposed
improvements and potential downstream impacts. This application does not require formal
review of Bassett Creek Watershed.
H. The grading plan was completed based on a site benchmark and datum. A correlation must be
provided to equate the site elevations to a Hennepin County/city of New Hope datum.
Planning Case Report 03-10 Page 12 8/1/03
Erosion Control Plan
I. The sediment trap area should be constructed pdor to other work on the site. This will assist in
providing erosion control throughout construction.
Please refer to the previous comments from the city engineer submitted on July 21, which are
attached.
A. Police Considerations
The Police Department was involved with the review of the plans.
B. Fire Considerations
West Metro Fire-Rescue District reviewed the plans and provided the following comments:
A. "An approved, clearly identified and readily accessible emergency disconnect switch shall be
provided at an approved location, to stop the transfer of fuel to the fuel dispensers in the event
of a fuel spill or other emergency. An emergency disconnect switch for extedor fuel dispensers
shall be located within 100 feet of, but not less than 20 feet from, the fuel dispensers. Note:
Emergency controls shall be of a type which is only manually resetable. Such devices shall be
distinctly labeled as: EMERGENCY FUEL SHUTOFF. Signs shall be provided in approved
locations. 2003 MIFC, Section 2203.2.
Verify on the plan where the emergency fuel shutoff will be located.
2. When approved, unattended self-service stations are allowed. As a condition of approval, the
owner or operator shall provide, and be accountable for daily site visits, regular equipment
inspection and maintenance. 2003 MIFC, Section 2204.3.1.
The owner will be required to provide a record of inspection and maintenance once the
self-service station is up and running to the city.
3. Dispenser operating instructions shall be conspicuously posted in approved locations on every
dispenser and shall indicate the locations of the emergency controls required. 2003 MIFC,
Section 2204.3.4.
Verify on the plan where the operating instructions will be posted or this can be verified
at the time of inspection.
An approved emergency procedures sign shall be posted in a conspicuous location and shall
read: 2003 MIFC, Section 2204.3.5.
IN CASE OF FIRE, SPILL OR RELEASE
1.USE EMERGENCY PUMP SHUTOFF
2.REPORT THE ACCIDENT!
FIRE DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE NO.
FACILITY ADDRESS
A telephone not requiring a coin to operate or other approved, cleady identified means to notify the
fire department shall be provided on the site in a location approved by the code official. 2003
MIFC, Section 2204.3.6
Provide information on the type of telephone that will be used on site and indicate the
location on the plan.
Dispensing equipment used at unsupervised locations shall comply with one of the following:
a. Dispensing devices shall be programmed or set to limit uninterrupted fuel delivery to 25 gallons
and required a manual action to resume delivery.
Planning Case Report 03-10 Page 13 8/1/03
b. The amount of fuel being dispensed shall be limited in quantity by a preprogrammed card ~
approved.
Provide information on how the fuel will be dispensed and programmed.
B. Provisions shall be made to prevent liquids spilled dudng dispensing operations from flowing into
buildings. Acceptable methods include, but shall not be limited to, grading driveways, raising
doorsills, or other approved means. 2003 MIFC, Section 2205.3.
Provide information on the plan showing how they will be doing spill controL
8. Provide approved portable fire extinguishers complying with Section 906 with a minimum rating of
2-A: 20-B: C shall be provided and located such that an extinguisher is not more than 75 feet from
pumps, dispensers or storage tank fill-pipe openings. 2003 MIFC, Section 2205.5.
Verify on plan the type of extinguisher and locations, or can be field verified.
9. Warning signs shall be conspicuously posted within sight of each dispenser in the fuel-dispensing
area and warn against the following: 2003 MIFC, Section 2205.6
A. It is illegal and dangerous to fill unapproved containers with fuel.
B. Smoking is prohibited.
C. The engine shall be shut off during the refueling process.
Verify on plan the location of signage, or can be field verified.
10. Underground tanks for the storage of Class I, II and IIA liquid motor fuels shall comply with 2003
MIFC, Chapter 34.
A separate Special Hazards Permit is required when installing underground tanks. Provide a full
submittal along with application on the tanks being installed.
11. Provide full information on all the fuel-dispensing systems for flammable or combustible liquids as
explained in Section 2206.7. (design, fabrication and installation of fuel system, listing, mounting,
emergency valves, dispenser hoses, breakaway devices, fuel delivery nozzles, leak detection type,
vapor recovery and processing, piping etc.)
12. A separate Special Hazard Permit and inspection is required for all tanks being removed.
13. Provide MSDS sheets and the total amount of each chemical that will be stored in the car wash.
14. Provide information on the plan where the fire sprinkler riser will be located in the building C.
15. The sprinkler system is required to be monitored. A horn/strobe shall be located outside the
building above FDC to indicate water flow and also inside the building to indicate water flow.
16. If the sprinkler riser will be in non-accessible area, a sign is required on door stating, "SPRINKLER
RISER ROOM." If door is on outside of building, signage is required on the outside. If inside, gate
signage is required on the gate.
17. ^ fire department lock box is required on building by fire department connection along with keys.
18. Provide information on the back gate by storage room. Will this be accessible for the fire
department to access the sprinkler rise~
19. If you are going to bring in on main water line for both domestic and the sprinkler system, a
solenoid will be required. Provide information on the plan showing water mains and sizes.
20. A separate sprinkler and fire alarm permit and full submittal is required.
21. If there will be duct smoke detectors in building C (store), remote indicators are required below
the ceilings.
Planning Case Report 03-10 Page 14 8/1/03
III. Summar~
Staff feels that this is a good proposal to redevelop the site and finds that the petitioner has done a
good job addressing a majodty of the issues raised by staff and consultants.
IX. Recommendation
Based upon a review of submitted plans and Zoning Ordinance regulations, staff recommends site plan
and conditional use permit approval to allow construction of a motor fuel facility, convenience store, and
car wash subject to the following conditions:
1. Execute development agreement with city and provide appropriate bond for secudty (amount of
bond to be determined by building official and city engineer).
2. Comply with city engineer recommendations.
3. Comply with building official recommendations.
4. Comply with recommendations from West Metro Fire-Rescue District.
5. Comply with recommendations contained in planner's report including:
D. Before a building permit is issued, the applicant must either provide proof that a seven-foot road
easement exists along the south line of the property or that easement must be created.
E. The applicant must provide the city with documentation regarding whether any site
contamination exists due to current or previous uses.
F. Accesses onto County Highway 70 (Medicine Lake Road) are subject to Hennepin County
review and approval. Curb cuts exceeding 26 feet in width require city engineer and city
manager review and approval.
G. The applicant must provide information about car wash water consumption.
H. Three additional Norway maple trees should be provided so that Norway maple trees are
planted along the entire east property line.
I. The proposed cedar fence must be designed to provide complete visual screening to a minimum
height of six feet. The fence must extend at least 25 feet further south than is shown on the site
plan to screen bollard lights.
J. As part of Phase 1, all of the grass in the boulevard area be replaced with sod and the sidewalk
be repaired or replaced as necessary.
K. A detailed drawing of the proposed bollard lights must be submitted and is subject to city review
and approval.
L. Only one canopy sign per canopy fascia fronting onto a street is allowed. Each sign may not
exceed 16 square feet in size.
M. The convenience store must be sprinkled, which will require installation of a six-inch water
service. The car wash will require a two-inch water service. The sewer connection must be
replaced when the building is replaced.
N. Signage for the fuel dispensers is subject to the review and approval of the fire marshal.
Planning Case Report 03-10 Page 15 8/1/03
Attachments:
Address/Zoning/Topo/Aerial Maps
Petitioner Correspondence
Title Sheet
Certificate of Survey
Site Plan/Summary
Construction Phases
Grading and Drainage Plans
Canopy Details
Erosion Control Plan
Landscaping Plan/Schedule
Photometric Plan
Building Elevations
Sign Details
Interior Floor Plans:
Store
Car Wash
Planner's Report
7/30/03 City Engineer Memo
7/21/03 City Engineer Memo
Building Official Comments
West Metro Fire Comments
Application Log
Planning Case Report 03-10 Page 16 8/1/03
2g01
WATER
2801 I
2701
9456
/(co ~; ~o zo)~
29TH AVE N
28OO
R--3
<3
950.
X
948 · 9
'.3
I
947.0
8
950.4
949.
1
950.4
l
/
27TH
AVENUE
Date:
To:
From:
July 25, 2003
City of New Hope, MN
Lawrence F. Feldsien
Sinclair Oil Corporation
Conditional Use Permit
Sinclair Facility 22024
9456 Medicine Lake Road
New Hope, Minnesota
Sinclair Oil Corporation proposes to construct improvements on the Sinclair property at 9456
Medicine Lake Road, New Hope, Minnesota. The completed project will consist of new underground
storage tanks, underground piping, fuel dispensers, a canopy over the dispensers, a new convenience
store, a new car wash building and rehted appurtenances. A phased approach is proposed consisting of
two phases. It is planned to complete the first phase of construction during the summer and fall of 2003
and complete phase two and finish the project during the summer of 2004.
The first phase would consist of removing the existing islands, dispensers, piping, underground
storage tanks, etc. and installing new double wall fiberglass underground storage tanks, double wall
product piping, "pay-at-the-pump" dispensers and a new canopy over the new dispensers. Two
underground storage tanks are proposed to be installed. These will consist of one - 12,000 gallon tank for
one product and one - 12,000 gallon compartmentalized tank which will hold two products. The
compartmentalized tank will have one 7,000 gallon compartment and one 5,000 gallon compartment. Four
dispensers are proposed with controls and electronics to accept credit cards "at-the-pump". One 24 foot
by 102 foot canopy on eight columns is proposed to cover the dispensers. Canopy lighting will consist of
16 lights mounted on the canopy deck. The lights will have flat lenses and will be mounted flush with the
canopy deck panels.
Phase two would consist of constructing a 35ft. x 80/t., convenience store and a 24ft. x 40ft., car
wash building with all the related equipment and controls. The existing building would be removed. The
final grades with all curbing, paving and perimeter lights are to be completed as the buildings near
completion. Landscaping is proposed to be completed as the entire project is finished.
1001 E. CLIFF ROAD · SUITE 201 · BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
(952) 736-1100
Sinclair Oil Corporation plans to operate this facility as a company location with company
employees. Three grades ofpetrolenm are proposed to be offered for sale. Delivery of petroleum will be
by Sinclair Trucking and Sinclair can control delivery of product to specific times of the day. With the
proposed dispensing equipment, Sinclair will be installing the necessary controls to enable customers to
purchase petroleum on a 24 hour basis. The necessary signage, shutoff switches, phone locations, etc. will
be reviewed with City officials prior to installation during construction
The convenience store will offer cold and hot drinks with fast foods and general merchandise.
Sinclair does not display or offer outside sales on a regular basis. Should this type of sales be desired,
Sinclair would ask the City of New Hope for permission to do so and usually for a very short period - one
time basis only. The car wash will operate in conjunction with the convenience store. Deliveries of
supplies for the convenience store and the car wash are planned to be accomplished through the front door
of the convenience store and through the side service door of the car wash.
Sinclair Oil Corporation plans to make a substantial moneterary investment at this site and operate
it for many years into the future. Therefore, Sinclair Oil Corporation requests that the City of New Hope
grant a Conditional Use Pemdt to construct and operate the proposed Sinclair Convenience Store with
gasoline sales and a car wash.
We are available to answer questions either in person or by telephone at 952 736 1100 or cell 612
791 8216. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
U.S. H(CHWAY 169
II
II
®
®
MEDICIN
(ca,em
;TATION I/
~ ~' ~, := I~I
_~,_ . I~I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 729115
3he South 207 feet of the West 134 feet of Lot 5.
~he South 207 feet of the Host 66 feet of Lot 6,
Block 7, 'Howlond's Heights Hennepin Co. Minn'
Subject to o sewer eosernent over the South 20 feet of
(~)ove Iond os contoined in instrument of record in Book
2183 of Deeds, poge 292.
NOT[: 'IHI$ ~JRVEY
OF A 'I]'I~,E:
SITE
SUMMARY
BUILDING AREA
GREEN AREA
ASPHALT/
CONCRETE AREA
= 5,774 SQ.FT.= 10%
= 22,091 SQ.F-r.= 55%
= 14,155 SQ.FT.= 35%
TOTAL AREA
= 39,999 SQ.FT.= 100%
NOTES:
C-STORE BUILDING TO BE "SPRINKLED" FOR FIRE PROTECTION.
CARWASH TO HAVE A WATER RECLAIM SYSTEM TO RECYCLE WASH
RECYCLED WASH WATER AND THE EXIT TRENCH DRAIN WILL DRAIN
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. THE ENTRANCE TRENCH DRAIN WILL
THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
3. EXISTING WATER SERVICE TO BE RE-SIZED TO MEET C-STORE
AND CARWASH DEMANDS.
4. EXISTING SANITARY SEWER TO BE EVALUATED WITH RESPECT TO
AND caPaCITY THEN REPLACED IN NECESSARY.
WATER.
INTO THE
EMPTY INTO
(SPRINKLED)
CONDITION
Construction Phases
l~r~ i (2oo~)
(2O04)
~Lemove ) - ezislin~ 6,000 in[loG undm'~round stor~e tanks and
2-~xi~ing fuetin~ islands with as~ocia:ed pipin~ and e/ectricsd.
Install 2.new 12,000 8ation, fiberslnss, under~round storase tanks,
4 - new fualin~ islands and i 24' x 102' can,py Ealocatc axi,~in~
aas~ approach ofrl~edicine Lake l~.otd 15' to the east andre.do
on-site cutbins from the new east spproach north to a lina aven
with the etistin~ building. ~,epair ~tistin] asphalt and inst~ new
concrete and asphalt pavement a~ needed.
Eemove ezistms sarvice station buildina.
hrtdl s~new 3~' · 80' conveniuce store and st 24' x 40' cr
buildms, hs~ a~ash ~closu~ in ~e n~we~ corner
~p~y nd un ~d ~nce to ~e f~hty ~ ~e n~e~t
c~n~ o~e ~ h~ n~ ~i~, ~dks,
~lC] .0 L 'NIIN
~INOH 1~
~Y3A 0 L
(S~3V ~ ~e'O) ~ ~
3AIIOO3X3
avo~l 3)1v'1 3NIOla3fl
m J I { M{III{II, N
J
Ueld el3eu!ejO pue I~u!pej~)
li"'"'"~'*l SiNCLAiR SIGN AND LOGO WiLL BE 1
ILLUMINATED. GREEN STRIPES AND
rial LL~I~
¢P-1
RED PUSH-THRU,
LFF LETTERS
SINCLAIR
SIGN DETAILi BI
~ 33"
PUSH THRU
=~T SIGN
?
21"
3"' J
LOGO
SIGN DETAILICi
2'TYP. MIN-~ ~ ~l.~,F MIN 3
l~l
x 3' PUSH THRU
LOGO TYP 3 PLCS.
~~-12" DIA.
COLUMN TYP
~ DISPENSER i :/TK-4
RAISED ·
CONCRETE' ~ ~-- PIPE GUAF F/C-4
'~ FINISH GRADE
SIDE
ELEVATION
I
lit ·
U
k
I
': " · O)
!
Ueld IOJ:iUOO uo!soJ:l
!ii+ t-t~ --
ii
l Ii l: 1, ;I~, :: i.i
[, i l! [ .l
Iii: '"
/ l! i! ,. ,:-,, ~: :.,,~.,'"'" ,."',
J J [j J J[ [J l[ J[J ~[ ~[ jj Ill]ii J, Ji
~B il'* ill :;i~" ',,.,, :"`'' ,," ',"
il- .t ,1 *[: .J .j ,[ .Jill..! lJ
Il
Landscaping Plan
/mM
I I
C-STORE
LANDSCAPE SCHEDUL
MARK
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
ITEM
YEW-T~US CUSPIDATA
EUONYMAS. ALATUS COMPACTA
VIBURNUM. WILLOW WOOD
PINUS REDCONE, DWARF' AUSTRIAN PINE
DAY LILLY
JUNIPER, CALGARY CARPET
PINE, MUGHO
PINE, AUsil<IAN
GRASS(SOD)
ACER/PLATINOIDES, NORWAY MAPLE
RHUS AROMATICA 'GRO-LOW~ (LOW GROW FRAGRANT SUMAC)
PLANT INTO FABRIC 4 Fr. O.C. IN 2 STAGGERED ROWS.
FIRST ROW 5 FT. OFF PARKING LOT EDGE.
ASCLEPIAS INCLAMNATA (MARSH MILKWEED - LOWEST AREA)
HEUOPSIS HEUANTHOIDES (EARLY SUN FLOWER)
PLANT AT 2 FT. O.C. IN CLUSTERS OF 7-9 EACH SPECIES
QTY SIZE
11
5 5 GAL
3 5 GAL
1 5 GAL
26 1 GAL
8 ~5 GAL
8 5 GAL
g 4'-5'
11150 SQ. FT.
6
35
50
50
8'-10'
4 INCH POTS
4 INCH POTS
~,%~%k~ SEED - MNDOT NATNE SEE MIX 28A, GENERAL PURPOSE NATNE DITCH,
I!!!~!!!i~i!ij SEED - MNDOT NATNE SEE MIX 38A - URBAN PRAIRIE*
* COVER ALL SEEDED AREAS WITH STRAW BLANKET MPE-25. APPLY AND ANCHOR PER
MANUFACTURER'S DIRECTIONS.
NOTE
A SYSTEM WILL
DESIGNED AND
TO IRRIGATE
AREAS.
BE
INSTALLED
LANDSCAPE
NOTES ii,
~,. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO FURNISH AND INSTALL PJ.~NT MATERIALS AS NOTED.
2__ THE CONTRACTOR, IS TO VERIFY FIELD CONDITIONS AND NOTIFY TH=- OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE OF
ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
5. CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY SOD, MULCH OR SITE IMPROVEMENTS DISTURBED OR
DAMAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
4. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE FOR PROTECT]ON OF ALL UTILITIES, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC PROPERTY. .AND
PUBUC SAFETY IrO~ ?HE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT AND SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY DAMAGES
TO SAME WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE AND PAY ALL APPLICABLE TAXES, PERMITS AI~D FT~ IN CONNECTION'
V~qTH THE WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP THE PREMISES CLEAN AND ORDERLY AND SHALL DISPOSE OF ALL WASTE
AND DEBRIS AT AN APPROVED LOCATION OFF-SITE PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE.
7. CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN ALL PLANTINGS INSTALLED UNDER THIS CONTRACT UNTIL FINAL
ACCEPTANCE AND TURNOVER TO OWNER.
8. PLANTS SHALL BE GLJA~ FOR ONE GROWING SEAS~. SPRING PLAJ~INGS WILL BE
GUARANTEED THROUGH OCTOEIER or THE SAME YEAR. ANY PLANTINGS AFTER THE MONTH OF AUGUST
WILL BE GUARANTEED THROUGH MAY THE FOLLOWING SPRING. ANY PLANT MATERIAL THAT IS IN
QUESTIONABLE CONDITION MAY RECENE AN EXTENDET) GUARANTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE LANDSCAPE
CONTRACTOR .AND APPROVAL OF THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE. ALL GUARANTEES ON PLANTS ARE lO0
~ IflCLUDING MATERIALS AND LABOR BASED UPON A ONE-TIME REPLACEMENT.
g. PRIOR TO ANY PLANTING OPERATIONS, THE AREA TO BE PLANTED IS TO BE PREPARED WITH 5
YARDS/1.000 SOUARE FEET OF' ORGANIC MATERIAL ROTOTILLL:'D A MINIMUM OF 6' DEEP.
I0. ALL TREES AND SHRUBS ARE TO BE PLANTED AFTER ROUGH GRADING AND PRIOR TO PLACING OF
GROUND COVER MATERIAL.
11. SOD SHALL BE DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES, WHENEVER POSSIBLE. APPROVED BY OWNER AND
SHALL BE LAJD ON A FIRM BED WITH TIGHT JOINTS AND NO VOIDS BETWEEN STRIPS, SOD TO BE:
FFFC~TILIZED WITH GRANULAR DIAMMONIUbt PHOSPHATE: (18-46-0) AT RATE OF SIX (6) POUNDS PER
1,000 SQ. FT.
12. EXCAVATE PLANTING.. PIT 1WiCE: AS WIDE AS ROOT BALL. PREPARE PLANT BACKFILL TO BE 1/3
ORGANIC MATERIAL AND 2/3 CLEAN TOPSOIL STAKE ALL EVERGREEN TRELI~ AND ALL DECIDUOUS
TREE~ OVER 3" CALIPER WITH TRE:ir GUY WIRI_rS AND CANVAS ~rRAPS ViiTH GROMMETS. STAK~ ALL
DECIDUOUS TREES UNDER 3" CALIPER WITH 1-BAR METHOD (1WO STAKES PER TREE). NO EXPOSED
WIRES SHOULD COME INTO CONTACT WITH THE TRUNK FOR EJTHER GUYING METHOD. TRET:. WRAP ALL
DECIDUOUS TREES TO SECOND BRANCH.
13. PLANTING BED EDGER TO BE RYERSON STEEL F. DGER, 1/8' x &' x 10', OR £OLJAL, AS
APPROVED BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE.
14. ALL BEDS TO BE MULCHED WITH ROCK MULCH TO MATCH EXISTING ON $11[ MULCH. SUBMIT
SAMPLE TO OWNERS REPRESENTATNE FOR APPROVAL MULCH ALL PLANTING BEDS AT A FOUR TO SIX
INCH DEPTH.
15. PLACE GEOTEXT1LE FABRIC (MIRAFI 1~i40-S: OR EQUAL) UNDER ALL MULCH AND PLANTING BEDS.
Il
mill
limb __
I~11
~mm!
LIlt
~111
))lmllllllllllllllllll)
Ill
·
!
!
I
·
:Ill
III
II
&
Lighting Details
0.2 0.2 O.:3 0.2 O.P O.;~ 0.;:' 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.! 0.1 0.! 0.1 0.0
~.0 0,1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0,3 0.3 0,3 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.~ 0.1 0.~ 0.8 0.1 0.~ ~ 0.0
_
.4 0.9 E6 8,4 13 ~ /
/
0.4
0.1
0,1
0,0
0.0 0.0~ 5.9 4.6 4.9-~1.3 0.6 0,4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.6_ 4.5 4,9 6.3 .4,! 0,7
0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.6 2,4 2.5 2.3 2.8 2.1 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.1 2.4 2.7 2,3 P.7 1.9 t,7 0.6 0.0
'-I
S-M4OOM$-IV
tW SMH
candel`a Hil`e 'L3707CV$.ies'
i tamp(s) per I. uminaire, 40000 initial, l,umens per' tamp
Light Loss Factor = 1.000, wot'cs per l,uminaire = 460
Butreach (Hr'om mounting axis to photometric center)= 24 in
mounting height= 16 Ht
number rotations= 6
kw al.l, toca-t;ions= 2.8
PGMiOOH-xPx
100~/ MH
co, ndel, a Hire 'HPO7245.IES:'
i tamp(s) per tuminair'e, 9000 initial, l,umens per tamp
Ligh't; Loss Fac-I;or = 1.000, watts per' tuminc~ire =
number rotations= 6
kw al,l, rotations= 1.3
Dccurrences~ 6 at Mounting height 9.33 Ht
CC-M$4OO-FG
400~/ SMH
co, ndeLo, ¢il.e 'L5OO2CC.IES'
i tamp(s) per Luminaire, 40000 initial, l,umens per tamp
Light Loss Factor = 1.000, wcttts per l,umin(~ire = 458
number l,ocations= 16
kw 0, l,L toco, tions= 7.3
Bccurrences: 16 ot; MOUnting height 16 Ct
FNII-MIOO-D
IOOV,/ MH
co, ndeta rile 'L3578FN2.ies'
1 tamp(s) per Luminaire, 8500 initiat Lumens per I. amp
Light Loss Factor = 1.000, wcttts per tumin0, ire= 129
number Locations= 3
kw al,t rotations= 0.4
Bccurrences: 3 at mountin9 height 2~.667 Ft
GRID1
723 points at z=O, spacing 8Hr by 8Hr
HORIZONTAL FODTCANDLES
Average 10,5
Maximum 96,5
Minimum 0.0
STATION
lllJlllj
l
Car Wash Details
BAY LAYOUT
WASH BAY SEc~oN A-A
· '~e~, Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952..595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Cynthia Putz-Yang / Alan Brixius
July 30, 2003
New Hope - Sinclair Site Plan / Conditional Use Permit
131.01 - 03.11
BACKGROUND
Sinclair Oil Corporation proposes to construct improvements on its property at 9456
Medicine Lake Road. The submitted site plan includes new motor fuel facilities, a new
2,800 square foot convenience store, a new 960 square foot car wash building, and
other site improvements. The project is proposed to take place in two phases. The first
phase would include replacing fuel storage tanks, pipes, and dispensers and
constructing a canopy over the dispensers. The second phase would include replacing
the existing building with a 35 foot by 80 foot convenience store and constructing a 24
foot by 40 foot car wash building. The request requires site plan review and conditional
use permits to allow a motor fuel facility, a convenience store with gasoline, and a car
wash.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H:
Exhibit h
Exhibit J:
Exhibit K:
Exhibit L:
Existing Conditions
Phasing Plan
Site Plan
Grading and Drainage Plan
Erosion Control Plan
Landscape Plan
Photometric Plan
Building and Sign Elevations
Canopy Details
Floor Plan
Letter from Applicant
City Engineer's Memo dated July 21,2003
ISSUE ANALYSIS
Zoning. The proposed uses are conditional uses in the CB, Community Business
District. There are no lot area or width minimums in this district.
Setbacks. The proposed buildings and paving comply with setback requirements.
There are two existing encroachments on the property. Paving that does not meet the
side yard setback from the west property line will be removed with Phase 2. Drive aisle
paving from the apartments to the north encroach slightly over the north property line.
This existing condition will remain unchanged.
Road Easement. The submitted survey notes that the Hennepin County parcel map
and adjoining legal description refer to a seven foot road easement along the south line
of the property; however, the certificate of title does not mention any such road
easement. If the easement does not exist, it should be provided as a condition of
approval of this application.
Soil Conditions. Because this site has had a motor fuel station use, the applicant
should provide the City with documentation regarding whether any site contamination
exists due to current or previous uses.
Canopy. The proposed canopy over the pump islands complies with the setback,
height, clearance, and facade height requirements of Section 4.165(4)(h) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Required Parking. Motor fuel stations are required to have at least five off-street
parking spaces plus three off-street parking spaces for each service stall. There are no
service stalls; therefore, five parking spaces are required for the motor fuel station use.
This requirement is fulfilled by parking at the pump islands.
The convenience store requires one off-street parking space for each 200 square feet of
floor area. The convenience store has 2,520 square feet of net floor area (2,800 x .9);
therefore, 13 parking spaces are required for this use. The plan complies with this
requirement by providing 14 parking spaces. All of the parking spaces comply with the
City's dimensional standards.
Circulation and Curb Cuts. Transport tractor and trailer paths and a delivery truck
path are illustrated on the site plan. Drive aisles and curb cuts have been sized to
accommodate truck maneuvering. City Engineer and City Manager approval of the curb
cuts are required because they exceed 26 feet in width. Because the site is being
redeveloped, the accesses are also subject to Hennepin County review and approval.
Car Wash. The submitted building elevations illustrate that the car wash building is
compatible with the convenience store building. Car stacking for ten cars is illustrated
2
on the site plan. The applicant must provide information about water consumption
related to the car wash.
Building Architecture. The proposed convenience store will have a red brick exterior
finish with a green metal roof. The architectural design represents a striking contrast to
the existing building on the site.
Landscaping/Screening. Apartment garages are located north of the property and an
apartment building is located to the east. Screening of the proposed Sinclair parking lot
and stacking space is required. Nine Austrian pine trees will supplement existing
deciduous trees (Russian Olives) along the north property line. A six foot high cedar
fence is proposed along much of the east property line for screening. The fence must
provide a complete visual screen to a minimum height of six feet. As noted in the
lighting section of this report, the fence should extend at least 25 feet further south than
is shown on the site plan to provide screening of bollard lights. Norway maple trees are
proposed west of the fence. Three additional Norway maple trees should be provided so
that Norway maple trees are planted along the entire east property line. The landscape
plan notes that a system will be designed and installed to irrigate landscape areas.
The boulevard area next to Medicine Lake Road is currently in rough condition. We
recommend that all of the grass in the boulevard area be replaced with sod and the
sidewalk be repaired or replaced as necessary. This work should be done in Phase 1 of
the project.
Trash Enclosure. A trash enclosure is proposed in the northeast comer of the site.
Elevations illustrate that the enclosure will have a red brick exterior that matches the
building. The gates appear to be made of wood and provide complete screening.
Lighting. The canopy details note that the lights in the canopy will have fiat lenses with
recessed lights. The canopy details also note that the Only Sinclair sign and logo will be
illuminated, and the green stripes and white fascia will not be illuminated.
The proximity of lighting to adjacent the multiple-family residential use east of the
property is a concern. The lighting plan has been revised to replace pole lights with
bollard lights. Although this has greatly reduced the light intensity along the east
property line, the maximum intensity of one foot candle at the property line is exceeded
adjacent to the boilards. To reduce the light level to an acceptable level, we
recommend extending the cedar fence along the property line at least 25 feet further
south than is shown on the site plan and designing the bollard lights to direct lighting
only to the west. Extending the fence will screen the bollard lights from the apartment
building. Detailed drawings of the proposed pole, wall, and canopy lights have been
provided. A detailed drawing of the proposed bollard lights must be provided.
Signage. Wall and canopy signs comply with the City's standard for sign number or
area limits. Canopy signs are not allowed to exceed 16 square feet each and are
3
included in the total area of wall signage. None of the proposed canopy signs exceed
16 square feet. There is also a limit of one canopy sign per canopy fascia fronting onto
a street. The signage shown on the extedor site eleVations complies with this
requirement; however, the signage shown on the canopy details sheet includes two
signs on the west side of the canopy. To comply with canopy sign limits, one of these
signs must be eliminated. The existing freestanding sign is proposed to remain and
complies with setback and area requirements. Sign area limits and proposals are
summarized on the following page:
Limit Proposed Status
Freestanding 100 square feet plus 16 square 80.5 square feet Compliant
Sign feet for prices
Wall and 130 square feet (15% of front 33 square feet Compliant
Canopy Signs facade)
Grading and Drainage. The grading and drainage plan comply with the
recommendations found in the City Engineer's memo dated July 21, 2003, and must be
designed to manage all storm water run-off from the site for both quantity and quality.
Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans are subject to the review and approval of
the City Engineer.
Utilities. Based on the size of the convenience store, it must be sprinkled, which will
require installation of a six-inch water service. The car wash will require a two-inch
water service. Water is also needed for landscape irrigation. Public works
recommends that the sewer connection be replaced when the building is replaced due
to the age of the structure and uncertainty about what has been disposed of in the
sewer in the past.
Fire Code. A fire department connection is required at the building. The floor plan
illustrates this connection at the northeast corner of the building in a storage area. The
site plan shows that the area adjacent to the fire department connection will be striped
and signed as a fire lane. The proposed fuel dispensing equipment will be operational
24 hours per day. Signage for the fuel dispensers must comply with fire code
regulations and is subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshal. Based on
building occupancy, a second exit to the building is required and is illustrated along the
north wall on the floor plan. The floor plan notes that the building will have a sprinkler
system.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based upon a review of submitted plans (received July 25, 2003) and Zoning Ordinance
regulations, our office recommends site plan and conditional use permit approval to
4
allow construction of a motor fuel facility, convenience store, and car wash subject to
the following conditions:
Before a building permit is issued, the applicant must either provide proof that a
seven foot road easement exists along the south line of the property or that
easement must be created.
The applicant must provide the City with documentation regarding whether any
site contamination exists due to current or previous uses.
Accesses onto County Highway-70 (Medicine Lake Road) are subject to
Hennepin County review and approval. Curb cuts exceeding 26 feet in width
require City Engineer and City Manager review and approval.
4. The applicant must provide information about car wash water consumption.
o
Three additional Norway maple trees should be provided so that Norway maple
trees are planted along the entire east property line.
o
The proposed cedar fence must be designed to provide complete visual
screening to a minimum height of six feet. The fence must extend at least 25
feet further south than is shown on the site plan to screen bollard lights.
As part of Phase 1, all of the grass in the boulevard area be replaced with sod
and the sidewalk be repaired or replaced as necessary.
o
A detailed drawing of the proposed bollard lights must be submitted and is
subject to City review and aPproval.
Only one canopy sign per canopy fascia fronting onto a street is allowed. Each
sign may not exceed 16 square feet in size.
10.
The grading and drainage plan must comply with the recommendations found in
the City Engineer's memo dated July 21, 2003. Grading, drainage, and erosion
control plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
11.
The convenience store must be sprinkled, which will require installation of a six
inch water service. The car wash will require a two inch water service. The
sewer connection must be replaced when the building is replaced.
12.
Signage for the fuel dispensers is subject to the review and approval of the Fire
Marshal.
pc:
Vince Vander Top
Roger Axel
5
Engineers & Architects
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik end Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal
Oppmtunity Employer and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Robert G.
Schunicht, P.E, Jam/A, Bourdon, 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. Ehadin, C.P.A.
Associate Principals: Keith A. Gordon, P.E, Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. Richard W. Foster,
P,E. David O. Loskota, P.E. Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. Ted K. Field, P.E, Kenneth P,
Anderson, P.E. Mark R. Rolf~, P.E, David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. Sidney P. Williamson, P.E.,
L.S. Agnes M. Ring, M,B.A. Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E. Thomas W. Paterson, P.E. James R.
Maland, P.E. Miles B. Jansen, P.E. L. Phillip Gavel III, P.E. Daniel J, Edgerton, P.E.
Ismael Marttnez, P.E, Thomas A. Syfko, P.E. Sheldon J. Johnson Dale A, Grove, P.E.
Thomas A. Roushar, P.E. Robert J. Devery, P.E.
Offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar, MN Milwaukee, WI Chicago, IL
Website: wwv.bonestroo.com
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM:
Vince Vander Top
CC:
Mark Hanson, Guy Johnson
DATE: July 30, 2003
SUBJECT:
Sinclair Service Station - Medicine Lake Road
Our File No. 34-Gen E03-23
We have received revised plans for the proposed improvements at the Sinclair station at 9456
Medicine Lake Road. The following comments relate to the submitted materials. Previous
review comments still apply to this application even though not all comments are repeated in this
memo.
Site Plan
Plans must be submitted to Hennepin County for review of driveway accesses to
Medicine Lake Road and for proposed construction within the County ROW.
The exist trench drain for the car wash will drain to the sanitary sewer system. It is
anticipated that this trench drain will receive some soapy water from the car wash and
exiting cars; therefore, this should be directed to the sanitary sewer. The entrance
trench drain will be directed to the storm water pond area. Storm water drainage to
the exiting trench drain should be minimized.
Further detail will be required for the replacement of the site sanitary sewer and water
services.
Grading and Drainage Plan
The storm water runoff rate will be controlled to existing conditions with the
low/ponding area in the SW comer of the site. Storm water calculations have been
submitted demonstrating this control.
Water quality treatment will be provided in a rain water garden in the SW comer of
the site. The Iow area will result in a shallow ponding area. This will trap sediments.
The existing soil below the ponding area will be replaced with sandy material to
enhance filtration. Planted materials will enhance the entrapment of phosphorus and
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
other pollutants. This rain water garden configuration will arguably match the
fimction of a traditional NURP pond.
A traditional NURP pond was not provided because of the limited space.
A drain tile below the bottom of the pond will be connected to the downstream
catch basin. This will improve filtration through the bottom of the pond.
o
It is recommended that the bottom of the ponding area be raised to 93.5, which is the
elevation of the subsurface drain tile.
This site will discharge to a storm sewer that flows directly to the City of Golden
Valley. We are in the process of contacting Bassett Creek Watershed staff to review
the proposed improvements and potential downstream impacts. This application does
not require formal review of Bassett Creek Watershed.
The grading plan was completed based on a site benchmark and datum. A con'elation
must be provided to equate the site elevations to a Hennepin County/City of New
Hope datum.
Erosion Control Plan
The sediment trap area should be constructed prior to other work on the site. This
will assist in providing erosion control through out construction.
End of comments
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
£ngineers &
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal
Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P,E. Marvin L. Sorvala, P,E. Glenn R. Cook, P.E Robert G.
Schunicht, P.E. Jerr~A, Bourdon, P.E. Mark A. Hanson, P.E
Senior Consultants: Robert W1 Rosene, P,E. Joseph C. Andedik, P,E. Richard E. Turner,
P.E, Susan M, Eberlin, C.P.A.
Associate Principals: Keith A. Gordon, P,E. Robert R. Pfefferte, P.E, Richard W, Foster,
P.E. David O. Loskota, P,E. Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. Ted K, Field, P.E. Kenneth P.
Anderson, P.E. Mark R. Rolls, P.E. DavidA, Bonestmo, MB.A. Sidney P. Williamson, P.E.,
L.S. AgnesM. Ring, M.B,A. Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E. ThomasW. Peterson, P,E. JamesR.
Maland, P.E. Miles B, Jansen, P.E. L, Phillip Gravel III, P,E. Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E.
Ismael Martinez, P.E. Thomas A, Syfko, P.E, Sheldon J. Johnson Dale A. Grove, P.E.
Thomas A. Roushar, P.E. Robert J. Devery, P.E.
Offices: St, Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar, MN Milwaukee, WI Chicago, IL
Website: www.bonestroo.com
TO:
FROM:
CC:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Kirk McDonald
Vince Vander Top
Mark Hanson, Guy Johnson
July 21, 2003
Sinclair Service Station - Medicine Lake Road
Our File No. 34-Gen E03-23
We have received proposed plans and drainage calculations in more detail. The following
background and recommendations address storm water quality and quantity requirements.
Background
The Sinclair site is part of the Bassett Creek Watershed. Specifically, runoff from the site flows
directly into the City of Golden Valley and eventually reaches Medicine Lake in the City of
Plymouth. Medicine Lake is a Level I water body (meaning high quality) and is arguably the
premier water body locally. It is important that all properties within this subwatershed meet the
standards set forth for water quality treatment. For the Sinclair site it is important that water
quality and quantity standards be met before the storm water leaves the site.
Storm Water Quantity
The proposed improvements will increase storm water runoff from the site. Storage must be
provided on site to limit runoff to predevelopment conditions. We have reviewed the submitted
calculations and recommend the following:
The storage in thc low area in the SW comer of the site must be increased slightly.
Proposed contours are shown on the attached Figure 1.
The diameter of the pond outlet must be reduced to 10-inch diameter. We suggest
using 1 O-inch PVC SDR 26.
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
Storm Water Quality
The site must be designed to meet NURP standards including the treatment of runoff from a 2.5-
inch rain event. We have calculated that volume of water to equal 0.09 Ac-fi. Traditionally, this
is accomplished by constructing a pond with a wet volume (volume below the NWL) equal to the
volume of runoff (0.09 Ac-fi). A pond of this volume cannot be constructed in the limited area
provided in the SW comer of the site. Based on this fact and the need for treatment, the
following is recommended:
o
Some wet volume should be provided. The attached grading plan (Figure 1) depicts a
small pond with a NWL of 95.0 and a bottom of 93.0. The average depth of this pond
is only 2 feet. A typical NLrRP pond depth should be on the order of 3 to 4 feet. The
wet volume of the pond will only be approximately 30% to 40% of the required 0.09
Ac-ft. This small pond (sediment trap) will only accomplish approximately 20% to
30% removal of phosphorus and other pollutants.
The pond area as described above will not only fall short of treatment requirements, it
potentially could become overgrown and aesthetically unpleasing because of the
shallow water depth. It has been discussed in previous meetings and is recommended
that additional work be completed to improve water quality treatment and the
appearance of this ponding area. The work includes constructing a planted filtration
area as follows:
Excavate and line the area below the 96.0 contour (approximately 1,450 SF) with
18 inches of select granular material. Cover this area with 4 inches of select
topsoil borrow. This will allow the standing water to infiltrate.
Extend a 4-inch draintile from the catch basin invert approximately 70 L.F. to the
north below the 94.0 contour along the west side of the low point. This will drain
the select granular subgrade. Recall the low point of the pond area is 93.0. The
lowest elevation for the drain tile will be 93.5. Therefore the majority of water in
pond area will infiltrate but it will not drain completely.
Co
Seed and plant the pond area according to the attached plans. Specific seed mixes
are cited for areas below and above the NWL. The planting plan calls for some
plantings in the wet area and some small shrubs along the parking lot. These
plants were selected as low-cost plants compatible with the intended use. It is
intended that this area will remain natural and will not be mowed or manicured.
do
Runoff from the parking lot should sheet drain into the low area as much as
possible. It should not be concentrated to one location. Provide concrete ribbon
curb along the low area instead of B612 to provide a continuous drainage
overflow area. The low shrubs behind the curb will help disperse the water and
stabilize the slope.
e. Establish a maintenance agreement and drainage and utility easement over the
ponding area as is typical with other storm water ponds in the City. Typical
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636.4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
maintenance would include the removal of sediments when required and the
reestablishment of vegetation.
This type of planted filtration area will improve the aesthetics of the treatement area
and the level of storm water treatment. Arguably, the treatment from this area is
similar to the required NURP treatment standards and a typical pond.
Other General Drainage Comments
o
Trench drains are shown on either side of the car wash. If these drains do not receive
soapy water or water with excessive contaminants, the water from these drains should
be directed to the storm water treatment area. If these drains do receive polluted
water, the drains should be connected to the sanitary sewer system. If this is the case,
measures should be taken to minimize the amount of storm water that enters these
drains. The building official should also comment on this connection.
The applicant is advised to add spot elevations to the curb and gutter on the grading
plan. Some of the contours on the grading plan near the entrances to Medicine Lake
Road are in conflict.
Please contact me at 651-604-4790 with questions.
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
I I I .xz - / .._,1
11/I ./ ~ /i' I
O0(/3
NOl~
\ I
McDonald Kirk
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Vander Top, Vince T [vvandertop@bonestroo.com]
Tuesday, July 22, 2003 5:19 PM
McDonald Kirk; Johnson Guy; Alan Brixius (E-mail); Hanson, Mark A
RE: Sinclair on Medicine Lake Road - Storm Water Review
FYI .
I reviewed the storm water recommendations with the SinClair
representatives this afternoon. They received the recommendations
favorably and will include them in their revised plans.
Vince
> ..... Original Message .....
> From: Vander Top, Vince T
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 3:22 PM
> To: 'canderson@sinclairoil.com'; 'lfeldsien@ainclairoil.com'
> Cc: Kirk McDonald (E-mail); Guy Johnson (E-mail); Alan Brixius
(E-mail); Hanson, Mark A
> Subject: Sinclair on Medicine Lake Road Storm Water Review
> Craig and Larry,
>
> The attached memo and graphics relate to the storm water review.
Please review the comments and recommendations and then lets discuss how
we move forward. On the surface, the recommendation may seem intense,
but hopefully you find this approach to be a cost-effective way to meet
storm water treatment requirements. We tried to provide enough detail
for you to understand the requirements.
>
> I'm sure you will have questions. Please contact me at 651-604-4790.
>
> Vince Vander Top
>
> << File: McDonald vtv^Sinclair MLR Drainage Review.doc >> << File:
Figurel.pdf >> << FTle: Planting Plan.pdf >> << File: Seeding Plan.pdf
>>
Memorandum
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
July 30, 2003
Kirk McDonald
Roger Axel ~
Sinclair Oil Corp. station construction - 9456 Medicine Lake Rd.
Plan review comments for revised plans:
'Backroom' cannot be used for storage if room is used for second required exit from
convenience store. Altemate location for second exit would be at west end of building near
restrooms. Extedor door must swing in the direction of exit travel.
2. I would agree with additional comments from City planning consultant and fire inspector.
Review notes for revised plans for Sinclair Station
9456 Medicine Lake Rd
New Hope, MN
July 29, 2003
Code Requirements for Sinclair Service Station:
1. An approved, clearly identified and readily accessible emergency disconnect
switch shall be provided at an approved location, to stop the transfer of fuel to the
fuel dispensers in the event of a fuel spill or other emergency. An emergency
disconnect switch for exterior fuel dispensers shall be located within 100 feet of,
but not less than 20 feet fi.om, the fuel dispensers. Note: Emergency controls shall
be of a type which is only manually reset able. Such devices shall be distinctly
labeled as: EMERGENCY FUEL SHUTOFF. Signs shall be provided in
approved locations. 2003 MIFC, Section2203.2.
Verify on the plan where the emergency fuel shutoff will be located.
When approved, unattended self-service stations are allowed. As a condition of
approval, the owner or operator shall provide, and be accountable for daily site
visits, regular equipment inspection and maintenance. 2003 MIFC, Section
2204.3.1.
The owner will be required to provide a record of inspection and maintenance
once the self-service station is up and running to the city.
Dispenser operating instructions shall be conspicuously posted in approved
locations on every dispenser and shall indicate the locations of the emergency
controls required. 2003 MIFC, Section 2204.3.4.
Verify on the plan where the operating instructions will be posted or this can be
verified at the time of inspection.
An approved emergency procedures signs shall be posted in a conspicuous
location and shall read: (2003 MIFC, Section 2204.3.5.
IN CASE OF FIRE, SPILL OR RELEASE
1.USE EMERGENCY PUMP SHUTOFF
2.REPORT THE ACCIDENT!
FIRE DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE NO.
FACILITY ADDRESS
A telephone not requiring a coin to operate or other approved, clearly identified
means to notify the fire department shall be provided on the site in a location
approved by the code official. 2003 MIFC, Section 2204.3.6
10.
Plan review notes for Sinclair Station
July 29, 2003
Page Two
Provide information on the type of telephone that will be used on site and
indicated the location on the plan.
Dispensing equipment used at unsupervised locations shall comply with one of
the following:
1. Dispensing devices shall be programmed or set to limit uninterrupted fuel
delivery to 25 gallons and required a manual action to resume delivery.
2. The amount of fuel being dispensed shall be limited in quantity by a
prepmgrammed card as approved.
Provide information on how the fuel will be dispensed and programmed.
Provisions shall be made to prevent liquids spilled during dispensing operations
from flowing into buildings. Acceptable methods include, but shall not be limited
to, grading driveways, raising doorsills, or other approved means. 2003 MIFC,
Section 2205.3.
Provide information on the plan showing how they will be doing spill control.
Provide an approved portable fire extinguishers complying with Section 906 with
a minimum rating of2-A: 20-B: C shall be provided and located such that an
extinguisher is not more than 75 feet from pumps, dispensers or storage tank fill-
pipe openings. 2003 MIFC, Section 2205.5.
Verify on plan the type of extinguisher and locations, or can be field verified.
Warning signs shall be conspicuously posted within sight of each dispenser in the
fuel-dispensing area and warn against the following: (2003 MIFC, Section
2205.6)
1. It is illegal and dangerous to fill unapproved containers with fuel.
2. Smoking is prohibited.
3. The engine shall be shut off during the refueling process.
Verify on plan the location of signage, or can be field verifiet~
Underground tanks for the storage of Class I, 11 and IIA liquid motor fuels shall
comply with 2003 MIFC, Chapter 34.
A separate Special Hazards Permit is required when installing underground tanks.
Provide a full submittal along with application on the tanks being installed.
Plan review notes for Sinclair Station
July 29, 2003
Page Three
ll.
Provide full information on all the fuel-dispensing systems for flammable or
combustible liquids as explained in Section 2206.7. (design, fabrication and
installation of fuel system, listing, mounting, emergency valves, dispenser hoses,
breakaway devices, fuel delivery nozzles, leak detection.type, vapor recovery and
processing, piping etc..)
12.
A separate Special Hazard Permit and inspection is required for all tanks being
removed.
13.
Provide MSDS sheets and the total amount of each chemical that will be stored in
the car wash.
14.
Provide information on the plan where the Fire Sprinkler Riser will be located in
the building C.
15.
The sprinkler system is required to be monitored. A horn/strobe shall be located
outside the building above FDC to indicate water flow and also inside the
building to indicate water flow.
16.
If the sprinkler riser will be in non-accessible area a sign is required on door
stating, "SPRINKLER RISER ROOM". If door is on outside of building signage
is required on the outside. If inside gate signage is required on the gate.
17.
A fire Department Lock Box is required on building by Fire Department
Connection along with keys.
18.
Provide information on the back gate by storage room. Will this be accessible for
the fire department to access the sprinkler riser?
19.
If your going to bring in on main water line for both domestic and the sprinkler
system a solenoid will be required. Provide information on the plan showing
water mains and sizes.
20.
21.
A separate sprinkler and fire alarm permit and full submittal is required.
If there will be duct smoke detectors in building C (store) remote indicators are
required below the ceilings.
Ao
Eo
Appli-
cation
number
03-10
B
Applicant
Name
Address
Phone
Cinclair Oil Corporation
550 E South Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
801-524-2700
Larry Feldsien
Sinclair Oil Corp.
1001 East Cliff Road, #201
Bumsville, MN 55337
952-736-1100
cell 612-791-8216
19-118-21.33-0006
Ho
CITY OF NEW HOPE
SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG
C
Date
application
received
by City
7/10/03
D
Date Applicant
was sent
notice
that required
information
was missing
E
Date 60-
day time
limit
expires
9/8/O3
F
Date 120-
day time
limit
expires
11/7/03
G
Date
Applicant
was notified
of
extension
H
Deadline
for City
action
under
extension
or waiver
I
Date City
approved or
denied the
application
J
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.
Planning Case:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date:
Report Date:
03-14
August 6, 2003
August 1, 2003
Randy Rau/Brooklyn Center Service, Inc.~The Perfect Car Wash
9400 3~h Avenue North
Variance to Allow Construction of a Freestanding Sign Three Feet From the Property
Line
III.
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting a seven-foot variance from the 10-foot setback requirement to allow
construction of a freestanding sign three feet from the property line, pursuant to Sections 3-40(c)(4)b,
3-40(i)(2)a.b.c.e and 3-40(k) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
II. Zoning Code References
Section 3-40(c)(4)b
Section 3-40(i)(2)a
Section 3-40(i)(2)b
Section 3-40(i)(2)c
Section 3-40(i)(2)e
Section 3-40(k)
Property Specifications
Zoning:
Location:
Adjacent Land Uses:
Site Area:
Building Area:
Lot Area Ratios:
Sign location
Wall signs
Freestanding signs
Awning or canopy signs
Signs accessory to gas sales in conjunction with automobile service stations
or convenience stores
Sign vadance
CB, Community Business
The northwest quadrant of 36th and Jordan avenues
Community Business (Post Haste Shopping Center) directly to the north, R-1
Single Family Residential to the east and southeast across Jordan, 36th and
Hillsboro avenues, Community Business (Boger Dental) directly to the south
across 36th Avenue and R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential to the
southwest across 36th Avenue. The city of Plymouth is located to the west
across Highway 169.
36,000 sq. ft. (240' x 150' per submitted site plan)
10,103 sq. ft. (per submitted site plan, inc.: convenience store & car wash)
Green Area: 6,305 sq. ft. (deduced from submitted site plan)
Paved Area: 19,592 sq. ft. (per site plan)
Building Area: 10,103 sq. ft. (inc. car wash addition and convenience store)
Planning Case Report 03-14 Page 1 8/1/03
Planning District:
Specific Information:
IV. Background
No. 12; The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address the g~'-
station/car wash, however, it indicates coordinating with the owner of tr,_
shopping center to promote renovation of the center.
A service station was first built on this site in 1967. When the Poste Haste
Shopping Center was constructed in 1972, an agreement was reached to
permit Shell Oil to maintain its visibility on County Road 18/Highway 169 by
erecting a pylon sign on the adjacent shopping center lot. That sign is a
permitted non-conforming sign, as it is not located on the premises of the gas
station but received previous approval. The sign remains on the property, but
is planned for removal as a component of this current request.
In 1990, Planning Case 90-8 was approved for a new Holiday Gas
Station/Convenience Store/Car Wash built on the site by the petitioner. In
1991, the petitioner received a variance to expand the non-conforming off
premise pylon sign and a variance to exceed the sign area (square footage).
The owner had expanded the non-conforming sign without previous City
approval and was required to proceed through the variance process, which as
previously stated was granted.
In 1996, Planning Case 96-11 was approved for site and building plan review
and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an expansion of the car
wash at the site.
On July 7, 2003, the petitioner filed an application for this current request.
Randy Rau, owner of the gas station/car wash located at 9400 36th Avenue North, wishes to change
over his signs from the current Mobil station to a Shell station signage. To accomplish this, Mr. Rau has
submitted information for comprehensive sign plans for the site and requested a variance to allow a
freestanding sign within three feet of the south property line. The applicant has submitted a narrative
describing his request, as well as revised plans based on comments from the development review
meeting on July 16 and Design and Review Committee meeting of July 17.
According to Section 4.36 of the Zoning Code, the purpose of a variance is to permit 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 the Zoning Code.
The applicant stated that the variance hardship is dictated by site design and the need to preserve
existing trees along the boulevard. As a component of this request, Mr. Rau has indicated in his
correspondence that he will remove the non-conforming off-site pylon sign located at the southwest
corner of the Post Haste Shopping Center in exchange for the proposed freestanding signage.
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing signs and replace them with two wall signs, canopy
signage and one freestanding sign. The following approvals are necessary for this project to proceed:
1. Sign plan approval.
2. Sign variance to allow a freestanding sign within three feet of the south property line.
Petitioner's Comments
Correspondence submitted by the petitioner on July 18 states "1 would very much appreciate your
consideration on a variance from the 10-foot setback requirement of the sign code. The variance is
needed so the new monument type sign will fit perpendicular to the property line and 36th Avenue North.
Planning Case Report 03-14 Page 2 8/1/03
If the sign is installed parallel to the property line in order to meet setback requirements, I would have to
remove two very nice matured trees."
"It has been 12 years since I built this location and it is time to update the complete property. Along with
the new signage, I will be removing all the junky signage and not putting anything in its place. The
complete building and canopy will be painted and new fascia installed. New gas pumps and pump
islands will be replaced. It is time to clean up the entire site.
"Thank you for your consideration."
VI, Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments.
VII. Development Analysis
A. Sign Code Cdteria
Section 3-40(c)(4)b, siqn location, states "all signs, excepting governmental signs, shall be located on
pdvate property. Freestanding signs shall be set back a minimum of ten feet from the nearest lot line.
The setback shall be measured from the lot line to that portion of the sign nearest to the property line."
Section 3-40(i)(2)a, wall siqns, states "not more than two wall signs per building, and the total area of
all wall signs shall not exceed the lesser of 15% of the front face of the principal commercial building or
250 square feet."
Section 3-40(i)(2)b, freestandinq siqns, states "not more than one freestanding sign shall be permitted
on any lot abutting local, collector or minor arterial streets. Freestanding signs abutting these streets
shall not exceed 100 square feet in area, freestanding signs shall not exceed 30 feet in height."
Section 3-40(i)(2)c, awninq or canopy siqns, states "letters may be painted or otherwise affixed to any
permissible awning or canopy as follows: signs shall be limited to one sign per canopy fascia fronting
onto a street, the canopy sign shall not project above or below the physical dimensions of the awnings
or canopy fascia, signs shall only denote the name and address of the business conducted therein
and/or a product or products produced or sold or service rendered therein, and maximum awning and
canopy signage shall not exceed 16 square feet per sign and shall be included in calculating the
maximum sign area of the permissible wall sign."
Section 3-40(i)(2)e, si.qns accessory to qas sales in conjunction with automobile service stations or
convenience stores, states "the following signs accessory to automobile service stations and
convenience stores with gas sales are permitted in addition to the previous signs: one sign per
frontage on a public street suitable for apprising persons of the total sale pdce per gallon, such sign
shall not exceed 16 square feet on either sign. Each such price sign shall be affixed to the standard of
a ground sign or light fixture and shall state the total pdce. No sign posting an incomplete pdce or less
than the total sales pdce is permitted. Signs denoting operating instruction associated with self service
gas facilities including gas pump, air supply and car washes are exempt from the maximum sign area
standards of subsection 3-40(i).
Section 3-40(k), si.qn variance, states" where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships
in the way of carrying out the stdct letter of the provisions of this section, the City Council has the
power to vary the requirements of this section in harmony with the general purpose and intent hereof,
so that the public health, safety and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done.
When considering a variance, the City Council shall make a finding of fact and grant approval based
upon the following conditions:
1. Unique conditions. That the conditions involved are unique to the particular parcel of land or use
involved.
Planning Case Report 03-14 Page 3 8/1/03
Do
2. Variance of purpose. That the purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire t~,--
increase the value or income potential of the business involved.
3. Cause of hardship. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this sign code and has not
been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel.
4. Effect of variance. That the granting of the vadance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other land or improvements to the neighborhood.
5. Impairment of light and air. That the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property.
6. Impairment of police and fire functions. That the vadance will not impair or substantially increase
the congestion of the public streets, or interfere with the function of the police and fire
departments of the city.
Development Review Team
The development review team met to discuss the plans and comments included: providing exact
location of sign and trees on the site, details for size of base and sign, construction materials,
dimensions of sign, and show that the sign would not be in any sight lines.
Desi.qn and Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner on June 12 and discussed the same
concerns as listed above.
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:
1. Signage
Wall Signage. According to Section 3.492(1)(a) and (b), not more than two wall signs are
allowed per building. Total area of the wall signs shall not exceed 15 percent of the front face
of the building in a commercial or industrial zoning district, or 250 square feet, whichever is
less. The applicant is proposing two wall signs. Both meet code. The car wash wall sign will
read, "Perfect Car Wash" in blue letters and will be 36 sq. ft. in area. A red sign band will
continue around the face of the building. The other building sign will read, "Food Mart" in
blue letters and will be 21 sq. ft. in area. Consistent with the car wash, a red sign band will
continue around the face of the building.
1 Perfect Car Wash Sign Area 36 square feet
1 Food Mart Sign Total Area 21 square feet
Canopy Signage. According to Section 3.492(3), awning and canopy signage shall not
exceed 16 square feet per sign. Signs shall be limited to one sign per canopy fascia fronting
the street. The applicant's sign plan proposes two canopy signs, one facing west and one
facing south. The individual signs do not exceed 12 square feet, compliant with Code. The
proposed canopy only has frontage on 36th Avenue. As such, the second canopy sign could
be construed as being a violation of ordinance, however, city staff has reviewed the
proposed signage and determined that the canopy signage is appropriate due to the location
on a corner lot and the lot itself having frontages on both Jordan and 36th Avenues.
The applicant's plan indicates that the Shell signs will be incorporated into the colors that run
along the canopy fascia. The "Shell" letters will be red and a red band will continue around
Planning Case Report 03-14 Page 4 8/1/03
the facial. The background of the fascia will be yellow. Staff is recommending that only the
signs ("Shell") be illuminated. The balance of the canopy fascia should not be illuminated.
C. Freestanding Signage. According to Section 3.492(2), not more than one freestanding sign
shall be permitted on any lot meeting the following standards:
(a) Freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 square feet in area.
(b) Freestanding signs shall not exceed 30 feet in height.
Section 3.492(5)(a) states that signs accessory to automobile service stations and
convenience stores with gas sales are permitted additional signs to advertise the pdce of
gasoline. One sign per frontage on a public street suitable for apprising persons of the total
sale price per gallon. An area of such price signage shall not exceed 16 square feet. The
applicant's proposed freestanding sign has a total area of 115 square feet. City staff's
interpretation is that the applicant should be entitled to the 100 square feet for business
identification plus the 16 square feet for the gas sale sign, the total signage allowed on the
freestanding sign would be 116 square feet. In this respect, staff feels that the freestanding
sign could be determined to be compliant with the sign area requirements within the
commercial zoning district.
Location Variance. The applicant wishes to locate the sign along 36th Avenue within a
landscaped island between the two curb cuts accessing the site. The applicant, in his text,
indicates that the sign is 12 feet in width and as such, would be located within three feet of the
south property line. A seven foot variance is being requested.
The total height of the proposed sign, including the 1.5 foot base, will be 11 feet. The applicant
is proposing a brick base to match the extedor of the principal structure. The total height
including base meets the requirements of the Zoning Code. The proposed sign will have a metal
face and metal frame with plastic letters. The colors of the sign will be yellow, red and white.
"Pay at the Pump", "Perfect Car Wash" gas prices and the shell logo will be present on the sign.
The applicant has indicated the location of the trees and the location of the proposed sign. Staff
has concerns regarding the canopy of the trees and the sight lines of the proposed signage. If it
is found that the existing trees need to be trimmed back to improve sight lines of the new sign,
staff would recommend that the applicant submit a plan detailing the areas to be trimmed.
The site is part of a larger shopping area with limited space for new signage. Due to the site
configuration and access points as well as the elimination of a pylon sign on the site, the
applicant's request meets the vadance requirements as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. A
variance had been granted for the pylon sign, however, that variance will expire with the
construction of the new freestanding sign and removal of the pylon sign as proposed.
Existing Signage. In addition to the change over in the existing signage on the site, the applicant
is also ~roposing to remove the 200 square foot pylon sign located at the comer of Highway 169
a.nd 36. Avenue. Staff sees this as a major incentive that would encourage us to consider the
sign vanance. In addition to the removal of this oversized sign, the applicant will be required to
remove the existing pylon sign on site in exchange for the new freestanding monument sign.
Landscaping - No landscaping is planned as a component of this project.
Planning Case Report 03-14 Page 5 8/1/03
E. Plannin,q Considerations
The Planner's comments have been incorporated into this report.
F. Buildin,q Considerations
In addition to comments outlined in the report, the building official stated:
1. Applicant needs to provide elevation drawings of sign in relation to existing trees.
2. Applicant needs to indicate that existing trees will not be removed once the sign is installed.
G. Le,qal Considerations
The city attorney will prepare an agreement to guarantee removal of the pylon sign.
H. En,qineedn,q Considerations
In addition to comments outlined in the report, the city engineer stated:
1. The 36th Avenue ROW along this property extends 40 feet north of centerline. This is the same
as 16 feet north of the curb line or approximately 4 feet north of the sidewalk.
This south edge of the sign is proposed to be 3.5 feet north of the ROW/property line or
approximately 7 feet north of the sidewalk or 19 feet north of the curb.
2. The proposed location of the sign will still allow for adequate site lines for vehicles leaving either
of the property driveways.
3. The existing trees will impact the visibility of the sign. The applicant has indicated that the sign
would be visible if the trees were trimmed. Regardless, some impact should be anticipated.
It is not known if a drainage and utility easement exists along the ROW line. The plat for
Northwood Terrace 6th Addition should be checked for record of this easement. If an easement
exists, the proposed location of the sign would encroach on the easement. The area should also
be checked for private utilities such as phone, cable, and natural gas.
I. Police Considerations
The Police Department did not have any comments on the plans, other than those already
contained in the report.
J. Fire Considerations
The West Metro Fire-Rescue District did not have any comments on the plans, other than those
already contained in the report.
VIII. Summary
Randy Rau, the petitioner has proposed the signage change consistent with Shell station signage. To
accomplish this, Mr. Rau has submitted information for comprehensive sign plans for the site and
requested a variance to allow a freestanding sign within three feet of the south property line. Therefore,
a seven foot variance is being requested. The applicant stated that the variance hardship is dictated by
site design and the need to preserve existing trees along the boulevard. As a component of this
request, Mr. Rau has indicated in his correspondence that he will remove the non-conforming off-site
pylon sign located at the southwest comer of the Post Haste Shopping Center in exchange for the
proposed freestanding signage. Staff sees this as a major incentive that would encourage us to
consider the sign variance.
Planning Case Report 03-14 Page 6 8/1/03
IX. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the sign plan and variance request subject to the following conditions:
1. Comply with city engineer's recommendations dated, July 30, 2003.
2. Comply with building official recommendations and obtain necessary permits.
3. The canopy signage will be illuminated. The sign band along the balance of the canopy fascia shall
not be permitted to be illuminated.
4. Prior to the completion of the freestanding sign, the non-conforming off-site pylon sign located at the
southwest comer of the Post Haste Shopping Center shall be removed.
5. An agreement prepared by the city attorney guaranteeing the removal of the pylon sign be executed
by the petitioner.
6. The pole sign located in the general location of the planned monument sign be removed.
7. A detail of the proposed monument sign in relation to the existing trees be submitted to the staff
prior to construction.
8. Trimming or removal of the existing trees to improve sight lines of the new sign shall require
approval from city staff.
Attachments:
Address/Zoning/Topo/Aerial Maps
Petitioners Narrative
Site Survey
Site Plan
Site Plan Details
Site Plan - Location of Proposed Monument Sign & Existing Trees
Site Plan - Canopy
Site Plan - Convenience Store
Site Plan - Curbing Details
Site Plan- Wall Section
Monument Sign Rendering
Band Sign Rendering
Sign - Shop Drawings/Footings/Base
Si,~n - Construction Materials
36 Avenue North Reconstruction Survey (Showing Boulevard Trees)
Photo - Pylon Sign - To Be Removed
Photo - Pole Sign - To Be Removed/Monument Sign Location
Photo - Building Elevation/Canopy
Sign Code Excerpts
Planning Consultant Memorandum
City Engineer Memorandum
Building Official Memorandum
Application Log
Planning Case Report 03-14 Page 7 8/1/03
3651
3647
3631
3635
9416
3 i701 '~
~700
5700
3623
5648
3641
3619
3637
3615
3611
3624
3616
3633
3625
7
3608 5609
9400
.3600 3601
3640
363
3581
3537
9401
9413
3537
3535
,3580
I..i.J 3576 3556
HIL 0
35TH
354.8
3540
Z
. ~<w'
HOPE
ALLIANCE-.- ....
33~,D _. AVE ~
~,. COURT .....
F.' DT.
CATHOLIC ~':.;:. CHURCH
SONNESYN
~<'- ELEMENTARY
~ .... SCHOOL
g75. ~
967'.0
~6TH '~
~74.7
96~.
X
9~2
^V
962.S
96,3.0 '
965.6 X
, 3.0£,6£
£LI '
j~
FRANK R. CAFIDAFIELLE.
Certificat~ ~of Survey
'5
New Hope City Council:
I would very much appreciate your consideration on a
variance from the 10' setback requirement of the sign code.
The variance is needed so the new monument type sign will
fit perpendicular to the property line and 36th Ave No. If the
sign is in..stalled parallel to the property line in order to meet
setback requirements, I would have to remove 2 very nice
matured trees.
It has been 12 years since I built this location and it is
time to update the complete property. Along with the new
signage, I will be removing all the junky signage and not
putting a.nYthing in it's place. The complete building and
canopy will be painted and new facia installed. New gas
pumps and pump islands will be replaced. It is time to clean
up the entire site.
4..
Thank.~ou for your consideration
Randy Rau ~
68
87
68
':31
.&
!
I
i
1~ $/4' TRIM
114'
7~ 1/4' CABINET
7'4' TRIM
7'3 1/4' D.Q
~13d¥.L '04g
W
)
O~-
D2
~-c
O3(--
BUILDING AND SIGN REGULATIONS § 3-40
(c) General standards. All signs hereafter painted, constructed, erected, remodeled, relo-
cated, or expanded shall comply with the following standards:
(1) Sign permit. A sign may not be constructed, erected, remodeled, relocated, expanded or
painted, except in cases of routine maintenance, without a sign permit. A permit shall
not be issued unless the sign and all other signs on the premises of the applicant are
in compliance with the regulations of the New Hope Sign Code, section 3-40, et al.
(2) Building and electrical codes applicable. All signs shall be wired to conform to
subsection 3-22(a)(2) of this Code. Sign structures shall be designed to withstand a 40
psf snow load and 80 psf of wind pressure.
(3)
Maintenance of signs. All signs, including electric wiring, supporting structures, guy
wires or chains, shall be properly maintained and kept in a safe condition. A sign or
sign structure which is deteriorated, unsafe, defaced, or otherwise altered shall be
repaired, repainted, or replaced by the permit holder or property owner on which the
sign is located.
(4) Sign location.
(5)
a. Excepting governmental signs, no sign shall be erected or temporarily placed
within a street right-of-way or upon public lands, easements or rights-of-way.
b. All signs, excepting governmental signs, shall be located on private property.
Freestanding signs shall be set back a minimum of ten feet from the nearest lot
line. The setback shall be measured from the lot line to that portion of the sign
nearest to the property line.
c. On all comer lots, signs shall not be permitted within 20 feet of any comer formed
by the intersection of two streets or the rights-of-way of a railway intersecting a
street. The 20 feet shall be in the form of a triangle with two sides formed by the
property lines and the third side formed by a straight line connecting the two
20-foot points on each side of the comer. A sign may be extended into the
triangular area provided that:
1. The clearance above the street grade is more than eight feet.
2. No part of the sign structure encroaches in the triangular area at an
elevation less than eight feet above street grade.
Signs may be illuminated internally or by reflected light provided:
a. Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from being directed at
oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it impairs the vision of the driver. Such
signs shall not interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal. This
includes indoor signs which are visible from public streets.
IlluminatiOn of any sign shall not exceed one foot candle measured at the lot line
of the site containing the sign.
CD3:41
§ 3-40 NEW HOPE CODE
(5) Home occupations. A residential unit with an approved home occupation requiring
customer or client visits to the home is allowed one identification sign for the home
occupation. Said sign shall not exceed two square feet in size or six feet in height.
(h) Residential office and residential business districts. Signs are accessory to permitted
and conditional uses in the R-O and R-B zoning districts. The following signs are permitted
within the R-O and R-B zoning districts:
(1) All signs identified in subsection 3-40(f) of this Code.
(2) Residential signs. All signs identified in subsection 3-40(g) of this Code.
(3) Business signs. Business signs as regulated in subsection 3-40(i) of this Code.
(i) Commercial and industrial zoning district. Signs are accessory to permitted and
conditional uses in the LB, CB and I zoning districts. Only the following signs are permitted
in these zoning districts, unless otherwise specifically provided for in this section.
(1) All signs identified in subsection 3-40(f) of this Code.
(2) Individual business establishment signs. Signs accessory to a single occupancy
business or industry shall comply with the following regulations:
a. Wall signs:
1. Not more than two wall signs per building.
2. The total area of all wall signs shall not exceed the lesser of 15 percent of the
front face of the principal commercial or industrial building or 250 square
feet.
b. Freestanding signs. Not more than one freestanding sign shall be permitted on
any lot abutting local, collector or minor arterial street.
1. Freestanding signs abutting local, collector or minor arterial streets shall
not exceed 100 square feet in area.
2. Freestanding signs abutting a freeway or freeway frontage road shall not
exceed 200 square feet in area.
3. Freestanding signs shall not exceed 30 feet in height.
c. Awning or canopy signs. Letters may be painted or otherwise affixed to any
permissible awning or canopy as follows:
1. Location. Signs shall be limited to one sign per canopy fascia fronting onto
a street.
2. Height. The canopy sign shall not project above or below the physical
dimensions of the awnings or canopy fascia.
3. Use. Signs shall only denote the name and address of the business
conducted therein and/or a product or products produced or sold or service
rendered therein.
CD3:46
BUILDING AND SIGN REGULATIONS § 3-40 -
f.
do
4. Maximum signage. Awning and canopy signage shall not exceed 16 square
feet per sign. Awning and canopy signage shall be included in calculating the
mzximum sign area of the permissible wall sign.
W/ndow signs.
1. Maximum window area. In no event shall the size of the interior window
signage exceed 33 percent of the window area of the one side of the building
upon which said signs are displayed.
2. Illnmlnated signs. An interior window sign may be illuminated.
3. Temporary advertising signs. Advertising signs that are intended for tern-
porary display only, may be affixed to a window provided that the sign area
conforms with the formula allowance outlined in this subsection. The
allowable sign area for a window advertising sign is in addition to the total
permitted wall sign area as regulated in subsection 3-40(i)(2)a of this Code.
Window signs other than for advertising, such as business identification, or
any sign which is permanently Rffixed to a window, shall constitute a dual
purpose sign and thus be regulated under both the above and the provisions
of subsection 3-40(i)(2)a of this Code.
Signs accessory to gas sakes in conjunction with automobile service stations or
convenience stores. The following signs accessory to automobile service stations
and convenience stores with gas sales are permitted in addition to the signs
permitted under subsection 3-40(i)(2) of this Code.
1. Gasoline and price sign. One sign (single or double faced) per frontage on a
public street, suitable for apprising persons of the total sale price per gallon.
The area of such price sign shall not exceed 16 square feet on either side.
Each such sign shall be affixed to the standard of a ground sign or light
fixture, and shall state the total price. No sign posting an incomplete price
or less than the total sales price is permitted.
2. Informational signage. Signs denoting operating instructions associated
with self service gas facilities including gas pump, air supply and car washes
are exempt from the maximum sign area standards of subsection 3-40(i) of
thi~ Code.
Banners, pennants, streamers, strings of lights, searchlights. Portable signs,
banners, pennants, streamers, strings of lights, search lights or any other
temporary sign are permitted only for commercial or industrial special or
promotional events of a limited duration by permit acquired from the city
pursuant to the following conditions:
1. Special or promotional events. Special or promotional events shall mean
events such as grand Openlrt~o~, management or ownership changes, or
periodic sales or slml]~r events.
Permit application. Permits for any temporary sign pursuant to this section
shall be issued only to owners or tenants of commercial or industrial
CD3:47
BUILDING AND ~IGN REGULATIONS § 3-40
(2) Maintenance. Nomal maintenance, such ss painting, repairing without removal,
cleaning, maintaining, electrical wiring and appurtenances on site and changing or
repairing fasteners or guy wires or chRin~ shall be permitted on any legal nonconform-
ing sign.
(3) Amortization schedule. Any legal nonconforming sign shall be brought in to compli-
ance with this Code or removed by December 31, 2003.
(k) Sign variance. Where there are practical di~culties or unnecessary hardships in the
way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this section, the city council has the
power to vary the requirements of this section in harmony with the general purpose and intent
hereof, so that the public health, safety and general welfare may be secured and substantial
justice done. When considering a variance, the city council shall make a finding of fact and
grant approval based upon the following conditions:
(1) Unique conditions. That the conditions involved are unique to the particular parcel of
land or use involved.
(2) Variance purpose. That the purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a
desire to increase the value or income potential of the business involved.
(3) Cause of hardship. That the alleged ~li~iculty or hardship is caused by this sign code
and has not been created by any pe~ons presently having an interest in the parcel.
(4) Effect of variance. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements to the neighborhood.
(5) Impairment of light and air. That the variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to adjacent property.
(6) Impairment of police and fire functions. That the variance will not impsir or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or interfere with the
function of the police and fire departments of the city.
(1) Review procedures and informational requirements.
(1) Sign application. The applicant must complete and submit a sign permit application
for approval by the city council.
(2) Permit issued if application is in order. The city building official, upon the filing of an
appUcation for a permit, shall eY-,-i-e such plRns, specifications and other data and
the premises upon which it is proposed to erect the sign. If it appears that the proposed
structure is in compUance with all requirements of thls chapter and all other laws and
ordinances of the city, the permit shall be issued. If the work authorized under a permit
has not been completed within 60 days after the date of issuance, the permit shall be
null and void.
(3) City council approval. When this chapter requires city council approval for a sign, the
application shall be processed in accordance with the procedural and substantive
requ/rements of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance for a conditional use permit.
CD3:51
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 plennersL~.nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM:
Alan Brixius/Mike Darrow
DATE: July 30, 2003
RE:
New Hope - Rau Sign Variance
FILE NO:
131.01 - 03.12
BACKGROUND
Mr. Randy Rau, owner of the gas station/car wash located at 9400 36t~ Avenue North,
wishes to change over his signs from the current Mobil station to a Shell station
signage. To accomplish this, Mr. Rau has submitted information for comprehensive
sign plans for the site and requested a variance to allow a freestanding sign within three
feet of the south property line.
The site is located within the CB, Community Business District. The purpose of the CB,
Community Business Distdct is to provide for the establishment of commercial and
service activities which draw from and serve customers from the entire community or
sub-region. Residential uses are located to the north, south, and east. The area to the
immediate west of the site is zoned CB.
According to Section 4.36 of the Zoning Code, the purpose of a variance is to permit
relief from the stdct 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 the Zoning Code.
The applicant states that the vadance hardship is dictated by site design and the need
to preserve existing trees along the boulevard. Additionally, as part of final approval, the
applicant will be removing an existing pylon sign in exchange for the proposed
freestanding signage.
Exhibits:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Survey
Site Plan
Site Location Map
Sign Plans
Color Renderings
ANALYSIS
In addition to the freestanding sign, the applicant is proposing additional wall signage
and canopy signage. Below is analysis of all proposed signage.
Wall Signage. According to Section 3.492(1)(a) and (b), not more than two wall signs
are allowed per building. Total area of the wall signs shall not exceed 15 percent of the
front face of the building in a commemial or industrial zoning district, or 250 square feet,
whichever is less. The applicant is proposing two wall signs. Both meet code.
1 Perfect Car Wash Sign Area 36 square feet
1 Food Mart Sign Total Area 21 square feet
Canopy Signage. According to Section 3.492(3), awning and canopy signage shall
not exceed 16 square feet per sign. Signs shall be limited to one sign per canopy fascia
fronting the street. The applicant's sign plan proposes two canopy signs, one facing
west and one facing south. The individual signs do not exceed 12 square feet,
compliant with Code. The proposed canopy only has frontage on 36th Avenue. As
such, the second canopy sign could be construed as being a violation of ordinance,
however, city staff have reviewed the proposed signage and have determined that the
canopy signage is appropriate due to the location on a comer lot and the lot itself having
frontages on both Jordan and 36th Avenue.
The applicant's plan indicates that the Shell signs will be incorporated into the colors
that run along the canopy fascia. Staff is recommending that only the signs be
illuminated. The balance of the canopy fascia should not be illuminated.
Freestanding Signage. According to Section 3.492(2), not more than one
freestanding sign shall be permitted on any lot meeting the following standards:
(a) Freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 square feet in area.
(b) Freestanding signs shall not exceed 30 feet in height.
Section 3.492(5)(a) states that signs accessory to automobile service stations and
convenience stores with gas sales are permitted additional signs to advertise the pdce
of gasoline. One sign per frontage on a public street suitable for apprising persons of
the total sale price per gallon. An area of such price signage shall not exceed 16
square feet. The applicant's proposed freestanding sign has a total area of 115 square
feet. City staff's interpretation is that the applicant should be entitled to the 100 square
feet for business identification plus the 16 square feet for the gas sale sign, the total
signage allowed on the freestanding sign would be 116 square feet. In this respect,
staff feels that the freestanding sign could be determined to be compliant with the sign
area requirements within the commercial zoning district.
Location Variance
The applicant wishes to locate the sign along 36th Avenue within a landscaped island
between the two curb cuts accessing the site. The applicant, in his text, indicates that
the sign is 12 feet in width and as such, would be located within three feet of the south
property line. A seven foot variance is being requested.
The total height of the proposed sign, including the 1.5 foot base, will be 11 feet. The
applicant is proposing a brick base to match the exterior of the principal structure. The
total height including base meets the requirements of the Zoning Code. The proposed
sign will have a metal face and metal frame with plastic letters.
The applicant has indicated the location of the trees and the location of the proposed
sign. Staff has concerns regarding the canopy of the trees and the sight lines of the
proposed signage. If it is found that the existing trees need to be trimmed back to
improve sight lines of the new sign, staff would recommend that the applicant submit a
plan detailing the areas to be trimmed.
The site is part of a larger shopping area with limited space for new signage. Due to the
site configuration and access points as well as the elimination of a pylon sign on the
site, the applicant's request meets the variance requirements as outlined in the Zoning
Ordinance. A variance had been granted for the pylon sign, however, that variance will
expire with the construction of the new freestanding sign.
Existing Signage. In addition to the change over in the existing signage on the site,
the applicant is also proposin~ to remove a 200 square foot pylon sign located at the
corner of Highway 169 and 36"' Avenue. Staff sees this as a major incentive that would
encourage us to consider the sign variance. In addition to the removal of this oversized
sign, the applicant will be required to remove the existing pylon sign on site in exchange
for the new freestanding monument sign.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the variance request subject to the following conditions:
1) A utilities search shall be conducted for the proposed location of the sign.
2) The canopy signage may be illuminated. The balance of the canopy fascia shall not
be permitted to be illuminated.
3) Pdor to the completion of the freestanding sign, the existing pylon sign shall be
removed.
4) Trimming of the existing trees to improve sight lines of the new sign shall require
approval from City Staff.
5) Additional comments from City Staff, Planning Commission, and Council.
pc:
Roger Axel
Vince Vander Top
4
Engineers & Architects
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is in Affirmative Action/Equal
Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E. Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Robert G.
Schunicht, P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Mark A. Hanson, P.E.
Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. Joseph C. Andertik, P.E. Richard E. Turner,
P.E. Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A.
Associate Principals: Keith A. Gordon, P.E. Robert R. Pfeffede, P.E. Richard W. Foster,
P.E. David O. Loskota, P.E. Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. Ted K. Field, P.E. Kenneth P.
Anderson, P.E. MarkR. Rolls, P.E. DavidA. Bonestroo, M.B.A. Sidney P. Williamson, P.E.,
L.S. AgnesM. Ring, M.B.A. Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E. ThomasW. Peterson, P.E. JamesR.
Maland, P.E. Miles B. Jensen, P.E. L. Phillip Gravel II1, P.E. Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E.
Ismael Martinez, P.E. Thomas A. Syfko, P.E. Sheldon J. Johnson Dale A. Grove, P.E.
Thomas A. Roushar, P.E. Robert J. Devery, P.E.
Offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar, MN Milwaukee, WI Chicago, IL
Website: www.bonestroo.com
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM:
Vince Vander Top
CC:
Mark Hanson, Guy Johnson
DATE: July 30, 2003
SUBJECT: 9400 36th Avenue- Rau Sign Variance
Our File No. 34-Gen E03-24
We have reviewed the proposed plans for the sign variance. Please consider the following:
The 36th Avenue ROW along this property extends 40 feet north of centerline. This is
the same as 16 feet north of the curb line or approximately 4 feet north of the
sidewalk.
This south edge of the sign is proposed to be 3.5 feet north of the ROW/property line
or approximately 7 feet north of the sidewalk or 19 feet north of the curb.
The proposed location of the sign will still allow for adequate site lines for vehicles
leaving either of the property driveways.
The existing trees will impact the visibility of the sign. The applicant has indicated
that the sign would be visible if the trees were trimmed. Regardless, some impact
should be anticipated.
°
It is not known if a drainage and utility easement exists along the ROW line. The plat
for Northwood Terrace 6th Addition should be checked for record of this easement. If
an easement exists, the proposed location of the sign would encroach on the
easement. The area should also be checked for private utilites such as phone, cable,
and natural gas.
End of memo
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
Memorandum
Date:. July 30, 2003
To: Kirk McDonald
From: RogerAxel ~
Re: Randy Rau sign variance - 9400 36~ Ave. N.
Plan review comments for revised plans:
1. Revised plans do not clearly indicate dimensions of sign face areas.
2. Sign base different from odginal proposal.
3. Applicant has not provided information as to type of trees on island.
4. Applicant needs to indicate that existing trees on island will not be removed once sign is
installed.
5. Applicant needs to provide elevation drawings of sign in relation to existing trees.
6. Applicant needs to clearly define 'junky' signage that will be removed. Specifically, the sign
located in the Post Haste Center parking lot.
7. Applicant needs to specify timetable for removal of 'junky' signage.
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
03-14 Randy Rau 7/7/03 9/5/03 11/4/03
Brooklyn Center Service Inc.
The Perfect Car Wash
9400 36m Avenue North
New Hope 55427
763-561-7821
18-118-21-33-0102
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.
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission Members
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director
August 1, 2003
Miscellaneous Issues
NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with
additional detail on CounciI/EDA/HRA actions on Community Development related issues or
other city projects. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review,
at your discretion.
July 28 Council/EDA Meetings - At the July 28 Council/EDA meetings, the Council took action
on the following planning/development/housing issues:
· Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amendinq Section 1.5(i) reqardin.q the temporary
prohibition on all construction and development within four study areas identified b';
the Livable Communities Task Force: Adopted, see attached Council request.
· Project #748, motion authorizinq staff to neqotiate the potential purchase of 5517
Winnetka Avenue based on its appraised value of $135,000: Approved, see attached
Council request.
· Motion directinq staff not to pursue acquisition of the offer to purchase the sinqle family
homes at 7608, 7616, 7624 and 7700 55t~ Avenue, located directly adiacent to th~
identified Livable Communities East Winnetka study are,~: Approved, see attached Council
request.
· PC99-21, resolution authorizinq release of escrow deposit for L&A Townhomc..
development at 4820-4860 Alice Way: Approved, see attached Council request.
· Proiect #707, resolution supportin,q Proiect for Pride in Livin,q's Hennepin County
Division of Environmental Services environmental response fund application for
asbestos abatement at their property located at 7610 Bass Lake Road as part of thc
current renovation project: Approved, see attached Council request.
Project #685, motion al~10rovina final payment to Fair's Nursery in the amount of $355.80
for landscapin.q of city-owned twinhome located at 7105 62"d and 6151 Louisian-~
Avenues: Approved, see attached Council request.
Resolution approvinq a housin(; ;3roqram and .¢livim3 r)reliminary approval to issuanc~
of revenue bonds to St. Therese Home~ Inc: Approved, see attached Council request.
PC03-11, request for 5' variance to the 25' front yard setback requirement to alloy,
construction of an attached qara.qe 20' from the front property line, 4053 Neva~.--
Avenue: Denied and referred to city attorney to prepare findings of fact.
o
· Resolution authorizinq the issuance of variable rate demand multifamily housinq
revenue refundinq bonds (Broadway LaNel project), series 2003; establishinq the
security therefor and authorizinq the execution of document-~: Approved, see attached
Council request.
· Resolution relatinq to a redevelopment a.qreement with Broadway LaNel~ a limiteH
partnership; approvin.q termination of the redevelopment a.qreement and authorizin.n.
execution of various documents: Approved, see attached EDA request.
Codes & Standards Committee - The Codes & Standards Committee did not meet in July. A
meeting has been scheduled for August 28 to discuss the following issue:
A. Siqn Study - The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission review and clarify
the regulations pertaining to garage sale and real estate signs. Staff and the consultants will
prepare an outline of issues to be addressed and present to the committee for review before
the study proceeds. The Council has also requested that a public meeting be held by the
Citizens Advisory Commission on this issue to let residents express their opinions. (This is the
same process utilized when the screening of trash enclosures was studied.) Staff has
developed a timeline in the near future to incorporate all elements of the study. Please see
attached City Report article.
B. Transit Shelters - This issue may have to be reviewed again by the committee in September.
The review of the proposed transit shelter locations by property owners at the May Citizen
Advisory Commission went fine. However, two things occurred since that time which have
delayed staff taking the ordinance and agreement to the Council:
1 )Outdoor Promotions has contacted staff and said they want additional changes in both the
ordinance and the contract.
2)U.$. Bench strongly opposes giving up its sites for shelters and wants the City to pursue
"sharing the sites" to accommodate both benches and shelters at the sites.
C. Minor Code Amendments - The city attorney has prepared an ordinance addressing minor
code amendments previously discussed by the committee. Staff wants the committee to review
the final ordinances before proceeding to the full Commission and City Council.
D. Miscellaneous - There are several other miscellaneous code issues that staff wants to discuss
with the committee in the future.
Desi.qn and Review Committee - The Design and Review Committee met in July to review plans
for a sign variance and Medicine Lake Road Sinclair station redevleopment. The deadline for the
September Planning Commission meeting is August 8. A pre-application meeting was held on
August 1 with a resident requesting a variance for existing second residential driveway. Committee
members will be notified regarding the status of the meeting.
Future Applications - Future applications or businesses that staff is currently working with
include:
· 8501 54th Avenue: Driveway Designs new construction on newly created lot
· Alfa Muffler at Winnetka/Medicine Lake Road
· 42"d & Quebec redeveloping future: Culvers Restaurant and professional offices
· Collisys - PUD amendment to allow second building on site
City Center Task Force Update - The task force met on July 10. Minutes from that meeting are
attached. The next meeting will be held on August 7. Open house is scheduled for September 18.
Please see the attached City Report article for more details.
Livable Communities Study-
Please see attached City Report article for most recent update.
11.
Project Bulletins - Attached is a project bulletin regarding Metro Transit, Hidden Valley Park
improvements, and Livable Communities.
Project Updates:
Navarre Corporation - construction to start in August.
Plymouth Heiqhts Pet Hospital - closing on property to take place in mid-August and construction
to start thereafter.
St. Joseph's Chumh - construction to start in August.
Woodbrid.qe - construction to start this fall.
Miscellaneous Articles - Enclosed are the June and July issues of Zoning News for your review.
Planning Commission List: Enclosed separately is an updated Planning Commission member
list.
If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff.
Attachments:
Livable Communities construction ban
5512 Winnetka Avenue
55th Avenue properties
L&A Townhomes
7610 Bass Lake Road
7105 62nd Avenue
St. Therese Home revenue bonds
Broadway LaNel housing revenue refunding bonds
Broadway LaNel redevelopment agreement
City Center Task Force minutes
Project Bulletin
Miscellaneous Article
COUN_c!l_
RF~UF.,ST-FOR-ACTION
Originating Department
Community Develol~ment
By: Kirk McDonald, Director of
Approved for Agenda
7-2&-03
Agen~la Section
Consent
Item No.
6.6
ORDINANCE NO. 03-17: AN ORDINANCE AMMENDING SECTION 1.50) REGARDING THE TEMPORARY
PROHIBITION ON ALL CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN FOUR STUDY AREAS
IDENTIFIED BY THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES TASK FORCE
_REQUESTED ACTION
Staff a Council motion approving minor typing errors in Ordinance No. 02-09: An
establishing a temporaG, Prohibition on all construction and development within four study
identified by the Livable Communities Task Force. On June 23, the Council approved Ordinance No. 03-12.
e.xtendmg the ban on de..velopment m all four L!vable C0mmunitias Task Force StudiYnareas until July 31, 2004.
applications were affected by these minor errors.
Since June 23, staff noticed and corrected m~nor typing errors in the original ord rice No building I~ermit
~POLICYIPAST PRACTIC,-
tn the past, the City Council has appmvecl moratoriums on certain issues to allow time to resolve those issues.
BACKGROUND
On June 23, 2003, the Council approved Ordinance No. 03-12, extending the ben on development in all four
.-,- =~ -,,,.,,~ ~n me ori inal · · Since June 23, staff noticed and corrected
errors ,. bo d Ord,nance .dop .d o. gu.t 12, 2002. follo.,ng
...... · u~u aria corrected.-
located i~. Winnetka West s .
,~ g ~ eest of Zealand Avenue tudy area ~nclubes all prope
No.h o~ ss ^ve.ue .o~ =.. ~ o~ ~ La~- ,,--~' ~ ~ o~ Winnetka Avenue
uo...~ ,,,.,a~ pml3erties south of Bas;
~ortn and Bass Lake R,.,~ _--'~'~"~_~._..wmnetlm Avenue North on ',,~ ~.~.a~.[_stuo.y area includes all
Lake Road · ; .'""~., ',~l~' mt-5300 I~, its east s~de be
on ,, ,o~ .~. ~.,,.... '_,,-a. .4 ,,.,,,. ~.,~,. ..~,__,_ 53.
Wmnelka Avenue Nm.~ ---. ~, =' ? prol3erties abuttino
MOTION BY
TO: ~ SECOND BY
Reau~ for At,on
~i~ge 2
~2~0~
four intenor lots with access to Bass Lake Road via tile narrow private clnveway west of St. RaDnae:
Church. This area excludes all propertJas abutting ~ Abm Avenue North. the fJrs! two properties
abutting Sumter on its east side north of ~ $5'~ Avenue Norffi anti the first three lots on Sumter
Avenue abutting its west side north of ~ 55~h Avenue North.
.. ~ ~.uu, ,u~ ~,u ~u~n~ Or DUIIOI~g ~ un~r C~p~r 3 of ~ Ci~ Code ~,,~,,~ ~,.- ,-.'
unOer C~ ..... ~ _~ ~_ ~ ............. a . '0'~-~: ~gm~l ~e ~1~ and r~mn m ues~
use, ae~lop~nt or subdi~ion of I ' * 7~-~ ...... -~- -uae mr any
..... al ms~een~l an~ ~m~ * *
pmh~b~on ~ effe~ ~r ~ addffio~l ~r, until July ~1, 20~i ~ pm~s m the subje~ areas. The
Lake Road. in ~ ~. ~-~_ ~ ~ . and ~lop~nt of s' __~' ~m~n~aao~ for
....... -- ~,e ~ · ~ Io~t~ alu ·
bede · ~t~ a~ a . -g t~ so~ male of Ba
en 5~0 Wm~ A nd a~ng ~ e~ s · ss
Wmne~ and ~ ~ke R~, ~ --~ ~~ ~ alM~ ~r ho · ,. . P~n Update, ~e
...... - ,,~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~n~. ~ng ~nd~Uo~. ~mpm~ a~ss onto
sale ....,~r~ A~n~ N~. ~ ' ~u~ mmda ~ff ~ ~ .
s of these pm~ ~ ~- ~ ..... n ~ a~ 5550 ~ · · ~ ms~en~ dion the
n Piann~nn Di~-- e .... ~- ~ ~, ~ ~_,,, ..... ~ any interest ~,
along ~e ~st side ~ Win~ A
~ne ~l~ ~as a~ui~ ....... ,~u, ~ m ~ ~ ~k. m~.~*~ -~mau~ ~r July) an, 0.,--.
...... ( ) ~~ m ~ ~ WW~ ~~' O~r ~ ~t few
~ke RMd tn 2001 '~ ~M a~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .~F ~ s~d
...... ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~--~,_-~-: --' ~. ~m ~ ~_, '5..~''~' ~ ~undl
· . , u~a not prevent any property owner from approachwng
ordinance before the ~.. ,"-.-~, .. ,,,? . nave me option of rlKluestino an exemnti,~,, ,,.
Tomaszewski. ownerof54 · ,~,...^.__ p n~ one (1) exemption has been requested
34 Wm,.o~, ,-,,m.ue North r,~uested a ............. ' ctmel
---, ,, =~mpuon mr a ~96 sq. tr. addition to the
west portion of his home. On August 26, the Council ~lenied the property owner's recluest and directed the City
Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact. On September 23. the Council approved the Findings of Fact.
and Sumter pm ~s .~_: _ g ~ o ~ ~ a~ ~m ~ w~ .... , .... ~en
east an~ no~h. · · ~m ~ ~ ~ and ~ C~ ~ C~I ~ ~e
Reauest for A~tion Page
Staff recommenas approval of this motion correcting minor tyTmg errors tn Orclinance No. 02-09: An interim
ordinance establishing a lemDorary Drohibition on all cortslTuction anti ;tevelopmen! within tour stuay areas
iclenlffiecl t~y the Livable Communitms Task Force. No Duilding permit applications were affectecl by trtese
minor errors.
Per Council direction on June 23. staff will I~ mailing the sulNect orclinance information to all aflectecl proDeny
ow/lel'$.
ATTACHMENTS
· Ordinance No. 03-17
· Ordinance No. 03-12
· Ordinance No. 02-09
· Location Map
"171.I
14 3 ~
C)
Ills
noo HOSTERMAN
JR HIGH SCHOOL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
By:
Originating Department
Community Development
Ken Doresky, Community
Development Specialist
Approved for Agenaa
7-28-03
Agenaa Secaon
Consent
Item No.
6.7
MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE THE POTENTIAL PURCHASE OF 5512 WINNETKA
AVENUE NORTH BASED ON ITS APPRAISED VALUE OF $135,000 {IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FILE .748)
,ACTION REQU__.-_~I'ED
Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing staff to ne. o
located at 5512 Winnetka A ..... ,,, ......... g tiate the Potential purchase
-,~,,,~ ,~urm ~aseo on ~s appraisa¢l valu of property
from the property owner indicatinn a ,'~-,~,-. ,- --- .... · of $135,000. A letter has been received
=, ,,,~,,= ,~ a=, [ne propem, The ......... · ---
Communities East Winnetka Study Area. .-~. ~[u~ny ~s IOCate¢l within the Livable
?OLICY/PA~r PRACTICF
City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of COmmercial and resiclential Properties within
the City. The City Council has been addressing the residential PO~on of this goal through the City's many
housing activities, including acquiring Properties from willing sellers in areas designated for reclevaiopment in
the Comprehensive Plan. When a property owner submits a letter of interest to the C' a
PmraerSkee~tveadlut~ ~,~C~i~C~....u_.n_ci_'l for a .u~horization to complete an aoorai~l -~.-. ,,-~-.; . .ity, request is
~,, o,.wu,nng Property. Normally, fair market val~ie ~.~,,, ,,~__~[~y_~s required by law to pey fair
The Cit h -- .. .-- --,~,,--mo ~rom a property appraisal.
o,, m ...........
. ,u~u~= reoeVelO mant ----m[~a/t:laSS LaKe
s~xteen (16) Prooerti .~ i,, ,,~ _~_ ...?u_.r~. Over the past sere _ Road/Sumter Avenue
· ~_ · ...... ,= =,ca ~ne c; · · ral years, the City has a ·
Winnetka Ave N on Jul,, 3* · try ~s Plenmng to close on *~- ..... a,,,c, qu~recl a total of
· · · ,. "*= ==~en[eenth (17) Property, 5506
BACK=ROU.=
and determined fl~ .... o.,.r.,_lC~___.nt~l acq '_u~ton purposas. Fo . _ ommn an appraisal of 55
consider purcha;;;",~.~_?.~_s. ?~.ue to be $135,000. ~~~Ap,__pra..~.?ais, inc, completed the
Livable Commun-'~le"; "'~ p~...ml?ny ~ ~ received and-"'~"'"'~"~ horn ale owner requesting that "'- ....
East Winnetlm 8bJdv Ama--.-, ,--,. ~ June 1. The property i- ,,,,--o--, ~t~e. C..ity
~., -,~, m P'mnflelg District 6. --, - .,,,,~,~u WnTlm
~=~, [ne Metropolitan Council ~ the C,,o~hel~.Ci~ -~. New Hope Conlprehensive Plan Update. In
~n Update. In the Plan, the City was broken
MOTION BY
TO: ~ 8~COND BY
Recluest for Action *Page 2 7-28~0~
and Sumter properties that the City has been pursuing over the past few yearn are located. Planning [ ncr E
is homered by Winnetka Avenue North to the west, C.P. Rail system to the south and the City of Crystal to the
east and north.
The Comprehensive Plan targeted several areas in 'the City-for redevelopment. Recommendations for
Planning District 6 inclupe the acquisition and reaevelopment of sites located along the south si0e of Bass
Lake Road, in the Bass Lake Road extension area and along the east side of Winnetka Avenue North
between 5340 Winnetka Avenue end Bass Lake Road. As referenced in the Comprehensive Plan Update, the
recommendation to redevelop this area is intended to alleviate poor housing conditions, fmprove access onto
Winnetka and Bass Lake Road and mom fully utilize the land.
In October 1999, the New Hope Economic Development Authority directed staff to contact residents along the
east side of Winnetka Avenue North, between 5430 and 5550 to inquire if there was any interest in voluntary
sales of these properties to ttm City. In March 2002, the Council directed staff to contact twenty (20) residents
in Planning District 6 to again inquire if there was any interest in voluntary sails of these properties to the City.
Since purchase solicitation letters were distributed, the City has purchased sixteen (16) properties in Planning
District 6 (attached, please see a map of city-owned properties in/he Planning District) nine (9) of seventeen
(17) lots located along the east side of Winnetka Avenue North and seven (7) properties along Sumter Avenue
North and in the Bass Lake Road extension area. The City is planning to cieee on the seventeenth (17e)
property, 5506 Winnetka Ave. N. on July 31.
In 2000, .the. City received a Metro..politan Cou. n~l Livable. Communities Grant to stud
~.~e°~on~lc~e~r~n2th_e' m_ u_ghly qua,er-mill area .nc,'cllng the Inta, ction -, ....... Y redevelopment
· UUl & 2002, the Livable Communities Ts-'- "' ..... o. w!nne.tlm Avenue North and Bass
the 0esignated ama In 2002, the Council ac:ce-md th~--r'°.rc? smnmo .rectev?opment opportunlltils within
selected developers 'for each study ama site b~ed e __mS_K to.me study. In February 2003, the Council
continues to work with the developers on revised plans on proposals, except the west Winnetka site. Staff
The Hennepin County Estimated Market Value for the Property is as follows:
· Hennepin County
o Taxes payable 2003, estimated market value:$105,000 ('545,000 Land & $60,000 Building)
?_is_cre. pa.n. cies in previous appraisals ,'~.. ~,,g-- ~.,y re.s~entia! property appraisals for *h, ,-.,,.. ~..ml_ .other than
IRc. [O CIJs line .... ~k, .... · ,.-,, w~y ~.~:, StalT and the Cjh, A# ..... "'~ '-,,~y, uue ~O several
ap~rais-,-- c-~"-~"~.'.u.'.~ appraisal services. Forsufh~ *,.---: ..... v ,-,,~,,,,uy met with Forsvthe
,.0~r,~.__ .,._,,O ~"U acqu~smon activities for em,~,,---."~'7-?'-p'''-~'ams nas considembil e~,.,e,,..,~ ~-
~,,,,,4e [ne servi~,,e nf =.._..,__. u .... ,,,,,-,,~. aaencl-o i,..-. ....... --,. ,,-,,k,~., cOnlDletina
~- ... -u, oy, u,. · ~ --- -, ,au=Veld men · · - o
performe,4; ........ ,Nppra~sais, Inc. In the aa~ c ..... P ! areas. At th~s time
",- ~, ~t;spOnslDle ma .... ru, a~mle nas co . - ....,
nner. Fomythe completed this appraisal mpilted appraisals for the City and
P. al, 'the subject . _ o bas mont. The ...... s ua eel. The
· '"~-grls inaverage torinod ..... ---...---,,, ,mrm[er. It is in hood -.---.,-:: :':-
t, ,,u-grdon ana has avem,..., .... ,. = ,...,-u, uon eno is
Staff recolllrnerlds that the ~-,.-.--', .... ----~-
on the appraised vel ...... ~_'-2~-_ -a, -utllorize staff to r,,,,n,~.,. -.- ....
· ue or ~135,000 . . '--~---~ um potential a · ·
Price for considers*;---: ...... . If negotiation is sueex~ d .,--. ...... cquisition of this Drormnv
c~ate a u g request ID rd · turn to the Counci *
_ , .P rchase agreement ~,kd k. ___ p .coed with the preparation ,.,, ..... I with a purchase
~s completed, staff would a~,'-'~-------"-/'~ .p...msemea to the council for consid~,~ ? pu? agreement. At a later
site to a . . u~flpr rd sell the home to ration. If a DurcRas
ma~ntmnable co · a house · · of the ro
sal . - .... ~'. =~nas' · . then be landban · . restore the
e. no relocation be ~ .... ,., ,__ nm~cated to the prrm,,,,~ ....... kec~ m Preparation fl,,,,,.,
nefits ,,uu~g ~ rmid. ~ ..... --,----x ,.,,,,m~ ~ Decaua~ th~ .... ,., .__ for .....
Request for Action Page 3 7-28-03
FUNDING
The sut)]ect properly is located in an area where TIF funds can be expenaecl. T/F funas woUld De usecf for
properS/acquisition and assoaated holding cosls. Dunng the 2003 Slate Legislabve Speaal Session. the
City's TIF special lagLslation was passecl. Staff is coordinating with Krass Monroe, ttte Clys F~nanc~a/
Consultant t,o facilitate the necassa~/atela$ for iml~lementetion.
AI'rACHMENTS
· Appraisal
· Location Map
· Topographic Map
· Planning District 6 - City Ownership Map
·
.C. orrespon_~ence from Property Owner, 6-1-03
· rsennel~in ~;ounty Parcel Data
· Coml~rehensive Plan References - Planning District 6
East Winnetka Study Area - Planning District 6
.... ,a~ KAJa C
5410 ; 541! ; r.. ~.L~'~ ~,417 ¢ ~ S,42D ~ 5425 ." / '.-~.,,,..=nens,ve Planning DJstnc{5:
- Closing in Jub, 2O03
COUNCI~
R QU ST FOR ACTION
Originating Department
Community Development
By: Kirk McDonald, Director of
Commun
Approved for Agencla
7-28-03
Agencla Section
Consent
Item No.
MOTION DIRECTING 'STAFF NOT TO PURSUE ACQUISITION OF THE OFFER TO PURCHASE THE
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AT 7608, 7616, 7624 AND 7700 55TM AVENUE, LOCATED DIRECTLY ADJACENT
TO THE IDENTIFIED LIVABLE COMMUNITIES EAST WINNETKA STUDY AREA
..,ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends ti'mt the Council pass a motion cieciining the offer to consicler
homes at 7608, 7616, 7624 and 7700 55t~ Ave ............ . the purchase the single-family
Communities East Winnetka Stud,, Area ^ __,,~:,__u=~r~__o ~n, Iocelm:l ol.re, ctiy adjacent to the identified Li
de ' . x · ,.~ ~.,~uuun nas Amen re ' . veble
~,re .to sell the four (4) subject properties to the e~v Whi'- -~c~-----fr~m--.the .property owners indicating a
r,e0evelopment, the additional acquisitions would '-.,~.~--'- "--'~ ,~_m_~ -.9 .m~s_ ma! Itmy would fir nicely into
oetermined that it would n~,f~. ~ ....... ,..,,-..,~.~au me reno cost tot the Drmect a
,- ..... ,,., ,~-~.rrme on me onginally defined area at this ~. n_. ,~ ~.,uunc~l has
?OLICY/PAST PRACTICF
City g.o,.al #2 is !o pursue ..the mafntenance an? redevelopment of commercial and resl
the c. lty The City Council has been adclressln · 'dential pro riles ·
housing and redevelo ............ g the resiclentlel portion ,~ ~-'-- ...... pe within
,s presented to the C~v Coun~_W.h.ena. prol:?rty owner submits a letter ~-, .... ~g.h. ~ City s many
the past h.. r. ......:, ~_ ~ _ ~ ~.~r consloeratiorl · . ,.twr=s[ ~o lne city, 8 re ties
,- , t..,....,.,..~, .as ,~,-,;.-~ ,- ..... · Properties are cons,:te . ,., ....... q t
--,..,,,~u ~ [aRe aC~lort OI1 n.'~M~..--, .... re' ""'" ~ae-Dy-case
,"'-'~'~, v ~ proposals. Pas ........
The city has been acquiring Properties on a volurttary basis in
Winnetka Study Area for potential future retie.-, ..... ~ identirmd Livable Co ** ..
accluireo a total of 16 --,.,,--.-': ..... ,,~,upmem purposes n..,. ,~ ...... mmunlt~es Ea=t
Avenue North .......,..,-,.-?,~,. _u~a m ~ area. The city is .,.,..~__ :' _T"' urn. pas; s~everm years, the ~ h... I
purchase of . - tonight's meeting, the · . ~ 17'" prope ,5506 ·
5512 Winnetka Avenue orth ,,- ..... .Cou~nc~l will consider auth,~,.~ ..... ~r~y. Wmnetka I
BA ..... N_._., .urn porenlm118~ property. ,.,,..,.~ =~arr ro negotiate the l
' e.OUND
~ · . u~ Slrlgle-~alTd
Study Area. The r~titi,~ .--..~ directly adjacent to the ~t...,~ ..... ly homes at 7608, 7616 7624
proposed F_~_~f uui~.":~._": ~ltmsls Dlat the C#v e~.,.~... _.~,~-,~,,mmg I.IVaDM Commun,~..
proposed n~.... ___. ,-_-_-- ..-~-~,~m project. Th~ n~,.,. --.~_ --~ -,~ largpel'UeS i'or ina~.i,.,.~ -.-,- .,_ /
submittecl th~s re~lUeSt, sul~ject Properties am not ~n support of the
MOTION BY
TO: ~ SECOND BY
RequestforAction
Page 2 7--28,-03
At the July 21 work session, the Council briefly discussed this request and indicated a desire not to pursue the
potential eccluisition of these I~roperties even if they may fit in nicely in the I~otential redevelopment pro/act. I~
was discussed that Ryland Homes, the preferred developer for the Livable Communities East Winnetka Area.
may decide to purchase the properties through private transactions to ex;and the area at their discretion. The
Hennepin County Estimated Market Value for the combined proloertias is $713,000.
On June 23, 2003, the Council apl~mVed Ordinance No. 03-12, extending the ben on development in all four
Livable Communities Task Force Study areas, until July 31, 2004. The original ordinance, Ordinance 02-09
was adopted on August 12, 2002. At tonight's meeting, the Council will consider Ordinance 03-17 correcting
minor tying errors in the original ordinance. The subject properties are not included in the building permit
moratorium area.
In 1998, the Council passed a resolution approving the city of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update. In
1999, the Metropolitan Council approved the Comprehensive Plan UpOate. In the Plan, the clly was broken
clown into several planning districts. Planning District 6 is the district where the Winnetka, Bass Lake Road
and Sumter properties that the city has been pursuing over the past few years are located. Planning District 6
is bordered by Winnetka Avenue North to the west, C.P. Rail system to the south and the city of Crystal to the
east ancl north.
The Comprehensive Plan .ta.rgeted several ames in the city for redevelopment. Recommendations for Planning
iDn'~;c~36a;sn~:~: ~L~CCle~;~s~:nanaLre:evelopmant of slt..Iocated along the south side of Bass Lake
nd along the east m · Road,
Avenue and Bass Lake Road As de. of Wlnnetiui Avenue between 340
referen ....... · 5 .............
· ~.u m me [.;omprenensnm Plan Update, the recommendation to
redevelop this area ~s Intende.d..to alleviate I~oor housing conditions, improve access onto Wi
recommenoed ,;, a~at~ereo s~e renovation and redevelol~ment is
tn October 1999' the New Hope Economic Development Authority directed staff to contact residents along the
District 6 to a,~ '- ~ .... ~_.c~_l rch 2002, the Council directed -,-., -- - : - ~__rest m voluntary sales of
=al,, ,.wu.,~ .mere was any interest in ,.,',,,--~-- --:"" "-~--" ~u ounmc~ 20 residents in Planni.,~
-~,ui,wry ~ale$ O1' these e, ro.~.--.: ...... ' ........
· . . ~, ~,=~ u=~ m [ne City.
east side of Winnetka Ave- ...... p perues in me Plannino i;)i .,,~ ,.,~,.,..., .,., ..... mg District 6
exte-o; ........ '-""~ ""0 seven oro~l~.mF,-e ol,...-- h.___.' ?tl~../...,~ ui l/lOIS located ,~klnr.
ton~ hr · --- -- ,"-", ,,, ,t~ ~u Base on ~e I - -&.-. --~.. ., ,u m me 13ass La
g s meeting, the Council ,~. ...... 7~ Property, 5506 Win to= ~ ........... ke Road
'"" ~,,~;g~r aLMlol~zin,.. ~.~ · ..... 118 .... ;.u~ un JUly 31. Alsn
Winnetka Avenue. = o,0,, ~u nego,ate the potential purchase of
Io~n2o0r,0,,0.',,,th_e:_ci..tY received , Metrope/itan Coun,-;, ,;--,-,- - .
,-,- .,,,,,,-=~ m me roughly uerter · . ,,,,. uvaum uommunitias Gm
oacl. 2001 .ncl 2002 =',..=Bo. -. · hr_to study redeve,o,mant
a, esignated area. In ;~0-~ '*~-.~-.v~e---,~itias Task Force studied ;.;,~._W~..n, na._t_~_ Avenue and Bass Lake
aeveioloers for each so..-=-'-'-~- ~ accepted the task force ------,up_n~_nt op~ortunities within th
work with the ,.----,-- u=_uy area ~ baled on orooos~le ~.,.._s~u. cly_. In February 2003, the Council
· ,--=,u~rs on revised ~ ....... '"~-m me west Winnetka sit-. e,-.;--"---'..'''"~'mu
The. He~;;~i.nTCaOx:nsL.E~m.~~Ma~V_.alues for the subject Properties
~',= -uu,., · --- as follows.
· 7616 - Taxes ~,,=~,,- ~ _-~..mTmmO market value: $183 0
· .--.,--.-, -,.,,,,3, · . O0 ¢$42,000 Land
_7_624 - Taxes I~ayable 20a.'~ ~ rrm .rket value: $ ag. ooo ,,.,,., _ - $ 4 .ooo Building)
· 7700 - Tex~ ...... ---, ~.~m,mi~ mamet val~. e,~.., ..... :: :_-,v,~, ~.anu & $144,000
T..,., °~ ~yaole 2003, a~lJrnm~ ,,..,. .... --. _~,g4,uuu (~45,000 Land .~ ee,,,. ,~,,,, _-.'.'-.."'u/
-~"~ ........ "=~-[ value- ~.l?e ~w ,o ..... - -- ,---g,~ tluJJciJn,~t
· ~ la'~,o00 Land & ~1~* ,,,,- -
Request for Action
Page 3 7-28-03
Staff recommends that the Council decline the offer to purchase the single-family t~omes at 7608, 7616, 7624
and 7700 55"~ Avenue, located directly ad)acent to the identified Livable Communities East Winnetka Stud),
Area, even if they may fit nicely into a proposed redevelopment project. As the Council discussed at the Juty
21 work session, Rylend Homes, the preferred developer for the Livable Communities East Winnetka Area,
may decide to purchase the pmpertias through private transactions to expand the area at tl~eir discretion.
FUNDING
The subject property is located in an ama where TIF funds can be expended. TIF funds would be used for
property accluisition and associated holding costs. Dunng the 2003 State Legislative SpeCial Session. the city's
TIF special legislation was passed. Staff is coordinating with Kress Monroe, the city's financial consultant to
facilitate the necessary steps for implementation.
,ATTACHMENTS
· Petition, 6-23-03
· Additional Property Owner Correspondence (e-mail). 6-26-03
· City Staff Correspondence, 6-23-03
· Location Map
· Topographic Map
· East Winnetka Livable Communities Study Area Site/Planning District 6 Map
· Planning District 6 - City Ownership Map
· Building Permit Moratorium Area Map
· Hennepin County Parcel Data
· Comprehensive Plan References - Planning District 6
HOSTERMAN
JR HIGH SCHOOL
J
COUNO!
RF-~UF.,ST FOR ACTION '
Originating Department
Community Development
Kirk McDonald
Approved for Agenda
7-28-03
Agenaa Section
Consent
Item No.
6.9
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF ESCROW DEPOSIT FOR L & A TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT AT 4820-
4860 ALICE WAY CASE i
..REQUESTED ACTION
t p.p,_m.~,~,a___r~.?lu~ ?_leas_ ing the .crow depce~t for the ~ & A
· ,--,,.~ ,ray t,-~anmng uasa gg-21) The city en ineer
the clralntile work has been completed · g has confirmed that
.POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
It is the policy ancl past practice of the city to require a financial guarantee for specific site improvements/
amenities to insure that improvements are completed and to release the financial guarantee when the
Improvements have been completed. ..
BACKGROUND
In March 2000, the City Council approved a planned unit development, rezoning, and variances for the
construction of four residential twinhomes (eight units) for L & A Homes at 4820-4860 Alice Way ('Planning
.Case 99-21). A financial guarantee in the amount of $114,000
was submitted to insure that specific site
..... water main, lanclsca · · -,,,- t~utmr, mann sewer/st
?/eased the financial -,,-,~,~-.. ,-_.___ _P~.' restoration and sidewalk i., , .......... ructu_res, sanitary
· ~ .... ,~, ~;m~ver .... ~.-.u~ry :/uu3 · ·
The city eh-in-- - - .... ,.~ ,.~.,-~mma m I~e spring of 2003. ,- .... --- =a~:row amount of
· , . 9 ?er mcermy ~nspected the property and noted that the
city s satisfaction. The encios * clrainti
approval of the resoluti-,, ed resolution ap,rovas release of ~he es~-~.. ~w°-r~--~l~..s I:~e.e. nC?...mpleted to the
~"I'rACI-IMENT$ ..... ,.,- ~osK, ano sr~rr recommends
· Resolution
· City Engineer Memorandum
MOTION BY
TO: ~ SECOND BY
COUNCIl_
R QUF. T FOR ACTION
Originating Deparb,,ent
Community Development
By: Ken Doresky, Community
Development Specialist
Approved for Agenaa
7-2&.03
Agenaa Section
Consent
Item No.
6.10
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING'S HENNEPIN COUNTY DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE FUND APPLICATION FOR ASBESTOS
ABATEMENT AT THEIR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7810 BASS LAKE ROAD AS PART OF THE CURRENT
RENOVATION PROJECT ('IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 707)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting Council approval of the attached resolution supporting Project for Pride in Living (PPL)
application to receive asbestos abatement funding from the Hennepin County Division of Environmental
Services. Environmental Response Fund (ERF). The grant funds will be used to abate asbestos in window
caulking at 7610 Bass Lake Road, the 11-unit PPL rehabilitation project. The Hennepin County funds are in
addition to many other funding sources for the project inctuding a City of New Hope loan approved on May 13.
2002. PPL is not requesting any additional City dollars, only approval of the attached resolution necessan/to
apply for ERF funding.
POLICY/PAST PRAC'FlCF
City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential Properties within
the City. The .City Council has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the City's many,
housing activities, including partnering with different agencies and organizations on housing Projects.
In the past, the City has been
t~r~ojects. As the Council is aware, requested to approve similar resolutions in multi-partner redevelopment
projects of this size require a variety of funding partners and us
ne expertise of an experienced development aaencv su,,+, .,.. ,-,,,, ..~ .. ually require
agencies approve funding, contingent upon the ' -" -' "o ,-,-~. ~Jr[en t~mes, other jurisdictions and
City's consent and Project participation.
BACKGROUND
for the ERF nrant .-.~. ,,-- - _ ~wrdes are unoerwav p=f ;.., ........ · Road, the 11-
= -,,u, m ~ Of ' ' z- --.- ,,.ui~.,~g ITl~t the a
approval of this re-,.,J,,,~-- ...- -ge. this resolution. PPL is n,.e ~ .... ,=__ ~ xpect to be approved
· '""."---Ull gl S .... '~a~Ml'l an ad ' ·
PPL stahng: upport necassap/for ERF fundin- ,~#..-,---, g_.a y _ditional City dollars, only
MOTION BY
TO:
SECOND BY
Reeuest for Action pa_ge 2 ..... 7-28.03
"As you know, we have undertaken the mdevelol~ment of the 11-unit apartment at 7610 Bass Lake Road and
are currently in the i0rocess of rehabbing the Dro~oerty.
Pnor to ~ginning ~ p_ro?ct., we .nad .a I~a;=rd.o. us matenms survey performed by Leisch Associalas. In tnaz
survey, most of
...... . -,- .... was ,..,, m~mo. ~ me auvJce ot another consultant
address 'hidden" remedlation expenses which im---;~=~n- ~_ou_nbrs Is.merge. ney Response Fund is designed to
is afforclabie housing, we have aVplied for resou~ ~ .u~..?~ro~_r~__ = project... As one of the Fund's 10nonties
o ,,., -oa~a, me project with mis expense.
in order to award Itm funds to us, the County recluwres a City Council resolution supporting the use of the funds
for the project. Them is no cost to the City.
We would like to mClUeSt that the New Hope City Council take up the issue at ils next meeting on July 28"~'
and that./f acceptable, a supporting resolution be 1oassed.'
u anu ~-'rope M uang Pment Agreement
Authori MPH rty anagement Agreement be . , . Regulatory
,~,-,,,...., ~ ~M~.... A_), New Hope F. DA and P · ct .... ) , .tv~?n the Mlnneapohs Public ·
,-.../;,., -., ,o,u ua.ss Lake Road ro~e for Pnde ~n Living (PPL) mr the Bass Lake Road Housing
· AI3artments
,'~."_ee~men! _l~e_tw~..n the MPHA and the EDA ~,.~_uu~u~,~, _appm.~. an In/rial Agreement a,,," '"' ......
the ,,,.,-, .... , ___ '~-.-~.,__~-mn[ indicated that the ~=nA ~......,';7/._':".'"""~ ~aanmems project at 76
~-'-,-,.,~, process to HUD · --'-. ---~ mmng Io rU ' 10 Bass
Dev for fund~n of the · pe clpata with the MPH ·
. elopment Agreement with ~ ~,,',,.-g --- MHOP umts and mauima ~ e,-,.. . A and PPL ~n
;or the uni __ -,~ ,,rr~ anoPPL that ---,. :_-_...~. ~;~/~ ~o enter into a ·
ts, confirmed ama" · . , among other th~n . _ Housing
and O ........ nitiss m and around ,*,-- -= ...... ge, established desi,',n -.--.-~'--
,=,-.ung agreement and ,,,....~ ..... "'= ueve~oDment and · a
units. --.- ~,,,.,,ue uecmration of Resth,~- ~a-n~--re~mred pPL to execute a
~.,~,v~ ~;}v~na · .-~ ~..7
ms rotating to the operation of the
._. cs,_=. ~,x.es agmnst the four MHOP un~ ;~.:-"?-': ,s ca~c=ty as the taxin,., =,,,,...--. ......
,,=,, or rem estate taxes --.. ,-,. ....... 7- "'"_."' me aevelopment for - ~ .-~-_~u~_~.y. w~, not assess real
'Shelter Rent" -- .~--- - ' "'~ ,.,w,e, wm PW ltm EDA = ~--,-,-,- ~ the entire 40-year exemn,,.,,.
ad u]a[ lerm is d · -' .-,'-~ ~. i his 8moullt ," .... ~.,~.uu. 113
the occupants of th~ f,,,,. ,,u~,,e.~. m Itm Agreement. Sh-#... ,,,_ .. will be calculated as
reclu~red to pay the I=,~-r ,.. ,,._ _ itS. As a result, the ,-..-.-, -- pproximetaly 30% of ,h,~
estate tax ..... - ua me ~.;oumy for dis · ...._,_ .'.=_,-~ paymellt will be ~uite ow 'r,..."'~'.~'urne or
payment, tributi,,, ua me various taxi.-- ,---=. - . !.ow. ,,,~ ~ will be
~, ..... ,,u ug~.s as ~ ~t were the actual real
of the buildin ' ~ [.a~e Road ~ ..... a,m man agreement with PPL l~
g s exte.or The .romct wal _or funding -
· r:. Ina building at, tm~.,...,, ,_
replacement of the .,,;m_--'~'_'T. w., ge completely rerl,..~_., . . .
rePtacement of the ~n;~~' OUttere and down~o~"'~'~'~'__m?udmg Painting, the m,~i, __
. -"" -,=doo ..... "" and -"-'
· Interior:. The i .... ' ,,.,-
· -mnor woll( wffl ittCtucie ~llg the · ·
..c_a_b~nets, COunters and aphid.,,.,....,, ._ existing units ~- ~--.
upuated. The boiler ~i, ~.,.:"-_'_.':'~'_ ~ ue provided in fh. aa-.-__ ,~ mar present confia~a.~i,,..
installed ~ ...... ' .... '~ mpmolK! Ti~ ,..., ....... -.- ,,,a.--.ns. lrle Dlumbin, ,,..-. :;_~: ."~'."
"',~ugnouL ..... --m~a Wlll De reoaimd ---. ' ....... a ,=,,a ~mCthcaJ
mm new carpet will be
Request for Action Page 3 7-28-03
·Site Improvements: The landscaping will be improved, a playground added, the drive expanc[ -
resurfaced, the walkways repaired, and garages added for each unit.
On February 25, 2002, the City Council approved a resolution prepared by the City Attorney authorizing the
acquisition of 7610 Bass Lake Road by eminent domain. Project for Pride in LiVing, Inc. and the owners had
executed a purchase agreement on the property and the owners requested a 'friendly conclemnation'
resolution to insure they will be able to utilize the full rights of Section 1033 of the .Internal Revenue COOP,.
Those dghts relate to an extended time limit of reinvestment for tax purposes. PPL purchased the property
through a direct transaction, therefore it was not necessary for the City to commence a condemnation
proceeding pursuant to that resolution.
On October 2, 2001 staff presented this rehabilitation proposal to the Livable Communities Task Force. Staff
prepared an information packet for the Task Force, gave a short presentation on the project and requested
that the Task Force review the Proposal and provide written input on the project at the following meeting. The
oven~elming input and direction from the Task Force was to proceed with the project.
On June 27, 2001, the EDA requested that staff investigate additional financing options for the project. Staff
presented those options at the September 17, 2001 Council work session. At the work session, the Council
voted to approve the rehabilitation project contingent on decreasing the City's contribution to $218,000 wffh the
addition of a fourth MHOP unit and obtaining Livable Community Task Force input on the project. Also, the
Council elected to contribute $5,000 for playground equipment on the site. PPL ensured the Council that an
additional $5,000 could be raised to match the City's contribution for playground equipment. On November 26,
2001, the EDA voted to approve the project as discussed at the 9-17 Work Session.
Rehabilitation activities are underway. Garages are under construction and many other building and site
improvements are underway. Seven of the 11 units are currently vacant. The project is expected to be
complete this fall.
Staff recommends approval of this resolution.
FUNDING
The Hennepin County ERF funds in the amount of $6000 is in addition to many other funding sources for the
project including a City of New Hope loan approved on May 13, 2002. PPL is not requesting any additional City
dollars, only approval of the attached resolution necessary for ERF funding.
The total cost of this project is approximately $1.32. million. The financing is a combination of a traditional bank
mortgage, investments from the City of New Hope and Hennepin County HOME and AHIF funds. Four
affordable units will be paid for by the Metropolitan Housing Opportunities Program (MHOP), which was
created to increase the supply of rental housing outside of the central cities.
The City's POrtion of funding for the project is as follows:
· Total loan: $223,000 (30 year 0% interest o~eferred loan with a balloon payment due June 1, 2032).
o $ 78,000 CDBG, end;
o $145,000 EDA.
Staff has made it clear to PPL and the NCRC that the amount of EDA funding for this project is firm and will
not increase.
ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution
· PPL Correspondence, 7-21-03
· Location Map
· Environmental Response Fund Applica~on
COUNC3I.
I? QUEST FOR ACTION
Originaling Depa~i,,ent
Community Development
By: Ken Doresky, Community
Development Specialist
Approved for Agenaa
7-28-03
Agencla Section
Consent
Item No.
6.I!
MOTION APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT TO FAIR'S NURSERY IN THE AMOUNT OF $355.80 FOR
LANDSCAPING OF CITY-OWNED TWINHOME LOCATED AT 7105 62~D AND 6151 LOUISIANA AVENUES
NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 685)
ACTION REQUEST~n
Staff recommen0s approval of a motion authorizing final payment in the amount of $355.80 to Fair's Nursery
for completion of City contract for the landscaping of the City-owned twinhome tocated at 7105 62"" and 6151
Louisiana Avenues North.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
Before final payment is made for City contracts, the request is brought before the Council for approval.
BACKGROUND
On April 14, 2003, the Council awarded a contract for landscaping of the City-owned twinhome located at
7105 62"0 and 6151 Louisiana Avenues North to Fair's Nursery in the Iow-quote amount of $7,116.
On September 23, 2002, the Council approved a landscaping plan for the accessible/adaptable twinhome
pro. iect at 7105 62'" Avenue North and authorized staff to seek ~tuotes to complete the landscaping. Also, at
that meeting, the Council awarded a construction contract for this project to the iow-bidder, BCB Construction,
Inc. in the amount of $346,926.
Item
Landscaping Contract Award 4/14/03
Total ~
$7,116
Fair's Nursery has completed the work and submitted an invoice for the contract amount of $7,116. 95%
~'$6,760.20) of the contract has been paid, and 5% ($355.80) remains for final payment. Per the attached
correspondence, the City Forestor has inspected the project and recommenels final payment.
Staff recommends approval of the motion for final payment in the amount of $355.80 contingent on the
submission of the required Paperwork.
MOTION BY
TO:
~SECONDBY
Recluest for Action Page 2 7-28-03
FUNDING
This pro, ct is located in an area where TIF funds can be ulflized. CDBG funds were used to acclu~re the
property, remove the foundation anti prepare the site. CHDO HOME funds in the amount of $60.500 r~ave
been secured for this project. Construction costs will be funded.by ttte sale of the property.
A'I'TACHMENTS
· Location Map
· City Forester Correspondence
· Fairs Nursery Invoice
· Fair's Nursery Quote Proposal
· Landscape Plan
O&
9
Lg
·
CO[JNC3t.
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Depa~ment
Community Development
Kirk McDonald
Approved for Agenda
7-28-03
Agencia Section
Public Hearina
Item No.
7ol
PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION APPROVING A HOUSING PROGRAM AND GIVING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL TO ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS -
REQUESTED ACTION
This is a public hearing to consider a resolution approving a housing program and giving preliminary approval
to Issuance of revenue bonds for St. Therese Nursing Home.-After a presentation of the recluest ancl the
taking of any public comments, staff recommends that the Council close the public hearing and adopt the
resolution.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
City goal #3 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential Properties
the city. In the past, the Council has scheduled public hearings and approved the issuance of revenue bonds
and approved housing programs to address this type of re(luest.
BACKGROUND
At the June 23, 2003, Council meeting, the City Council Scheduled this public hearing at the request of St.
Therese Nursing Home to consider this request. The city's bond consultant from Dorsey & Whitney has been
coordinating with the applicants and has Prepared the attached resolution and housing Program documents.
All documents have been reviewed by the director of finance and the city attorney, and the applicant has paid
the appropriate fees to the city.
St. Therese Nursing Home, 8000 Bass Lake Road, has requested that the city assist in permanent financing
and Issue refunding bonds under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended. Section 147(0 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, requires that prior to the issuance of the refunding bonds, this
Council approve the refunding bonds after conducting a public hearing.
The enclosed housing program for St. Therase Care Center and St. Therase Apartments states, in part, that:
· The city of New Hope believes that a primary housing need of the city is the Preservation of existing
MOTION BY
sscom) m,
TO:
Request for Action Page 2 7-28-03
blighting conditions and to maintain decent, safe and affordable housing and health care facilities Wn the
city for persons of Iow and moderate income. A method available to the city to facilitate acquisition of
existing mull/family rental housing and health care facilities by a nonprofit corporation is the ~ssuance of
tax-exempt Donds under Minnesota Statutes.
· A separate section of this program contains specific information regarding a project to be undertaken by
St. Therese Home Inc., consisting of the remodeling of, construction of additions to and the acquisition and
installation of equipment in St. Therase Cam Center, a nursing home facility licensed for 302 beds and the
refinancing of indebte0ness of the corporation the Proceeds of which were used to finance improvements
to St. Therese Cam Center and St. Themse Apartments. a 220-unit senior rental housing facility.
No special administrative work by the city is anticipated in connection with the project and the facilities by
the corporation.
All costs incurred by the city in connection with the proposed financing of the project will be paid by the
corporation and therefore no administrative costs will be incurred by the city. No additional staff will t)e
required by the cily in carrying out the financing of the project with the Proceeds of the bonds.
The facilities consist of St. Therese Cam Center, a nursing home facility licensed for 302 beds located at
8000 Bass Lake Road in the city. anct St. Therese Apartments, a connected building which contains 220
units of i~r~heerl~e~e~e~t, .~ewn&ant~er ~rtr~e..n~:_e_s
city. St. i:g_na__l~_ f_o..r the elderly located at 8008 Bass Lake Road in the
constructed in 1979. Various ,,-= u==, ,n operauon s~nce 1966, and St. Therese Apartments was
services are Provided to residents of St. Therase Apartments.
The corporation proposes that the city finance the project by issuing revenue bonds in an amount not to
exceed $6.500,000 pursuant to the authority of Minnesota Statutes.
The resolution states, in part, that:
The costs of the project are anticipated to be $6,500,000. Pmceecls of the bonds not used to pay the cost
of the project will be used to pay costs of issuance of the bonds and to funcl a debt service reserve fund for
tt~e bonds.
It is anticipated that the bonds will be issued in the principal amount of $6,500,000 and will mature in not
more than forty (40) years following the date of issue. The bonds will be sold Publicly.
It should be noted that no statutory income units are applicable to the facilities because it is designed for
rental to the elderly. However, in connection with the issuance of the bonds it may be required in order to
meet the requirements of the internal Revenue Code that either (i) at least
Therese Apartmen. ts .m..ust be occupie~ *' *
Inco~e for the Twin C ' · __ by IndMduais whose i · 20.% of the units in the
St T ....... ities metn3politan ama i,, ,..,.:.,...._ ncorne is 50% or ,,- ....... St.
. · ,,=,==e ,'~artments ,-.-, ,-- - .... Il'IliA me ~ ie, ........ ,~,= u, [ne mecllan f=mii,,
i'a ' ' ,,,ua[ i;~ - · . . ---.~ .'-~ ,u~.,~[wo; or i' --,.-,.v
mdy income for ,- ~',..~- · _ .OCCupied by wndlv~d . _ {I) at least 40% of · ·
th- ,--,-CJ~s rnmm.,~,~r ..... uais whose Income is 6,.,0/ _ . . the umts In
..... · -~,,,m-area. u~ or less ot the median
The city is authorized to plan, administer, issue an
loans to finance one o d sell
or o ' * r mom multifa · revenue bonds or · ·
bhgations shall ~ ....... mily hOusln devel ,.,,,.-- ......... obligations to make nr --..
· -~ .")'-dDm solely from ,h,. n._g._~_, o,.,;,..,.~ wnnm its bound=,(-~ ...,-:-.- -- .urcha~=
The c/'-- '- -,.- ,=,,=-ues of the development .... o, w.~cn revenue bonds
~y nas received a request from
coq3oration, that ~-~ rePresentati~ ,.~ ~,, ~
by the city of ~e~=nuC~e ~a.p.p.,_r~.. a_housing Progra~l-~u~ ,riel'ese Home !nc., a Minnes
accluisition an,~ ~ ......... -,.,,,_ua a3 nnance the ,.-----;zion-t to the act, whic~ ,.,....--.--_. .o. ta nonprofit
· ' ,,,=-,,auon o/eauir,,,~.,, -.- ..-: ,-,,,uuemlg of. the ,,,.--,----. ,,,.,,,uws for ~
,-~-- facility licensed for
Request for Action Page 3 7-28-_03
302 beds. and to refinance indebtedness of the company the pmcaeds of which were used to finance
improvements to St. Therese Care Center and to ,,Rt. Therese Apartments. a 220-unit senior rental housing
facility. St. Therese Care Center and St. Therese Apartments am owned by the company and tocatecl at
8000 Bass Lake Road and 8008 Bass Lake Road. respactively, in the city. A copy of the program nas
been presented to this Council and is orOered placed on file with the city clerk. The program has been
submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment as required by the act.
On July 28, 2003, this Council held public heanngs on the proposal to approve the program and issue the
bonds at which all interested persons were offered an opportunity to express their wews. in person or in
writing, on the proposed issuance of the bonds. This Council has carefully considered the views submitted
at the public hearings and the written comments (if any) submitted to the city on the program and issuance
of the bonds.
· The program is hereby approved. On the basis of the information given the city to date, preliminary
approval is hereby given to the issuance of the bonds, in an amount not to exceed $6,500,000. The
adoption of this resolution shall not be deemed, however, to establish a legal obligation on the part of the
city or its Council to issue or to cause the issuance of the bonds. AJI details of the bonds and the provisions
for payment thereof shall be sub)ect to final approval of this Council prior to their issuance. The bonds, if
issued, shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any proparty of the city,
except the revenues to be received from the company specifically Pledged to the payment thereof, and
each bond. when, as and if issued, shall recite in substance that the bond, including interest thereon, is
payable solely from said revenues and funds spacificall¥ Pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not
constitute a debt or pecuniary liability of the city within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory
limitation.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution. Representatives from St. Themse will be present at the public
hearing to respond to questions.
ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution
· Housing Program
· Public hearing Notice
· Application
· Map
COUNCm
REQD-EST FOR ACTION
Originating Departrne0t
Community Development
Kirk McDonald
Approved .fm'.Agen~la
7-28-03
Agenda SecPon
Development &
Plan;"
Item No.
8.2
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF VARIABLE RATE DEMAND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (BROADWAY LANEL PROJECT), SERIES 2003; ESTABLISHING THE
SECURITY THEREFOR AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS
.REQUESTED ACTION
The city's bond consultant from Dorsey & Whitney has prepared the attached resolution authorizing the
issuance of variable rate demand multifamily housing revenue refunding bonds (Broadway LaNel Project),
Series 2003; establishing the security therefor and authorizing the execution of ~ocuments, and staff
recommends approval of the resolution. The City Council conducted a public hearing on this matter on June
23, 2003, and approved a resolution giving preliminary approval to the issuance of the bonds. This
gives the final approval.
,POLICY/PAST PRACTIC~
The city has approved the issuance of multifamily housing refunding revenue bonds in the past to assist
housing development projects.
BACKGROUND
At the May 27 Council meeting, the City Council approved a resolution scheduling a public hearing on the
matter and the public hearing was conducted on June 23, 2003. The city received a request from
representatives of Broadway LaNeI, a Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limit, ed partnership, that the city issue
refunding bonds under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended, to refund the multifamily housing
refunding revenue bonds (Broadway LaNel Project), Series 1993 of the city, which were used to refund bonds
~ssued to finance the acquisition and construction of Anthony James Apartments, a 73-unit rental
development owned by the partnership and located at 6100 West Broadway in the city. Section 147(0 of
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, requires that prior to the issuance of the refunding bonds, this
Council approve the refunding bonds after conducting a public hearing.
u. ~,way r.a~ej, a Lmlited Partnership, the owner of A... ..... ,p ~.,u=,,.~ u, camel Financial
· --,-..,.y .~arnes ,"koarunents located at
MOTION BY
----~ SECOND BY
TO:
Request for Action Page 2 7-28-03
6100 West Broadway in New Hope, respectfully request that the city issue refunding bonds under Min,,,=sota
Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended to refund the Multifamily Revenue Bonds (Broadway LaNel Project)
Series 1993."
The resolution gives final approval to the issuance of the bonds.
At the June 23, 2003, Council meeting, the Council also adopted a resolution imposing a fee for the issuance
of revenue bonds in the amount of .5% of the principal amount of the revenue bonds and the fee is applicable
to this request. The applicants have paid other appropriate application/deposit fees to the city.
This resolution has been reviewed by the director of finance and the city attorney.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution
· Correspondence
· Map
; I
EDA
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department
Community Development
Kirk McDonald
Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
7-28-03 EDA
Item No.
RESOLUTION RELATING 'TO A REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH BROADWAY LANEL, A LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP; APPROVING TERMINATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS
REQUESTED ACTION
The city has received a request from LaNel Financial Group to waive the provisions of an interest rate
reduction program in connection with a 1985 redevelopment agreement. The request has been reviewed by
the city's bond counsel from Dorsey & Whitney, who is recommending that Broadway LaNel pay the
~ EDA
$50,000 to satisfy its repayment obligations under the agreement. Staff recommends that the EDA approve
the enclosed resolution relating to a redevelopment agreement with Broadway LaNel, a limited partnership;
approving termination of the redevelopment agreement and authorizing execution of vadous documents, which
approves the elimination of the interest rate reduction Program, and approves the payment to the city.
.pOLICY/PAST PRACTICF
The City Council and EDA have approved similar resolutions in the past to address redevelopment projects
and needs in the city.
BACKGROUND
The city has received the attached correspondence from LaNel Financial Group regarding the Broadway
LaNel/Anthony James Apartments multifamily revenue bonds. The correspondence pertains to the interest
rate reduction Program contained in the redevelopment agreement with the HRA entered into in 1985 (a copy
of the redevelopment agreement is attached). LaNel Financial is requesting that the HRA waive the provisions
of the interest reduction program specifically with respect to section 4.08 having to do with the lien and the
required payment to the city. The correspondence states "per our discussion, this provision was a statutory
requirement at the time the redevelopment agreement was entered into and has since been removed by the
legislature and is no longer required where TIF is used to encourage development. As you are aware, we are
in the process of refunding the housing revenue bonds currently issued on this property. The lien does create
an encumbrance to the new financing."
This matter was discussed and reviewed by the city's bond counsel from Dorsey & Whitney, with the director
of finance, the city attorney and city manager.
MOTION BY
SECOND BY
TO:
hRFA~olanmng~mprovement P~N~t int rate re~uc~on
Request for Action Page 2 7-28-03
The city's bond counsel prepared the attached correspondence regarding this request, which states:
"In 1985 the New Hope HRA entered into a redevelopment agreement (the 'Redevelopment Agreement") with
Broadway LaNel, a Limited Partnership ('Broadway LaNel"), in connection with the development by Broadway
LaNel of a 73-unit senior rental apartment building. The HRA established a tax increment financing district and
the city issued tax increment bonds to write down the cost of requisition of the land and clearing of the site. In
addition to providing such assistance, the HRA established an interest reduction program under the HRA Act
and paid 90% of the excess tax increment remaining after payment of debt service on the tax increment bonds
to Broadway LaNel in the years 1988 through 1999 to pay a portion of the interest on the housing revenue
bonds issued by the city on behalf of Broadway LaNel to finance the development. The authority to provide for
an interest reduction program was repealed by the Legislature shortly thereafter.
"The statute in existence in 1985 authorizing an interest reduction program Provided that the HRA must
impose a formula under which the HRA potentially could be paid a portion of sales proceeds upon sale of the
development. Such statutory formula was complicated and confusing and provided that the developer be
allowed a reasonable rate of return on its investment in the property.
"Because of this statutory requirement in the redevelopment agreement a formula was provided that provides
the potential for a payment to the New Hope EDA (which has been assigned the HRA's interest in the
redevelopment agreement) upon a sale, transfer or complete refinancing of the development. Such formula
provided the EDA be paid the greater of (i) 40% of the first $125,000 of sale Proceeds distributed to the parties
or (ii) 40% of the amount over the target sales pdce as defined in the redevelopment agreement subject to
certain adjustments. The target sales price is defined as $3,385,000 through December 31, 1986, and
thereafter compounded annually on each January I at 5%. As of January 1, 2003, this produces a target sales
price of approximately $7,750,000. The development is presently assessed for real estate tax purposes at
$5,503,000.
"Broadway LaNel is in the Process of refinancing the development through the issuance of refunding bonds by
the city and the obtaining of a conventional loan in the amount of up to $1,555,000 from Fannie Mae. Such
refinancing triggers the obligation of Broadway LaNel to pay the EDA the amount required under the formula
in the redevelopment agreement.
"It is Proposed that Broadway LaNel pay the EDA $50,000 to satisfy its repayment obligations under the
redevelopment agreement. I believe that this payment is the amount required to be paid under the formula in
the redevelopment agreement, and I would recommend that the EDA agree to this proposal and upon
payment of such amount, terminate the redevelopment agreement."
Bond counsel has Prepared the enclosed resolution, which states, in part:
"A ro. val of Deed Amen ments ~nr~ T~'rmination of Redevelo ment A reement
execution and delivery by the EDA of the deed amendments, and the appropriat The EDA approves the
authorized ~ officers of the EDA are
and directed to execute the deed amendments in the form approved by the officer or officers
executing the deed amendments and the attorney for the EDA. The EDA approves the termination of the
redevelopment agreement and satisfaction of the lien upon Payment to the EDA of $50,000 by the developer,
and upon payment of such amount to the EDA. The appropriate officers of the EDA are authorized and
requested by the developer, the appropriate officers of the EDA are authorized and directed to execute such
agreements as may be necessary and appropriate in the opinion of the officer or officers executing any such
agreement and in the opinion of the attorney for the EDA, to evidence the termination of the redevelopment
agreement and satisfaction of the lien."
The 1985 redevelopment agreement states, in part, that:
.p
Request for Action
Page 3 7-28-03
2.031 Redevelopment Plan 85-1 and Redevelopment Proiect 85-1. After favorable recommendation L- he
HRA, and after a public hearing as required by law, the city approved the Plan 85-1 and Project 85-1 on
November 12, 1985, which provided for the acquisition of the property, the removal of any structure thereon,
and the construction of a 72-unit elderly housing complex. This construction, exclusive of land acquisition and
preparation costs, is estimated to cost at least $2,910,816 and will be financed by the city by the issuance of
housing bonds, or by the redeveloper, at its option.
2.032 Tax Increment Financinq Plan 85-1. Also on November 12, 1985, in order to finance public
redevelopment costs to be incurred by the HRA and the city in connection with the Plan 85-1 and Project 85-1,
the HRA approved a tax increment financing plan.
2.033 Interest Subsidy. In order to encourage and make the proposed construction of housing for the elderly
and Iow and moderate income persons feasible, the HRA will undertake an interest reduction program under
Minnesota Statutes 462.445, subd. 10, as described more fully in section 4.04.
2.035 Statement of Intent. It is the intent of the parties that approximately 72 units of adequate and safe
housing, for elderly persons be provided in the city of New Hope, Minnesota, including not less than 20% of
whom shall be Iow or moderate income persons, and to accomplish this objective, the parties are exerting the
best efforts of both the private and governmental sectors of our society, and within the bounds of good
judgment and common sense, it is the intent of the parties to make the best use feasible of legitimate private
and governmental resource. Interpretation of this redevelopment agreement shall be made with these
objectives in mind.
4.04 Interest Reduction Proqram. In connection with the project, the HRA agrees to undertake an interest
reduction program under 'Minnesota Statutes, section 462.445, subdivision 10, to assist in financing of the
housing facilities which are intended primarily for occupancy by elderly individuals, including not less than 20%
of the units for persons of Iow and moderate income. To finance the redeveloper's construction and installation
of the housing facilities, the city will issue and sell the housing bonds and not to exceed $3,500,000 of the
proceeds thereof will be loaned to the redeveloper. At its option, the redeveloper may provide its own financing
for the construction of the housing facilities. In determining to proceed with an interest reduction program, the
HRA has considered (i) the availability and affordability of other govemmental programs, (ii) the availability and
affordability of private mortgage financing, and (iii) the need for additional affordable mortgage credit to
encourage the construction and enable the purchase of housing units within the jurisdiction of the HRA.
4.05 Limitations, Interest Reduction Proaram. in any calendar year where the HRA provides interest reduction
assistance for the project, at least 20% of the total assisted housing units in the project shall be held available
for rental to Iow or moderate income persons or families. In satisfaction of this requirement, the redeveloper
covenants and agrees to furnish such proof of meeting this requirement as the HRA or city may reasonably
require.
4.08 Amount of Lien. Upon transfer or sale of the housing facilities, the amount required to be paid to the HRA
to satisfy its HRA lien shall equal the greater of the following amounts:
4.081 City Share of AoDre~eti~n.
4.0811 ~. The first $125,000 of the partnership's distributable sales proceeds (i.e., cash that
would othenvise be distributed to the general partner and the limited partners) shall be distributed 40% to the
city and 60% in the aggregate to the general partner and the limited partners.
4.0812 Payment. After present value of total actual sales receipts equals the target sales price, the
partnership will pay (as soon as practicable) to the city, 40% of all subsequent deferred payments until the
outstanding principal balance of the city's share of appreciation, plus interest computed in accordance with
Request for Action Page 4 7-28-03
Section 4.0813, has been paid in ful~ to the city. The partnership shall be credited against any amount due
hereunder for any money paid to the city under section 4.0811, above.
4.0813 !nterest. The unpaid balance of the city's share of appreciation shall accrue interest (compounded
each January 1) at the weighted average bond rate beginning on the date of sale of the project. Payments
made in accordance with section 4.0812 shall first be applied toward reduction of any unpaid interest and then
towards reduction of principal.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
FUNDING
The city's bond counsel has stated that this $50,000 payment to the EDA will be in addition to the payment to
the city of its fee for issuing the revenue bonds. It is anticipated that the principal amount of the bonds will be
$2,655,000, so the city will be paid a fee of approximately $13,275.
.ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution
· Bond Counsel Correspondence
· LaNel Financial Correspondence
· 1985 Redevelopment Agreement
· Map
f
Commissions to study signs in the boulevard
The City Council has directed the Citizen Advisory Commission (CAC) and the Planning Commission
to review the city ordinance regulating signs m the boulevard including real estate signs, work-at-
home signs, and garage sale signs.
Current city ordinance prohibits the placement of any temporary signage within the boulevard area -
approximately the first 15 feet behind the curb. City policy has been to remove signs found m
violation of the ordinance as time permits.
The CAC will discuss the ordinance at its meeting on August 18. The Planning Commission will take
up the issue at its October 7 meeting. Public comment is welcome! The City Council expects to
review CAC and Planning Commission recommendations at its meeting on October 13. All three
meetings begin at 7 p.m. and will be held in the council chambers at New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon
Avenue North.
Task force will present redevelopment concepts
at September open house
The City Center Task Force will continue to refine detailed concept plans for redevelopment of the New Hope
City Center area at Winnetka and 42nd avenues at its August meeting in preparation for an open house on
September 18 when the concepts will be presented to the public.
The City Center Task Force, which is made up of New Hope residents, civic leaders, and business owners, began
meeting in January 2003. The task force's study has focused on the nearly 33-acre area northwest of Winnetka
and 42nd avenues that currently contains the City Center and Winnetka Center strip malls and Kmart, and the 17-
acre area southeast of the intersection that currently contains the District 281 administration building and bus
garages and other properties on 42nd Avenue.
In the early stages of its work the task force analyzed existing physical and market conditions, clarified important
issues, opportunities, and challenges inherent in the City Center area, and began to define its vision for
redevelopment. Over the last few months, the task force has begun to formulate specific concepts for
redevelopment guided by detailed financial and market analysis of each concept provided by consultants.
The Concepts
By the end of July, the task force had developed two detailed concept plans. Based on the financial realization that
it would probably be too costly to remove City Center shopping center, both concepts leave that center in place
while removing Kmart and Winnetka Center. Both plans call for infill retail, a transit plaza, and a parking
structure. Both concepts also have a strong housing component in the northwest quadrant arrayed around a central
greenway that leads into New Hope's Civic Center Park highlighted by a park area with an amphitheatre and
water feature.
The most significant difference between the two concept plans is that the primary component of"Concept A" is
additional housing in the southeast quadrant (the current school district property), while a large retail store is the
primary component of"Concept B."
While the task force had not finished revising the concepts at press time, following its July meeting Concept A
included:
· more than 400 new housing units in the northwest quadrant with about two-thirds being multi-
family/assisted living along with a mixture of stacked flats, townhomes, and live/work units
· a moderate-sized grocery store west of the existing shopping center
· nearly 300 additional housing units in the southeast quadrant including about two-thirds multi-family,
along with stacked flats, and townhomes
· several 10,000 to 15,000 square foot retail buildings totaling about 50,000 square feet.
·
Concept B included:
· more than 500 new housing units in the northwest quadrant with nearly three-quarters being multi-
family/assisted living, complemented by townhomes, and stacked flats
· a 175,000 square foot retail store perhaps with an adjacent grocery store. The store would require about
780 stalls of surface parking.
· 38,000 square feet of mixed-use space and commercial/retail uses.
To learn more
The best way to learn more about the work of the City Center Task Force and the group's redevelopment
proposals is to attend the City Center Open House fi.om 5:30 to 8 p.m. on Thursday, September 18 at New Hope
City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. There will be a short presentation at 6:30 p.m. Interested residents will have
the opportunity to ask task force members and consultants questions and share their thoughts about the
redevelopment concepts. To learn more before the open house, visit the city's web site at www.ci.new-
hope.mn.us to read meeting notes or download concept site maps.
Proposed East Winnetka redevelopment clears major hurdle
New Hope city staff and consultants have been working with representatives of Ryland Homes for the last several
months to refine the fn'm's proposal for redevelopment of the 1 &acre, "L"-shaped East Winnetka area. The area,
which is located along the southeast quadrant of the Bass Lake Road and Winnetka intersection, was one of the
focus areas of the recently concluded Livable Communities Task Fome study.
The most recent version of the Ryland proposal calls for approximately 170 housing units including a mixture of
twin homes, heritage condominiums, and carriage homes. The projected sale price of the new homes would range
from about $155,000 to a $275,000. The proposal features less dense housing types next to the nearby existing
single-family homes and an internal roadway system with limited access points to Bass Lake Road and Winnetka
Avenue.
In July, negotiations between the city and Ryland took a large step forward when the parties agreed on preliminary
terms for sale of the land and identified the fees that would be paid by the developer. City staffand consultants are
currently working with Ryland to complete a fmal terms sheet and final site plan for the project.
In related news, in late June the City Council extended the temporary prohibition of all major construction or
development within the four redevelopment areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force, including the
East Winnetka area, until July 31, 2004. The building moratorium was initially adopted in August 2002.
The city also submitted a request to the Metropolitan Council in June for a $2.95 million Livable Communities
Demonstration Account Development Grant to assist with acquisition, demolition, and relocation costs associated
with the East Winnetka area, and to assist with funding similar activities to to the west along Bass Lake Road.
Finally, the Minnesota House and Senate passed special legislation during the 2003 session which makes it possible
for the city to establish a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district for East Winnetka and the other Livable
Communities redevelopment areas to assist the city with the costs associated with redevelopment of the area. City
consultants have begun work to set up that new district.
For more information about the East Winnetka redevelopment proposal or other issues related to the Livable
Communities study area, contact community development director Kirk McDonald at 763-531-5119 or
lcmcdonald@ci.new-hope.mn.us, or visit the community development section of the city's web site.
Metro Transit Bus Temporary Turnaround Location -
59th Avenue North, 59th % Avenue North and Virginia Avenue North
Background
The city of New Hope recently became aware of a temporary Metro Transit turnaround location at 59t~
Avenue North, 59t~ ~ Avenue North and Virginia Avenue North. The city has informed Metro Transit that
this temporary turnaround location must be changed within a reasonable timeframe of 30 days or by July
27, 2003. Metro Transit has indicated that it is currently negotiating a new turnaround location on private
property at 54th Avenue and Winnetka Avenue. Metro Transit has been working on this issue and
expects that this new turnaround location will be implemented shortly.
Currently, Metro Transit route 715A travels northbound on Winnetka Avenue from the Robbinsdale
Transit Center, 42"d and Hubbard Avenue several times a day, Monday- Friday. The route proceeds
along Winnetka Avenue and terminates at Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. When 715A reaches
this point, it is required to turnaround and travel southbound back to the Robbinsdale Transit Center.
For some time, route 715A turned around at St. Therese Nursing Home's Winnetka Avenue parking lot.
According to Metro Transit, a 40 foot bus is now standard on this route compared to the formerly utilized
25 foot bus, therefore necessitating a turnaround location change. It has been temporarily using the
subject location while seeking a new permanent turnaround location.
As stated previously, the city has requested that Metro Transit change turnaround locations by July 27,
2003. Metro Transit has been seeking this change and believes it can comply within the requested
timeframe.
Contacts
If you have questions or comments, please contact one of the following:
· Metro Transit:
Lee Bennett, assistant manager of street operations, 612-349-7310, lee.bennett@metc.state.mn.us.
Customer Service, 612-373-3333
· City of New Hope:
Ken Doresky, community development specialist, 763-531-5137, kdoresky@ci.new-hope.mn.us.
Kirk McDonald, community development director, 763-531-5119, kmcdonald@ci.new-hope.mn.us.
The city appreciates the cooperation of all residents in the area that may be impacted by this temporary
Metro Transit turnaround location. If needed, additional bulletins will be sent to you regarding this issue.
Thank you for your patience.
City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428
~30~3
PROJECT NO.# 710
Bulletin ~8
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PROJECT BULLETIN ~
HIDDEN VALLEY PARK IMPROVEMENTS
City Project No. 710
Project Status
After many months of construction, Hidden Valley Park is open again and most, but not all, of the park
features are ready for use. This project bulletin is intended to describe work yet to be completed this
year.
The unusually wet weather last year prevented the completion of much of the park last fall as
anticipated. Many of the park improvements were related in one way or another to the paving of trails
and hard courts, including the hockey dnk. When the base material placed for these hard courts
became saturated and refused to adequately dry last year, it became necessary to delay the paving
until this spdng when a quality product could be achieved.
Once the paving was completed earlier this year, much of the finishing work in the park could also be
completed. At this point, the trails, hard courts, and gazebo are ready for use. Benches, ddnking
fountains, and portable toilet enclosures have been installed. The regional trail running along Boone
Avenue has also been completed. Nearly all of the grading has been completed and trees, shrubs,
and wetland plants have been planted.
Upcoming Work
The last major task remaining is turf and ground cover establishment. While there is still a small
amount of sod to be placed at the north end of the park near the ball fields at Sonnesyn School, most
of the park will be seeded. Several different seed mixes will be used in the park. These include turf
grasses as well as short and tall prairie seed mixes. Each will be seeded at the appropriate time later
this fall when planting success is most likely. The establishment of turf and prairie plants will depend
on natural precipitation. In addition, the wetland and prairie plants will take several years to fully
mature.
Contact Persons
If you have questions or concerns during the remainder of the park project, please direct your calls to
one of the following:
Jason Quisberg
Tom Schuster
Dale Reed
Guy Johnson
Shari French
Vince VanderTop
Project Site Inspector
Contract Manager
Operations Manager
Director of Public Works
Director of Parks and Recreation
Project Engineer
(651) 604-4938
(763) 592-6763
(763) 592-6772
(763) 592-6766
(763) 531-5152
(651) 604-4790
For after hours or weekend emergencies, please contact the New Hope Police Department at (763)
531-5170.
The city of New Hope thanks the Hidden Valley Park area residents for their patience during this
project. We hope you enjoy your new park and that in years to come, as the landscaping and turf
areas mature, it proves to have been worth the wait.
G:Pro~ects~710 HlOden ValleyS8
July 28, 2003
EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY BAN ON DEVELOPMENT/BUILDING
PERMITS IN ALL FOUR LIVABLE COMMUNITY TASK FORCE STUDY AREAS
Background
On June 23, 2003, the City Council approved Ordinance 03-12, extending the temporary prohibition of all
construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task
Force. Please see the attached map identifying the properties affected by this ordinance. The ordinance
was originally adopted on August 21, 2002, with a July 31, 2003, termination date. On June 23, the
Council approved a 12-month extension until July 31, 2004. Minor corrections to the original ordinance
were approved on July 28, 2003, (copy attached).
The ban includes:
· The application for and issuance of building permits under Chapter 3 of the City Code (excluding
permits for routine maintenance and repairs).
· Text changes, variances, conditional use permits and rezoning requests under Chapter 4 of the
Code.
· Subdivision requests under Chapter 13 of the Code for any construction, use, development or
subdivision of all residential and commercial zoned properties in the subject areas.
Although this extension would permit the city to deny any requests for building permits (excluding routine
maintenance and repair) within the described areas, it would not prevent any property owner from
approaching the city with a request to exempt a property or proposed improvement from the moratorium.
Property owners that want to make substantial home improvements have the option of requesting an
exemption to the ordinance before the City Council. Exemptions are considered on a case-by-case basis.
In 2000, the city received a Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Grant to study redevelopment
opportunities in the roughly half-mile area encircling the intersection of Winnetka Avenue North and Bass
Lake Road. In 2001 and 2002, the Livable Communities Task Force, a voluntary group of citizens and
additional stakeholders, studied redevelopment opportunities within the designated area. In December
2002, the Council accepted the task force study. In February 2003, the Council selected preferred
developers for each study area site based on proposals, except the west Winnetka site. Staff continues
to coordinate with developers in the Livable Communities Area.
If you have questions or comments, please contact one of the following:
City of New Hope:
Kirk McDonald, community development director, 763-531-5119, kmcdonald@ci.new-hope.mn.us.
Ken Doresky, community development specialist, 763-531-5137, kdoresky@ci.new-hope.mn.us.
The city appreciates the cooperation of all residents and businesses in the area that may be impacted by
this temporary moratorium.
City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428
7/31/03
Wims~im Av~m~ W~sI Smd~
North Ridge
Car~ Cmte. r
New Hope Livable Communities Study Areas Map
0 o.,15 o5 Miles
Area
of
ORDINANCE NO. 03-12
AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING BAN
ON DEVELOPMENT IN ALL FOUR
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES TASK
FORCE STUDY AREAS
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 1-60) of the New Hope City Code "Suspension of construction and
development in livable communities task force study area~' is hereby amended to read as follows:
1-6(i) "Suspension of construction and development in livable communities task force
study areas". Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 462.355, Sub& 4, a ban is hereby imposed
until July 31, 29922004, on the application for and issuance of building permits under
Chapter 3 of this Code (excluding permits for routine maintenance and repairs), text
changes, variances, conditional use permits and rezoning requests under Chapter 4 of this
Code and subdivision requests under Chapter 13 of this Code for any construction, use
development or subdivision of all residential and commercial zoned properties located in
the following described area in the City of New Hope.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
Attest:
Dated the 23rd day of June ,2003.
Valerie Leone,, City Clerk
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the 3rd
2003.)
P: ~A'rT~NEY~'~N H ORDI N A I~-'~S'~:)IU~NAN(~ 0~i2.DOC
day of July
ORDINANCE 03-17
AN ORDINANCE AMMENDING SECTION 1.$(i) REGARDING
THE TEMPORARY PROHIBITION ON ALL CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN FOUR STUDY AREAS IDENTIFIED
BY THE L/VABLE COMMUNITIES TASK FORCE
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 1-5(i) "Suspension of Construction and Development in Livable
Communities Task Force S_m_dy Areas" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as
follows: - -
Section 1-5(i) "Suspension of Construction and Development in Livable Communities
Task Force Study Ar_~n". Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 462.355, Subd. 4, a ban is
hereby imposed until July 31, 2004, on the application for and issuance of building
permits under Chapter 3 of this Code (excluding permits for routine maintenance and
repairs), text changes, variances, conditional use permits and rezomng requests under
Chapter 4 of this Code and subdivision requests under Chapter 13 of this Code for any
construction, use, development or subdivision of all residential and commercial zoned
properties located in the following described area in the City of New Hope:
1-5(i)(1) "Bass Lake Apartments Study Are_-'~". The Bass Lake Apartments
study area includes all property located in an area lying east of Yukon Avenue
North, west of the Village Green Golf Course and north of Bass Lake Road and
abutting on 58t~ Avenue North between Yukon Avenue North and the Village
Green Golf Course.
1-5(0(2) "North Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue Stud Area". The
North Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue study area includes all property located
in an area lying east of Winnetka Avenue North, west of Sumter Avenue North,
north of Bass Lake Road but excluding the properties abutting onto Bass Lake
Road between Winnetka and Sumter and south of 58th Avenue North.
1-5(0(3) "Winnetka Avenue West Sn_~d¥ 3u~:,". The Winnetka Avenue
West study area includes all property located in an area lying ~ east of Zealand
Avenue North, ea~ ss, est of Winnetka Avenue North, north of 55th Avenue North
and south of Bass Lake Road but ~cluding those properties south of Bass Lake
Road from 7-,rutland to Wisconsin Avenue North abutting onto Wisconsin Avenue
North.
1-5(iX4) "Winnetia Avenue F~s~ Stn,!_v Ar~--". The Winnetka Avenue East
study area includes aH property located in an area abutting Winnetka Avenue
North on its east side between 53'd Avenue North and Bass Lake Road, ~
1
5.700 H~nnetka Avenue North, all properties abutting Bass Lake Road on its south
side between Winnetka Avenue North and St. Raphael Church, all properties
abutting Sumter Avenue North south of Bass Lake Road and north o£ ~ 5?
Avenue North and the four interior lots with access to Bass Lake Road via the
narrow private driveway west of St. Raphael Church. This area excludes all
properties abutting ~ 55"' Avenue North, the first two properties abutting
Sumter on its east side north of ~ 5?' Avenue North and the first three lots on
Sumter Avenue abutting its west side north of--~~ 55'" Avenue North.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication. -
Dated the 28 day of July ,2003.
Attest:
Valerie Leone, C~ty Clerk
!
Peter Enek, Mayor
(Published in the N~v Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the 7ch day of August
,2003.)
2
JUNE 2003
AMERICAN
PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
How to mitigate the impacts of faith-based planned developments for the good of the community
while respecting their legal and constitutional privileges and the benefits they may provide.
The Southeast Christian Church in Louirvilk, Kentuck3 has a main worship center and oJ~ces; a separate recreational center that includes a gyranasiura
and baseball diamonds; and outdoor playgvounds j~r children.
yur planning department receives a development
roposal from a rapidly growing religious group in your area.
The group has acquired options on 100 acres of undevdoped land
at the edge of town, where it wishes to build a 3,000-seat ~ancmary
with educational space and an activity center, a day care center and
pre-school, a fimess center, a movie theater that will show only
family entertainment, athletic fields, a coffee shop, and an
automotive repair center that will help provide cheap used cars for
poor people in the community. The pastor argues that, under the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA), it is the community's obligation to approve the
necessary zoning to avoid discriminating against a religious use.
Neighbors argue that traffic access is inadequate and the
complex will disturb the tranquility o£~t semi-rural area. -~our
zoning ordinance allows churches as of right in residential areas,
but you now have to decide how much of this complex
legitimately qualifies as a religious land use.
Sound far-fetched? Look around: Change the components or
size of the proposed complex, and you have a description of any
of dozens of such faith-based planned developments across the
country. For instance, the Community Church of Joy in
Glendale, Arizona, includes a bookstore, mortuary, and
conference center, with expansion plans that would add a hotel,
convention center, and waterslide park. The growing question,
and the focus of this issue of Zoning News, is how to mitigate
the impacts of such developments for the good of the
com..munity while respecting their legal and constitutional
pnvneges and the benefits they may provide.
Tho Ongoing RLUlPA Debate
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the free
exercise of religion. RLUIPA, passed by Congress in 2000, seeks
to ensure such protection with regard to local land-use
regulation. RLUIPA's passage followed the U.S. Supreme
Court's invalidation (City ofBoerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507
(1997), 49 ZD 285) of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
of 1993, itselfa reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in
Employment Division u Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). For more
than a decade, Congress has agreed with religious groups on the
need to enact some federal legislation to protect them from
alleged discrimination by local officials, particularly in land-use
decisions.
Critics of the law insist that Congress was solving a problem
that never really existed. Many argue that the law has given
religious groups a powerful weapon that cows local officials into
granting them special privileges that they would not consider for
other entities. Few communities want to be sued by a church.
5omc advocates of RLUIPA seem to concede as much while
celebrating their enhanced influence in the local zoning process.
The Pacific Justice Institute, based in Citrus Heights, California,
represents churches in legal disputes. "We have seen our BB gun
replaced by an atomic bomb," says Brad Dacus, the institure's
president, in an article by James L. Dam in Lawyers Weekly. In
the same article, Lani Williams, a staff attorney for the
International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA), expresses
the ambivalence felt by many IMLA members about RLUIPA's
impact on zoning, saying, "If you deny the application, the
religious institution will sue, but if you grant it, you may be
sued by the neighbors. Take your pick."
Fortunately, most churches would still rather make peace
with their neighbors. Nonetheless, communities need to be
ready for the exceptions where a group would rather sue even
when their land-use policy is clearly stated in ordinances with
good regulations and definitions.
Many local zoning ordinances still fail to provide definitions
adequate to address questions of size and combined uses. And.
RLUIPA, say critics like Marci Hamilton, director of the
Intellectual Property Law Program at Benjamin N. Cardozo. -.
School of Law in New York, does not provide much help in this
regard. Hamilton has represented a number of municipalities
that have been sued by churches and synagogues. "The federal
government doesn't deal with local land me," ~ne says. "They
had no idea what they were doing." Congressional committees,
she notes, did not choose to hear testimony ~from mayors or
planning people," who, she says, could have explained the
practical nuances of local land-use regulation. Hamilton argues
that many of the examples of alleged discrimination by local
officials cited by advocates in Congress fail to withstand dose
scrutiny. Often, she says, they were simply cases "where
churches said they couldn't build where they wanted to," but
involved neutral applications Of the law by local officials.
Religious Megatrends
One of the challenges facing local planners today in dealing
with religious land-use proposals lies in sorting out what
actually constitutes a religious land use. Planners in a growing
number of communities, particularly those with high growth
rates in the Sunbelt, are receiving development proposals from
Jim Schwab, AICP, is a senior research associate fbr APA and the
co-editor of Zoning News.
Planners in a growing number of
communities.., are receiving
development proposals from
religious groups that incorporate a
variety of land uses not typically
seen as religious in nature or even
as accessory to religious uses.
religious groups that incorporate a variety of land uses not
typically seen as religious in nature or even as accessory to
religious uses. These faith-based planned developments typically
comptise an entire campus of church-managed uses that have
included athletic facilities, fitness centers, restaurants, shopping
malls, and hotels. Ifa zoning ordinance fails to distinguish
religious institutions by size, or fails adequately to define the
boundaries of what will be treated as a religious use, these
additional facilities can fall into a legal grey area requiring
interpretation by planning st~, planning commissions, zoning
boards of adjustment, and even the elected officials. With
neighbors often up,et by the sheer size of developments that
may be impinging on quiet residential streets, and religious
developers wielding the threat of litigation under RLUIPA, the
result can be a boiling cauldron of controvert'.
Mixed-use church complexes are not a completely new
phenomenon within the American religious scene. Hamilton
says the trend toward more aggressive use of religious facilities
for a variety of accessory activities actually began in the 1960s.
Some scholars have noted that these early trends, often
involving soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and other forms of
community outreach, were typically a response by more affluent
or middle-class urban congregations to the inner-ci~
deterioration that surrounded them. (For a pre-RLUIPA
treatment of these issues in Zoning News, see "Religion and
Zoning: A Matter for the Courts?", November 1991.) In
contrast, many current developments involve large campuses,
sometimes exceeding 100 acres, at the urban fringe or even in
rural areas. However, it is important not to generalize too much.
Many megachurches with predominantly African-American
congregations still choose urban locations. The Chicago Plan
Commission recently approved plans for Salem Baptist Church
that include a 10,000-seat auditorium, three basketball courts,
and a hockey rink.
The trend is more pronounced among evangelical
churches and denominations, says Randall Balmer, professor
of American religion at Barnard College in New York City.
That shift has some practical consequences. Balmer notes
that the third-largest landholder in Manhattan is Trinity
Church, which operates a wide variety of auxiliary
enterprises. Trinity, he says, ~has had all sorts of complicated
Faith-based planned developments
~ypically comprise an entire campus of
church-managed uses that have included
athletic facilities, fitness centers,
restaurants, shopping malls, and hotels.
relationships with the city of New York for years" as it
worked out land-use issues with local officials. But Trinity
Church grew in another era, one in which mainline
Protestant denominations often built large downtown
cathedrals that became significant local civic institutions.
Civic influence may still be part of the motivation for the
current crop of faith-based planned developments, Balmer
notes, bur there is also a desire to reduce members' need to
interact with the secular world. One can trust a church-operated
movie theater, after all, not to show objectionable films, or a
Christian bookstore not to carry what it perceives to be sexually
explicit literature. Balmer adds that, lacking the civic experience
of the older urban congregations, ~these new megachurches are
trying to negotiate various zoning considerations without the
benefit of any sort of historic context." Many are
nondenominational, independent congregations, in which, says
Balmer, there is often "not a whole lot of accountability" beyond
the congregation itself.
That lack of context and experience may feed a sense among
both members and clergy that zoning regulations are too
complicated to understand. Church officials confronted with
charges that they failed to acquire proper zoning or building
permits, or that they built on wedands without undertaking an
environmental assessment, sometimes argue, as one attorney
told this author, that they are "just church people. How can
they be expected to know all this stuff?."
Balmer finds this attitude a bit disingenuous. ~There's a
kind of arrogance about that," he says. wit says, 'We're a
church and we can do whatever we want.' There's a feeling
that 'We can aw-shucks our way through this process.'"
Hamilton notes that, although some congregations rely on
pro bono legal representation, "pro bono attorneys are just as
liable for malpractice as those who are paid for their
services." Nonetheless, a planner handling a permit
application from church developers who share this outlook
may be in for a rough ride.
Definitions
As with all.other zoning issues, clear definitions help to avoid
confusion in classifying religious land uses. For example,
housing may often be an outreach mission of a church, but it is
still a residential land use. Of course, a rectory or parsonage
would be an exception. Other uses may involve less obvious
distinctions, particularly if multiple uses are combined under
one roof. Suppose, for example, that a homeless shelter is
operated out of a corner of the same building that hosts a
sanctuary. Most churches have kitchens and fellowship halls.
But what ifa megachurch adds a franchise restaurant with a
drive-through window? Suppose that becomes part of a job-
training facility where unemployed youths learn to become
chefs. If the zoning ordinance simply defines a church as a house
of worship and allows churches by fight in most residential
zones, the stage may be set for controversy if anxious neighbors
decide to oppose the project.
That need not always happen. Piano, Texas, which-
"admittedly [has] an outdated definition," according to
planning director Phyllis Jarrell, is home to Prestonwood Baptist
Church and other, smaller church campuses. Irs ordinance
oefines ~Church or Rectory" as "a building for regular assembly
r religious worship which is used primarily for such purpose
and those accessory activities which are customarily associated
therewith, and the place of residence for ministers, priests, nuns,
or rabbis on the premises."
Prestonwood sits on 140 acres in a commercial zone with a
two-story height limit. Negotiations have been mostly amicable,
even with a residential area on the opposite side ora six-lane
divided thoroughfare. So far, the campus includes a K-8 school,
lighted outdoor athletic fields, and a fitness center, with plans
for retirement housing. Jarrell says the retirement housing will
be treated as a separate use because "the facilities are not always
operated or occupied by the church or its members." The
church accepted additional setbacks in winning approval for a
lighted spire above the height limit. Jarrell says the church ~has
maintained a good relationship" with neighborhood groups.
The existing ordinance, in effect since the early 1980s, has
worked well so far, but Jarrell says the city has not yet
encountered the "rough issues." In Prestonwood's case, the
church ended up with a planned development district to address
the combination of issues it posed. When neighbors expressed
concern about the impact of the athletic fields on nearby
residential areas, she says, "we amended our ordinance to
address these for all fields, not just those on church property."
Some communities, however, have decided that size matters
and have incorporated those distinctions into their zoning
definitions. Los Ranchos de Albuquerque, New Mexico,
concerned about the impact of locating large church campuses in
rural areas, has incorporated a specific definition for megachurch
as "a large, specialized type of house of worship that includes
such nontraditional accessory uses as retail sales, residential uses,
amusement parks, and sports and entertainment facilities, as an
integrated part of the development." In contrast, the academic
literature on religion has come to define a megachurch as a
congregation with an average weekly attendance of at least 2,000.
Attendance, of course, will not work in a zoning definition, but
seating capacity would. The academic definition does not refer to
ancillary uses, while the Los Ranchos definition is precisely what
is meant in this article by "faith-based planned developments."
While there is room to debate such distinctions, the Los Ranchos
definition has the benefit of clarity. It also specifically disallows
megachurches as conditional uses in all residential, rural/
agricultural, and commercial zoning districts while allowing other
houses of worship.
Starting with Covenants
Peachtree City, Georgia, has been home to a number of smaller
church campuses that, in several cases, have expanded to as large
as 60 acres. The city, incorporated in 1959, originated as a
planned development. Planning consultant Jerry Peterson,
former vice-president for planning with the Peachtree City
Development Corporation, which designed and built most of
the 15,000-acre city, says the firm used restrictive covenants to
redirect larger churches to what it considered suitable sites,
heading offpotential conflicts with residential areas in the
process. The firm worked with the city to "integrate" smaller
churches--using two or three acres--into appropriate
residential areas, but worked to ensure that larger campuses were
on arterial streets with adequate traffic access and parking.
Peterson says some that have outgrown their original land base
have migrated outside the city to rural areas. At some point as a
church grows, he says, planners must ask whether they are
"becoming incompatible with residential neighborhoods. They
are no longer operating on Sunday mornings but seven days a
week. They may be doing lots of good things, but we tried to
deal with the question of where they should go."
Peterson's point is important because it is not enough for
advocates to argue that, because churches "do good things," they
are inherendy beneficial land uses in all circumstances. Their
growth produces impacts on surrounding land uses, most
notably involving parking and traffic, but also noise and - ~ --
lighting. These are issues that can be addressed through the
proper siting, but as Peterson notes, some growing churches find
their existing locations inadequate. In the beginning, because
the developer in Peachtree City controlled much of the land,
covenants were ~n effective strategy. However, as the city -
becomes more responsible for the community's growth,
regulatory strategies using zoning will become increasingly
important in sustaining the city's approach, Peterson savs.
Edge City Ministry
Because they are nonprofit institutions, it should hardly surprise
anyone that churches and synagogues are often interested in
acquiring cheap land to facilitate their building plans. Smaller
congregations seeking to serve a specific neighborhood must
nonetheless make their choices within the community in which
their members live. A defining characteristic of megachurches,
however, noted in an earlier issue of Zoning News ("Zoning and
Big Box Religion," November 1996), is that they view their
market area as regional. Members drive across metropolitan
areas, and some megachurches provide their own bus service.
First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, for instance,
advertising the "world's largest Sunday school," uses a fleet of
more than 150 buses to transport worshipers from Chicago and
northwest Indiana.
Hammond is a decidedly urban location. In much of the
Sunbelt, there has been a trend toward locating on the urban
fringe or even in rural areas, often buying farmland. This
pattern was a factor in the ordinance amendments in Los
Ranchos de Albuquerque. Mayor John Hooker says several
megachurches, as the city has defined them, "have been
developed in the metro Albuquerque area over the past 15 years.
The largest are complete suburban convention and education
complexes with food service, video production studios,
classrooms, daycare, offices, along with the traditional sanctuary.
And they require acres of parking. The question becomes how to
regulate that kind of contemporary facility in an otherwise
rural-residential area."
· · . about this article·
Join us online!
From July 1%30, go online to participate in our ~Ask the
Author' forum, an interactive feature of Zoning News. Jim
Schwab will team up with attorney Michael S. Giaimo, of
Robinson & Cole in Boston, to answer questions about
this article. Giaimo is the co-author of an April 2003
article in Planningdted in this issue of Zoning News. Gom
the APA website at www. planning, org and follow the links
m the 'Ask the Author" section. From there, just submit
your questions about the article using an e-mail link. The
author will reply, posting the answers cumulatively on the
website for the benefit of,Il subscribers. This feature will
be available for selected issues of Zoning News at
announced times. After each online discussion is closed,
the answers will be saved in an online archive available
through the APA Zoning News webpages.
4
Megachurches need access to arterial streets in order to avoid adding
congestion to nearby traffic. These churches usually need to be located in
nonresidential areas of the comrnuni~.
That question depends, in part, on who has jurisdiction in
the rural-residential area. Extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction, the
authority of townships, regional coordination, and a host of
other issues affecting the zoning of the urban fringe vary with
state law. Where cooperation between cities and counties is
weak, rural areas may offer a tempting path of least resistance to
megachurches seeking a minimum of regulatory oversight,
particularly for complex planned developments. The problem is
that the infrastructure m support large institutions may not
exist, which is one reason urban land prices are higher. Road
systems may be inadequate for the anticipated traffic, yet the
megachurch itself may become the leading edge of leapfrog
development that ultimately results in the urbanization of
previously viable farmland. King County, Washington, has
wresded with the issue of acceptable church building sizes in
rural areas amid considerable political controversy, including a
200 t county ballot initiative supported by religious activists,
who were rankled by a moratorium enacted earlier by the
county board.
On the other hand, notes John Wright, director of
planning and development services for Clovis, California, the
church enjoys a "tremendous dollar advantage in going out
early and building out over 20, 30, or 40 years." That, he
says, is precisely what was happening in F~esno County,
where county zoning allows churches as a conditional use in
its agricultural zones. Moreover, the expectation was that the
county would not charge the same development fees that the
churches could expect in the city. However, the problem is
that the membership of these churches lives mostly in Fresno
County's municipalities.
Wright says the county's original idea was to allow small
country churches of 2,000 to 3,000 square feet to serve the
needs of rural residents in agricultural areas. In the 1990s, the
county planning commission and board of supervisors found
themselves considering applications for much larger proposals
from urban congregations banking land for future growth. The
issue came to a head in 1999 with the approval of a proposal
from the Clovis Hills Community Church to build on a 41-acre
site on which sat a fig orchard, to be purchased for $1.2 million.
The plans submitted to the county included a 40,000-square-
foot worship hall, plus a chapel, a 24,000-square-foot atrium, a
study building, a prayer building, an administration building,
an activity park, and two baseball fields, all capable of serving a
congregation of 12,000 people.
The planning commission rejected the plan on a 5-3 vote,
only to be reversed by the county board amid significant
political controversy. To resolve the controversy over leapfrog
development, Clovis Hills offered a compromise of building
to city development standards with sewer and water hookups,
preparing for the day when the city would grow to meet
them.
But the case proved to be a watershed, says Wright. It was the
last time the county approved such a church development
proposal. Clovis Hills is just beginning to break ground on the
site, according to Will Ketfler, senior staff analyst for the
Development Services Division of the Fresno County
Department of Public Works and Planning. The issue caused
the county board to reconsider its policy regarding conditional
use permits for churches. Wright says the county is now
~shutting down sprawl across the line. [They'll] charge the same
fees as if you were building in the city." In January of this year,
the county rejected a Mennonite congregation's proposal to
build 85,000 square feet of buildings on 20 acres in the
countryside east of Clovis. Kettler says the county has also
rejected a plan for a 1,000-member Jehovah's Witnesses church,
noting that conflict with spraying of pesticides and the desire to
protect agricultural land have been prime factors. The result is
that churches are turning back toward the cities, Wright says, to
find appropriate sites and work out development arrangements.
To date, Fresno County has not seen the kinds of highly
diversified faith-based planned developments that have gained
attention elsewhere, says Kettler. If that happens, the county
will already have signaled its determination not to facilitate
urban sprawl.
What to Do?
Despite many local officials' concerns about how zoning
regulations for churches will fare if they are challenged under
RI. UlPA, experience to date suggests that some effective
regulatory measures are still very defensible with regard to faith-
based planned developments and megachurches in general. This
is true regardless of RLUIPA's ultimate fate as its
constitutionality is tested in the courts.
First, there are reasonable grounds for making distinctions
based on size. It is virtually axiomatic that a church with a
7,000-seat sanctuary has a far larger impact on surrounding
land uses than a neighborhood church that seats 200. One
reason churches have been permitted by right in residential
districts in many ordinances is that the expectation existed
that many members would walk to church on Sunday
mornings. The positive contributions were seen as far
outweighing the minimal disruption involved. Moreover,
smaller churches tend not to be centers of activity all week
long for large numbers of people. Larger churches need
access to arterial streets in order to avoid congesting nearby
traffic and, certainly at megachurch size, need to be located
in nonresidential areas of the community.
Second, traffic issues mean parking issues. Planners know
many ways to solve these problems, but a thorough parking
needs and traffic study ought to be considered for faith-based
planned developments of any significant size, just as they would
for shopping centers or community colleges. Parking for large
attendance on Sundays can be offset by shared parking
arrangements with nearby facilities whose primary use is on
weekdays. The caveat is that even the weekday needs of a
planned religious development must be taken into
consideration. Schools, activity centers, and office uses can still
require significant amounts of parking, although the parking
required for Sundays is bound to be adequate for almost all
other purposes if shared parking is not an option. But the
standards definitely need to be tighter than for most traditional
churches because the draw is regional, not local. One parking
space per three sanctuary seats is likely to be a reasonable ratio
in most instances.
Third, planned developments (faith-based or otherwise)
should be treated as such, with their own provisions in the
zoning ordinance concerning review and approval. The fact
that a church is at the center of a mix of uses, many of which
would otherwise be deemed commercial or institutional, does
not mean that the development can be treated as a single,
large religious use. Few planners would think it should, but
some religious use advocates may argue otherwise.
Definitions and regulations should be neutral in nature and
make clear that comparable components of any type of
planned development will receive comparable regulatory
treatment, regardless of the religious nature of the developer.
The review of a proposal for a faith-based planned
development should cover the same issues that would be
covered if anyone else had proposed a similar complex on a
large plot of land. As Michael S. Giaimo and Dwight
Merriam note in Planning (UChurch v. State,~ April 2003),
"regulating a commercial use whose proceeds are used to
support a religious institution is not what [RLUIPA] means
by substantial burden." This point implicates issues of
consistency. The difficulty of maintaining consistent policy
can be seen in the wide variations in property tax treatment
of church-owned property. States have not yet reached
widespread consensus on what constitutes a religious use of
property for tax purposes. The same conceptual confusion
often extends to land-use regulations. Marci Hamilton
suggests that one way out of this dilemma may be to treat all
associational activities--whether religious, civic, cultural, or
commercialtin a consistent, neutral fashion. She says
zoning officials "must go to the high ground and be as
neutral as possible. If you don't allow churches in a particular
district, then no theaters. We have to work on the
consistency notion and explain it more clearly."
Finally, although faith-based planned developments offered
up as a single project pose some problems of untangling the
various types of uses for appropriate review, the reality is that
few churches have the money to develop such projects all at
once. Large, older urban religious landholders like Trinity
Church typically grew over time. Even if current church leaders
This month find both the full text of the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 and APA's - --
position on RI.UlPA on the Zoning News pages of the
APA websire at www. planning.org/ZoningNews/
currentissue.htm.
Websites
www. rluipa, com/rluipa, cfm.
Articles
Brown, Patricia Leigh. 'Megachurches as Minitowns," New
York ~mes, May 9, 2002, Garden Section, p. 1. Online
at: www. nytimes.com/2002/05/09/garden/
09CHUILhtml.
Dam, James L. ~Churches Use New Federal Statute to Win
Zoning Cases," Lau;yen Weekly USA, online at
www. lawyerswceklyusa, com/alert/usa/zoning.htm.
El Nasser, Haya. ~Giant Churches Irk Some Neighbors,"
USA/bday, September 23, 2002.
Giaimo, Michael S., and Dwight Merriam. "Church v.
State," Planning, April 2003, 14-17.
Meck, Stuart. UReligious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act," Zoning News, January 2001.
Parnas, Susan M. "The Religious Liberty Protection Act:
The National League of Cities' Perspective,~ Cardozo
Law Rev/ew, Vol. 21,781-793.
Thumma, Scott. "Exploring the Megachurch
Phenomenon: Their Characteristics and Cultural
Context," online through the Hartford Institute for
Religion Research at hrtp:llhirr, hartsem.edulbookshelfl
thumma_artide2.html.
Weiss, Jonathan D., and Randy Lowell. ~Supersizing
Religion: Megachurches, Sprawl, and Smart Growth,"
St. Louis Univeni~y Public Law Review, Vol. 21,313-329
(2002).
dream large dreams in single plans and buy large plots of land to
ensure that they have room m grow, they are seldom likely to
implement all their dreams simultaneously. Improvements will
often be proposed in stages that take years m come to fruition.
One hopes that, as this growth occurs, local planning
departments and church leaders can take time to foster a
mutually productive relationship in which both sides can
assess the best way to harmonize the needs of the community
and the church development in the context of mutually
beneficial planning.
Zoning N~vs is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Association.
Subscriptions are available for $65 (U.S.) and $90 (foreign). W. Paul Farmer, mcP, Executive
Director; William R. Klein, ~c~, Director of Re. arch.
Z~aing Nes~ is pmduecd ar APA. Jim Schwab, mci., and Michael David~ou, Editors; Barry Bain,
mC~, Fay Dolnick, Josh Edward~, Sanjay Jeer, .~. Megan Lewis, mc~. Matya Morris, mol.,
Robetto Requejo, Lynn Ross, Repormrs~ KathJeen Quirsfeld, Assistant Editor; Lis~ Barton,
Design and Production.
Copyright ~12003 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michig*n Ave.. Suite 1600,
Chiogn, IL 60603. The American Planning Association also ha~ o~c.~s at 1776 Ma~achusem
Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036; www.planning.org
All fights ~ No p~ of this publication may be reptoduo~d or utili~d in any form or by' any
memu, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recor6ing, or by any information stotage
and reuieval system, without penaimon in writing from the American Planning Association.
Printed on rem,. tied paper, including 50-7096 recycled fiber ~
and 1096 pos~consumer ~asre.
JULY 2003
AMERICAN
PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
Sign Control in Cuyahoga Falls:
Regulating Outside the Box
By John L. Gann, Jr.
Many signs in the city's older business areas have seen better days.., and in time you
get a reaction leading to a demand to take more effective action on sign control.
Sometimes the best route through a local planning-cum-
politics problem is the familiar superhighway planners have
used for years. At other times, however, it may be preferable to
detour along a little-used back road or two. And in still other
cases, you may just need to hack your way through the brush.
Sign regulation--with its controversies, litigation, and
public-private conflicts---can present planners with such
choices. This can especially be the case when it becomes the
most urgent issue in local land-use control, as it did last year in
one Ohio community.
Cuyahoga Falls is an older but well-maintained suburban
community of nearly 50,000 people adjacent to Akron, Ohio.
The town boasts a rich mix of commercial, industrial, and
residential development. The namesake Cuyahoga River can be
viewed from a delightful riverwalk flanking the small downtown
business area on either side of a 1970s-vintage pedestrian mall.
Home also to the Cuyahoga Valley National Park and Blossom
Music Center (summer home of the Cleveland Symphony
Orchestra), the city has extensive undeveloped land in which to
grow as a result of a 1985 merger with Northampton Township.
The Falls' zoning regulations, also dating from the 1970s, weae
quite permissive in their treatment of signs and billboards. Many
signs in the city's older business areas have seen better days. Clear
Channel Outdoor maintains in town a large and sometimes
controversial inventory of 51 mosdy 30-sheet billboards. Put these
factors together, and in time you get a reaction leading to a demand
to take more effective action on sign control.
Assembling the Team
In recent years, signs in Cuyahoga Falls have been controlled
more as case-by-case planning department review activities than
by the mandates of the regulations. These initiatives, which have
made low monument signs ubiquitous in newer commercial
areas like Howe Avenue, also created some resentments among
local business people. And the city's new planning director, Fred
R. Guerra, AICP, was uncomfortable with staff regulatory
actions that lacked support in council-adopted regulations.
All these factors set the parameters both for what needed to
be accomplished in the Falls and for what realistically could be
done with community and business support.
Guerra saw the need for a complete overhaul of the city's
land-use regulations and their replacement with a unified'
development code. But the demand for better sign control
would not await the conclusion of such a substantial
undertaking. So as the first installment the city commissioned a
siga 2nd landscaping rode./.=nd?~ping re~-,!ations were
Debra Richard, the principal of Blackthorn Design Studio, presented
drawings like these to local business leaders to win their support/hr the
r,~ults planners w,~.-.ted :v a~-hieve.
Though the c~. cut the
clutter on its older State
Road commercial strip t0.,
pumng utilities
under, round, a
succession of tall potes
still g~eets the motorut.
Ornamental pole covers.
incentivized in the new
code. are rare on the cio,}
older slg~.
another priority in improving the appearance of the city and
one almost completely ignored in the current zoning code.
The city chose experienced specialists for the job. Gann
Associates, with extensive background in land-use control, was
also known around the country for work on sign control issues.
Blackthorn Design Studio, doing only design work, specializes
in signs. And both had experience in sign code controversies
with both government and private business.
The importance of the issue locally has meant that the job
couldn't be left just to the consultants. Guerra also put
together a 19-member advisory committee. With legal
oversight by Hope Jones, the Deputy Law Director, and
representation from other key people in city government, the
sign industry, the business community and the citizenry, the'
group represented a range of views that prompted some lively
discussions. In addition, the staff and consultants met
regularly with other key stakeholders.
Sign Regulation Cafeteria-Style
That sign control had become the number one land-use control
issue in Cuyahoga Falls did not mean there was consensus in the
community on what to do about it.
In fact, virtually the full range of opinion was represented
locally (and sometimes vocally)ifrom laissez faire to Saving
Face, Ron Fleming's indictment of corporate architecture and
signage. The challenge to the planners and consultants was m
come up with something for everyone in a code that did not
lean so far in either direction that it would stand no chance of
getting adopted.
But early in its deliberations, the committee came down
squarely on the side of a policy of flexibility and creative
freedom for the sign user over regulatory micro-management.
The consultant proposed a system that would give the sign user
considerable freedom of choice while influencing those choices
with incentives and disincentives that reflected city policy.
John L. Gann, Jl:, is President of Gann Associates, Development
Consultanz¢.
As in many traditional regulations, the Cuyahoga Falls code
accordingly allocates an aggregate amount of sign area to each
property and leaves it up to the sign user to divvy it up among
the various types, sizes, and locations of signs. There are ceilings
on height and face area of what the code calls non-surface signs
and maximums on sign projection. Otherwise, in contrast to
traditional codes, there are few absolute quantitative restrictions.
But the choices a sign user makes with regard to such factors as
sign height, size of pole signs, and aesthetics can significandy
affect how much signage a property may display.
The choice-intensive nature of the new rules prompted the
city's senior planner, Peter M. Korycan, to dub the provisions
"cafeteria-style regulations."
Regulating by Formula and Incentives
The code tries to reduce the complexity and arbitrariness of
determining how much signage to allow for different land uses.
It does this with a few computations rather than a multiplicity
of different rules. In contrast to most codes, the signage allowed
is figured in just one way for all land uses, although the
numbers for each category naturally vary.
The size of the total area allowed for all permanent signs on a
property is determined by its lot frontage (the traditional
determinant for free-standing sign area), and building frontage
(the usual metric for wall sign area) pooled together. Different
land uses get different percentages of this figure, with retail
getting the most and homes the least. Aggregate area allowed for
temporary signs is a percentage of the permanent sign figure.
But the formula number can be increased substantially through
voluntary actions m make signs better-looking. Landscaping,
ornamental pole covers, wood or stone materials, pole-sharing by
multiple sign users, and other measures all earn bonus sign area.
And m encourage use of these incentives, discretionary city
approval is usually not required. With few exceptions, if you do it,
you get it. As-of-right sign area allowances were computed to be
adequate but not generous so that sign users would be futther
encouraged to use the bonuses. A hardware store with 70 feet of
building frontage on a 100-foot-wide lot, for example, is allowed 85
sq,,,~ feet efface a-ca for all iii ~erm~-.e=: ~igna.
The numbers were'derived from a half-dozen properties
having what the Falls planners considered model amounts of
signage. Code allowances were set on the assumption that, to
realize these levels of signage, a certain level of bonus sign area
should be necessary. Figures from existing signage at local car
dealers were also used to test the code allowances.
The table suggests how some local businesses would have
fared under the new regulations. Three could have attained their
current signage levels only with bonused aesthetic
enhancements, while one would have had to make do with
fewer or smaller signs.
The contrarian assumption behind the bonuses was that,
though it is the heart of traditional sign regulation, size may not
really matter that much.
The indictment against signs is, after all, less that they are big
than that they are not very attractive. Within limits, a well-
designed sign can be bigger yet with less adverse visual impact
than a mediocre-looking smaller sign. So while the new code
allows you to put up plain-Jane signs in Cuyahoga Falls, such
signs have to be smaller or fewer. Do a better job on your signs,
and they can be larger and more numerous.
COMPARISON OF EXIS11NG SIGNAGE AT LOCAL BUSINESSES
AND SIGNAGE PERMITTED BY NEW CODE .................
-Exis~g ....
Sign Area Over Code
Land Use {square feet} Formula Amount
Re0ItY O'i:e '~ ~ ...... 0'
Cot Deoler 162 0
Service Stotion ] 80 22%
Sfrip. Cente[ 310 29%
Bonk 1 ] 0 22%
Fost Food Restouront 286 183% _
Reducing Sign Code Clutter
If unregulated signage tends toward clutter, cities' sign
regulations are hardly immune from the problem themselves.
Carefully prepared codes often have different rules for wall
signs, window signs, canopy signs, under-canopy signs, roof
s!gns, por.tabl, e signs, free-standing signs, banner signs, awning
signs, proIectmg signs, political signs, painted wall signs,
marquee signs, yard sale signs, and others. Combine these
categories with a dozen or two zoning districts in which the
signs are or are not allowed, and you can get either voluminous
code verbiage or dauntingly large tables.
Cuyahoga Falls found this level of complexity unnecessary
for purposes of basic regulation. It retained those specific
classifications like roof signs and balloon signs that it wanted to
ban entirely. But for purposes of regulation rather than
prohibition, the city was able to boil everything down to just
two categories.
First, of course, the legal requirement for content neutrality
discussed many times in APA publications will, if strictly
observed, eliminate some of the categories right off the gat. If
communities may not regulate sign messages, either direcdy or
indirecdy, then separate rules for real estate signs, political signs,
menu board signs, and off-premise outdoor advertising signs--
all of which are defined by their content--all go by the boards.
And if the most ~alient complaint about signs is the clutter
they generate, this may be the most important distinction
among signs to make for purposes of regulation.
The worst clutter offenders are usually acknowledged to be
pole signs on the highway and projecting signs downtown.
Their perceived clutter derives from the fact that they create
new structures or planes--typically perpendicular to a motorist's
or pedestrian's line of sight--that wouldn't be there but for the
existence of the sign. Wall, window, and awning signs, on the
other hand, appear on surfaces that would be there anyway.
These signs add images and words to the built environment but
no new structures or surfaces.
So in the Falls, all signs are divided into two categories.
Surface signs are signs displayed on surfaces of things that aren't
signs, like walls, doors, or canopies. Non-surface signs are signs
that are out there on their own: pole signs, projecting signs,
portable signs, and everything else. All other things being equal,
surface signs are considered m blend in better and create less
clutter than non-surface signs.
On that basis, the code encourages sign users to keep non-
surface signs small by counting their face area double against the
sign area allowed for all signs on the lot. The charge against
allowable signage for a 50-square-foot pole sign is the same as
for a 100-square-foot wall sign. The code allows the sign user m
decide the appropriate trade-off between the visibility of a pole
or projecting sign facing the motorist or pedestrian, and the
visibility achieved by a sign that is bigger.
If the hypothetical hardware store mentioned above put up a
five-foot-square pole sign, 50 of its 85 square feet of allowable
permanent sign area would be spoken for. That would leave only 35
square feet for wall, window, and all other signs unless the store
owner increased his signage allowance through incentive provisions.
Regulating signs with only two categories allows rules to be
fewer, simpler, and more uniform. That can make the task of
administration easier. And rules that are more consistent are also
more desirable legally.
PRO _f.~l~E
Signs on side walls
facing traffic (left) can
be highly visible,
especially if building~
are sited closer to the
street than is the case
here. Because they are
less obtrusive than
pole signs, the code
allows twice as rauch
face area 39r thon.
Big or Tall: Your Choice
The code also allows but influences another visibility trade-off.
Businesses traditionally prefer taller and larger signs because of
their greater visibility to potential customers. Activists and
urban designers disfavor both for the same reason: Desirable
visibility translates for them into undesirable visual
obtrusiveness. Planners and regulators must somehow mediate
this conflict.
Here again, the Falls regulations in effect authorize a
certain visibility/intrusiveness budget but permit the sign
user to decide how she wants to spend it. In most parts of
town, a pole or monument sign may not exceed 100 square
feet (it's 50 square feet in more restricted areas). But the
taller that sign gets, the lower the maximum sign area
becomes. So the sign user can have it big or tall. The one
thing she can't have is both.
legitimate abatement ora nuisance. But a surv~, by the Fails
planning smffofthe amortization experience of area municipalities
was not encouraging. What looked good on paper at ordinance
adoption time usually didn't pan out in practice.
The new Falls regulations generally enable amortization of
such nonconformities as the city council may in the future
declare to be nuisances. But as a "kinder and gender" alternative
for abating adverse effects of nonconformities, the code also
offers sign nonconformity action plans (SNAPs). The SNAP
replaces regulatory, rules with plans and mandates with
negotiations. It is in essence a sort of planned unit development
for nonconforming signs.
In contrast to most regulations, the SNAP allows
nonconformity problems to be resolved on a case-bv-case basis
rather than with rigid rules. Like PUD regulations, SNAPs
emphasize flexibility and allow the normal provisions (in this
As a "kinder and gentler" alternative for abating adverse effects of nonconformities,
the new Falls regulations offers sign nonconformity action plans.., which replace
regulatory rules with plans and mandates with negotiations.
Does One Size Fit All?
Traditionally, a set of sign regulations can be strict, permissive, or
somewhere in-between. It can never be more than one of the above.
But so long as any equal protection legal problems can be
overcome, there appears m be no reason a city must choose only a
single standard of regulation, especially when some locally argue for
stringency while others espouse a more ea~-going approach.
Fred Guerra asked for a departure from the one-size-fits-all
approach. He wanted rules that could, irrespective of land use or
zoning district, be stricter in some parts of town and less
burdensome elsewhere.
In response, the approved code creates "Showcase" areas where
higher standards are set. The ceiling on the area of. an individual
non-surface sign is reduced by half, for example. And some of the
appearance enhancements rewarded by sign area bonuses elsewhere
are in Showcase simply made mandatory. Showcase regulations will
be used downtown, near the National Park, and perhaps in other
sections considered to merit stricter controls.
Handling Nonconformities Can Bo a SNAP
Any older city with historically permissive regulations that
adopts stricter sign controls is going to create myriad
nonconformities. How to treat nonconformities is a critical
policy issue in developed cities. It is nonetheless not always
given thoughtful attention in their zoning regulations (see
Arthur Ientilucci, "Pigs In the Parlor or Diamonds in the
Rough?", Zoning News, April 2003).
Some in Cuyahoga Falls pushed hard for an amortization
mandate for all sign nonconformities as a way to dean up the
city's accumulated sign clutter. But since the new regulations
would mean every billboard in the city would be
nonconforming, such a blanket policy would have put Clear
Channel Outdoor out of business in Cuyahoga Falls. Certain
litigation would have ensued. Amortization would have made
the code controversial among the rest of the local business
community as well.
Though an Ohio statute prohibits retroactive zoning, the ~tare
Supreme Court upheld one city's sign amortization plan as
case, the requirements for both signs and nonconformities) to
be set aside in the interest of a better solution.
The departure from the rulebook works both ways. The city
can grant the sign user relief from a code requirement, but it can
also impose restrictions and mandatestsuch as on designtnot
otherwise authorized by the code. City approval of a SNAP is
mandated in the case of nonconformities with maximum face
area or maximum height ora non-surface sign and for any sign
nonconformity downtown. For all other nonconformities,
SNAP filing is at the option of the sign user.
Remarkably, the SNAP idea was embraced by both
activists seeking amortization and by Clear Channel, which is
likely to file the first plan under the new provision. The
code-specified content of the SNAP was, in fact, modeled
after a proposal to the city the outdoor company had
previously made for removal, rehabilitation, and addition to
their citywide inventory.
SNAPs formalize the negotiation activity in which zoning
bodies engage all the time. They are admittedly unlike
· . . about this article·
Join us online!
From August 11-22, go online to participate in our
the Author~ forum, an interactive feature of Zoning News.
John Gann will be available to anr~ver questions about this
article. Go to the A.PA website at www. planniug, org and
follow the link~ to the 'A~k the Author" section. From
there, just submit your questions about the article using an
e-mail link. The author will reply, posting the an~wer~
cumulatively on the website for the benefit of all
subscribers. This feature will be available for selected issues
of Zoning News at announced time~. After each online
discussion is dosed, the answers will be saved in an online
archive available through the APA Zoning News webpage~.
traditional practices for handling n'onconformities. But their
conceptual similarity to PUD plans, which have been well-
oCCepted nationwide for decades, suggests that negotiated
lutions that vary the normal rules are not without formal
precedent.
Remediating the Effects
The SNAP further differs from traditional treatments of
nonconformities in being a plan to remediate the oCfects of
nonconformities. It ma3; but does not have to, provide for =he
removal of either the offending sign or its nonconforming
characteristic such as height, location, or size.
While zoning rules traditionally assume nonconformities are
uniformly noxious and should not be perpetuated any longer
than necessary, the SNAP focuses on the specific adverse effects
the nonconforming characteristic creates. Such effects may
range from the overwhelming to the negligible. A face area
nonconformity of, say, three square feet over the code maximum
is likely to be invisible on most signs.
But for adverse effects of nonconformities that are more
prominent, the SNAP provision calls for remediafion as
distinguished from elimination. Remediation of the visual effect
of a nonconforming pole sign, for example, may in some cases
not require either the removal or the alteration of the sign itself
but might be accomplished by adding landscaping around the
base. Such action might not eliminate the sign's visual impact
but might make it much more acceptable. While a SNAP must
achieve substantial improvement, it need not aim for full
con formic.
How much improvement is required is negotiated between
the sign owner and the city--initially through a small SNAP
committee and ultimately before the board of zoning appeals.
Because both sides must agree to the SNAP, the rules enable
quidspro quo. If the city, for example, wants a sign removed, it
may allow one or more replacement signs even if the new signs
do not comply with all normal restrictions. As with a PUD, if
the city decides the overall plan works, the individual elements
may vary from otherwise applicable standards.
Besides remediating adverse effects, the SNAP must "allow
signage that offers visibility reasonably adequate to the needs of
the sign user(s)." Remediation, in other words, does not mean
suppression. Instead, the idea is to allow enough flexibility to
create win-win solutions to what otherwise might be
contentious nonconformity issues.
Advantages to Sign Users
There are advantages to the sign user in negotiating a SNAP
even when it's not required. As noted, the normal sign and
nonconformity restrictions may be put aside. Signs in
compliance with a SNAP are no longer considered
nonconforming. And sign variances are not allowed on
properties with nonconforming signs unless there is a SNAP
and full compliance therewith.
Under a SNAP,, furthermore, nonconforming sign area
(NSA)--the total area of tegal signs exceeding what the new
code allows--is preserved as a property, right that ma3; in
conformity with the terms of the SNAP, be used on the same
sign or a new one. It may even be transferred to another
property. But to encourage action on nonconformities sooner
rather than later, the longer a sign user waits to do a SNAP, the
less NSA is retained. Noncompliance with a SNAP is a code
violation requiring the removal of all nonconformities.
The SNAP provides a vehicle for solving nonconforming sign
problems. But it certainly ofters no guarantee there will be a good
solution in eve .ry case. The ultimate success of the SNAP provision
will depend on the good faith with which both sides negotiate.
Making It Real
Even the best-illustrated and most user-friendly sign codes tend to
be rather dry and abstract affairs. Considerable imagination is
typically needed to envision how their words and numbers translate
to better-looking properties and streerscapes. Business owners
espedally may see new regulations more in terms of the limitations
they impose than the more effective signage they allow.
The Falls project endeavored to overcome this difficulty by
engaging Blackthorn Design Studio to make the code's
objectives and potentials a bit more real. The planning staff
selected five businesses in town that might benefit from revised
signage and whose owners were willing to participate, on a no-
obligation basis, in city-funded illustrative makeovers.
Debra Richard, the principal of Blackthorn, studied each
property, conferred with shop owners, and redesigned their
signage with both business visibility and improved visual quality
in mind. The drawings were shown to the chamber of
commerce and other local groups to demonstrate the kind of
result the planners wanted to achieve. One business owner even
suggested he'd like to have the Blackthorn sign made and put up
ifa way could be found to overcome the loss of a parking space
its placement would entail.
A sign design comultant suggested a makeover for a local muffter shop to illustrate how code objectives for improved signage might be realized.
Pros and Cons of Pushing the Envelope
The Cuyahoga Falls Sign and Landscaping Code, ir must be
emphasized, is the product of the situation in one Ohio ci .ty. It
is not offered as a model for towns nationwide; its policies won't
necessarily be right in other places.
But it is also true that much of what does appear in sign
codes elsewhere results not from the dictates of state statute or
case law or from the desires of the community but from custom
and convention. Also responsible for the nature of these
ordinances is the widespread tendency to either copy other
towns' regulations or adopt model codes.
How much does size matter? Though strict limits on face area are the
keystone of most sign regulations, this sandblasted and landscaped
municipal sign suggests big can also be beautiful. The new code allows
more sign area when app_earance-enhancing measures like these are taken.
Wanting something a little better, Cuyahoga Falls opted for a
road less traveled. For the Falls as well as other cities, that course
involves both pluses and minuses.
Innovative approaches can be more flexible in solving
contemporary problems than the conventions of the past. But
new-style rules like SNAPs, incentives, content neutrality, and
surface/non-surface signs take some getting used to by both sign
users and local officials. Of course, virtually every update of
older regulations involves significant adjustments anyway.
Another downside of new regulatory twists is the greater
need to tweak and refine them. New-age regulations, like
the latest computer software, are prone to bugs. They will not
appeal to those public officials who place highest priority on
security and predictability. But of course, unless someone tries
something new once in a while, progre~ never happens.
Breaking new ground with unorthodox and untested provisions
also involves some legal risk. But the downside can be minimized if
care is taken to reasonably meet the nc~ds of the various
stakeholders. Code provisions, after all, don't get struck down
simply became they're illegal. Courts don't go out hunting for
unconstitutional regulations. If they're thrown out, it's bemuse
someone got angry enough m sue. Working openly and
constructively with all stakeholders--including those who may
oppose stricter controls~can make that kind of outcome less likely.
Interactive Code Devolopmont
And an open and highly participatory code development process
indeed has much to recommend it, whether a city ventures into
uncharted regulatory territory or stays with the tried and true.
In Cuyahoga Falls, the public-private advisory committee
that worked through each chapter of the draft intentionally
represented a range of interests and viewpoints. Multiple
separate meetings were also held with the chamber of
commerce, local car dealers, and the outdoor advertising
company. And the consultant met one-on-one with kev
stakeholders before beginning any drafting work.
In this consultant's experience with zoning overhauls
in other communities, one measure of how well a code
development process is working is how much the drafts
get revised. Lots of tinkering betokens thought and
involvement on the part of project participants:
businesspenple, elected officials, staff, and consultants. This
kind of interactive exchange makes for better regulations
than a code that is solely the product of the consultant's
expertise and biases.
Robust tweaking activity also provides evidence that
provisions are being taken seriously and tailored to the values
and political parameters of the individual community. In an area
as values-intensive and contentious as sign regulation, making
sure that happens gives any code a better chance of ultimate
SUCCESS.
For a complimentary copy of APA's new PAS Report,
Context-Sensitive Signage Design, on CD Rom, please contact
Michael Davidson, Editor, Zoning News, American Planning
Association, 122 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL
60603, or send an e-mail to mdavidson@planning.org.
vital Communities Toolbox
Torapkins County Planning Department; New York. Online report
available at www. torapkins-co, org/planning/vct/index, html. Last
updated May 30, 2003.
For those wanting some basic planning tools on a wide range
of subjects, this online document ofters a comprehensive
introduction to neighborhoods, nodal development, housing,
natural resources, agriculture, and transportation, with lots of
links to specific details on issues like how best to design overlay
districts, transfer of development rights, critical environmental
areas, and dozens more topics of essential value to local
planners. Each major topic area has a set of design principles
and is presented with a set of more specific subprinciples, in
addition to dozen of links to more information about individual
planning tools. This is one of the best Internet tools of its type
to emerge recently.
Z~a/ng Neu~ is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Association.
Subscriptions ate available for $65 (U.S.) and $90 (foreign). W. Paul Farmer, AtCt., Ean,=utive
Director; Willhtrn ri. Klein, AIc~, Discctor o£~ch.
Z~ N~ is produced at APA. Jim Schv~b, ~ct,, and Michael Davidson, Editors; Barry' Bain,
~CI,, Fay Dolnic~ Josh Edwards, Sanjay Jeer, ~lc~, Megan Lewis, AICI', Marya Morris, AICP,
Roberto R~quejo. Rebe~ ]~u. lal~, Lynn Ross, Reporters; l~thleen Quirsfeld, Auistant Editor;
Lisa Barton, Design and Production.
Copynght {}2003 by Amerion Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600,
Chicco, IL 60603. The American Planning Association also has offices at 1776 Massachusetts
Aw., N.W., Washington, DC 20036; vnvw.planning.org
All fights n~-.~,ed. No p~n o£this pub[karion may be reproduced or utilized in any ~orm or by any
~tn~ or . .n~hanic~, in..r/.udi~.g ph..otoco.pyi. 'nS, re~onting, or by any i~l"ormati .... sage
remev~ system, wthout pennsssmn m wmmg from the American Planning Association.
Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled tiber ~
and 10% posrconsumer waste.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 8, 2003
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
CONSENT BUSINESS
Present: Anderson, Barrick, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien, Svendsen
Absent: Brauch, Oelkers
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC03-11
Item 4.1
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Front Yard
Variance to Allow Construction of an Attached Garage, 4053 Nevada Avenue
North, Kurt and Jill Klipstein, Petitioners.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, community development director, stated that the petitioner
was requesting a five-foot variance to the 25-foot front yard setback
requirement to allow construction of an attached garage 20 feet from the
property line. The property is located on the west side of Nevada Avenue
approximately 600 feet south of 42n~ Avenue. The site and surrounding
properties are zoned R-1 single family residential. The lot is rectangular in
shape and contains approximately 9,000 square feet. Aerial and topography
maps were displayed showing the location and setback of the homes along
Nevada Avenue. The existing home is a split-level construction with the
footprint containing approximately 1,009 square feet with a single car tuck-
under garage. The proposed garage addition would be 590 square feet. The
Comprehensive Plan indicated that housing conditions are generally good in
District #15. The homes are smaller and most have single car garages.
Housing maintenance and renovation would be promoted through private
investment in the homes.
McDonald explained that the home and existing garage lie 39.8 feet from the
front property line, and the driveway abuts Nevada Avenue. There are
significant trees located on the east and north sides of the property, which
limits access to the rear yard.
The applicants were proposing to construct an attached garage on the
property. McDonald mentioned that Mr. Klipstein had discussed several
options with staff and the plans the Design and Review Committee reviewed
were revised to the current plan. The variance requested was due to the front
yard encroachment. The applicants submitted a written narrative, photos of
existing lot, site plan, and building structural sketches. The proposed garage
addition would provide a 590 square foot double car garage with storage
space on both sides. Most of the trees on the property would be left intact.
In correspondence submitted prior to the Design and Review Committee, the
petitioner requested the granting of the variance based on the following: 1)
park both vehicles in the garage, 2) room in the back yard however there are
two trees which prevent installing a driveway on the north side of the house, 3)
more space for storage of trash cans, etc., 4) reduced the depth from 24 to 20
feet, and 5) new roof would be just below the bedroom windows giving
another means of egress in case of fire in the upstairs of the home. With the
suggestions from the Design and Review Committee, revised plans were
submitted changing the front of the garage by not covering the front entrance
to the home and a 20-foot depth. The applicant discussed the existing trees
with the city forester, who indicated that in order to preserve as many trees as
possible, the front of the house was the best place for the garage addition,
and that the applicant should keep the driveway at least nine feet from the
closest tree. Tree preservation could be considered a hardship in this specific
case. There was a concern with drainage on the south side of the property.
The applicant stated in the correspondence that he would dig a trench along
the south side 10 inches wide and four inches deep and lay rubber in it, then
cover the rubber with 3/4 inch buff rock to allow water from the back yard to
drain into the street. The sump pump drain hose would drain to the north side
of the property and out to the street instead of toward the rear yard as it does
now. The siding and shingles on the new garage would match the existing
home. A statement was submitted signed by neighboring property owners
which stated that they approved of the addition.
McDonald stated that the code permits a three-foot reduction into a required
side yard abutting a street for the construction of an accessory building or
garage subject to an administrative permit. He stated that staff was in
agreement with the requested side yard reduction. The bigger concern was
the five yard encroachment into the front yard.
McDonald mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan encouraged residential
reinvestment, and the city works with property owners to help them with
reinvestment in their property and to remain in the city. Therefore, an
applicant's request to upgrade his property with a garage capable of holding
two vehicles should not be discounted. With respect to variances, the
applicant must also show the proposal meets the hardship criteria of the
zoning ordinance. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict
application of the code in unique circumstances on specific parcels of
property. The granting of the variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with
the spirit and intent of the code. The application for variance shall not be
approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the variance would
result in undue hardship to the applicant. A hardship may be a physical
condition unique to the property and may include lot shape, narrowness,
shallowness, slope, topographic or similar conditions. Economic conditions
alone cannot constitute a hardship. The hardship has to be unique to the
parcel and not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district. The
landowner cannot have created the hardship. Additional criteria include not
altering the character of the locality, not impairing an adequate supply of light
and air to adjacent properties or increasing congestion on public streets,
increasing the danger of fire or public safety, and is the minimum action
required to eliminate the hardship.
With regard to hardship, the planner indicated in his report that the applicant's
lot was configured in the same manner as other lots along Nevada Avenue.
The house placement and tuck under garage are not unique to the applicant's
property but is rather the pattern along the street. Alternative sites for the
garage would include the rear or north side yard. Specific characteristics that
complicate the rear yard would include the existence of two trees and the
topography of the property. McDonald added that at the Design and Review
Committee meeting, there was a lot of discussion about alternative locations.
The planner reported that with grading, the topography issue in the front yard
could be overcome. The existing trees would complicate access to the rear or
side yard. Staff believed that one tree may need to be removed to
accommodate the garage at either of the alternative locations. The Planning
Commission should decide whether or not tree preservation would be
achieved by granting the variance. Another negative of locating the 9arage at
the rear of the property would be that it would be very close in proximity to the
Planning Commission Meeting 2 July 8, 2003
attached deck with the driveway running close to the house.
With regard to adversely affecting the neighborhood with the granting of the
variance, the planner stated that the proposed front yard variance would alter
the site in comparison with the character of the surrounding residential
properties within the block. The proposed garage would stand out and be
different than the homes on both sides of the property. Per the current code,
the applicant could build out 15 feet without a variance and is requesting an
additional five feet into the required front yard setback.
With regard to allowing special privileges that may be denied to other property
owners, the planner indicated that staff was concerned with the precedence
that could be established with this vadance approval. The lot size and shape
of the applicant's lot is not unique to this property but is the standard
throughout much of the city. Approval of a front yard encroachment for a
garage could result in other applications of a similar nature. Without solid
demonstration of hardship unique to this property, it would be difficult to say
that other vadance requests of a similar nature would not be appropriate. The
Planning Commission should make a determination whether this type of
variance would be acceptable.
With regard to the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship, the
planner indicated that the applicant could construct a garage in either the
north side yard or rear yard, however, there would be different implications
than a front yard garage. The rear yard garage must meet the required
accessory building setbacks, must provide a longer driveway with some
change in topography, would result in loss of a significant tree, and may have
an impact on the location of the existing deck. Many of these items could be
overcome through proper site design. In eady meetings with the applicant,
staff informed him that if the front yard variance was pursued, it should be the
minimum action required to provide garage space.
McDonald reported that staff reviewed the request and the Design and Review
Committee met with the petitioner and comments from both meetings
included: the city encouraged expansion but this was a large encroachment
into the front yard, concern about setting precedent, blocking view of
neighboring properties, and discussion of alternative locations for the garage.
The Committee encouraged the applicant to reduce the depth to 20 feet, and
indicated it may support a five-foot variance with additional input from the full
Planning Commission. The petitioner was informed that there was no
guarantee the request would be approved, but the petitioner desired to
proceed with the five-foot variance request.
McDonald stated that the garage would extend 20 feet in front of the existing
tuck-under garage. The front width would be 26 feet with a length of 30 feet on
the south side and would extend seven feet out from the existing garage on
the south side. The existing garage would be utilized as a workshop and the
existing garage door would remain as a portion of the back wall of the new
garage. The front elevation would have an 8-foot by 16-foot garage door with
a rounded top window above and five feet of storage space on either side of
the garage door. The north side would have a service door with a rounded top
window, and the south side would have two small windows. A service door
would be installed on the rear elevation. The siding and shingles would match
the existing home.
McDonald stated that significant trees are located on the property: one large
tree on the front property line by the driveway, one large tree in the center of
the front yard, one tree between the north side of the house and north property
line, and two trees in the rear yard. The petitioner had the city forester look at
the property to help him determine the best location for the garage and yet
Planning Commission Meeting 3 July 8, 2003
save as many trees as possible. In correspondence the forester stated, in his
opinion, the best place for the new garage would be the front yard, with care
taken to avoid excessive root damage to the tree closest to the driveway.
There is a six-foot wood fence on the west property line, a five-foot utility
easement on the west property line, and a four-foot wood fence on the south
property line.
McDonald stated that the city engineer reviewed the plans and offered the
following comments: 1) a limited drainage area from the applicant's backyard
and the neighbor's backyard drains to the front yard along the applicant's
south lot line. Stored materials, a hedge and other plant materials already
compromise drainage along this route. This expansion would impact the
hedge and could further complicate drainage. The garage would also
contribute storm water to this property line. The applicant addressed this
issued with the revised plans. Shortening the driveway would reduce the area
to park vehicles in front of the garage and increase the slope of the driveway.
The setbacks of adjacent properties are the same, and the garage addition
may impact sight lines to the house fronts of these properties.
In summary, McDonald reported that in examining this request, the Planning
Commission should determine whether or not the variance would be justified
based on the criteria in the zoning code. In staff's review, the belief was that
the building addition may change the character of the neighborhood, may set
precedent for future garage additions, and have an impact upon drainage on
the south property line. However, the applicant modified the request to
minimize the front yard encroachment and attempted to respond to the Design
and Review Committee's comments. The shallower garage is a positive
alternative to previous requests, and the applicant had proposed a means to
deal with drainage along the south side of the lot. The city promotes
renovation and reinvestment in its single family housing stock. The Planning
Commission should determine whether the existing site conditions warrant
variance approval and whether the variance requested is the minimum
encroachment required.
McDonald stated that staff offered two options. If the Planning Commission
desired to approve the request, the criteria for approval would be that the New
Hope Comprehensive Plan encourages residential reinvestment, the existing
site conditions present a physical hardship, it was the minimum encroachment
required, there would be no negative impact on site drainage and to comply
with city engineer recommendations, comply with building official
recommendations, and siding and shingles would need to match existing
house. If the Planning Commission denied the request, the specific criteria
involved would be that there was no physical hardship unique to the property,
the vadance would alter the character of the neighborhood, the variance may
have a negative impact on site drainage, precedent for future request, and
that an altemative location on the site could be utilized.
Mr. Kurt Klipstein, 4053 Nevada Avenue North, came forward to answer
questions of the Planning Commission. Klipstein thanked staff and the
Commission for their time in reviewing and discussing his garage plans.
Commissioner Svendsen stated that the Design and Review Committee
appreciated the fact that the petitioner utilized the Committee's suggestions in
the revised plans. Svendsen questioned whether or not the hedge on the
south property line would remain with the construction of the drainage ditch,
and Klipstein responded that the hedge would remain. The drainage ditch
would be dug just to the north side of the hedge. Gutters would be placed on
the garage to direct rainwater. The sump pump currently drains to the rear
yard, but would be changed to drain to the north and along the north property
line toward the street. Svendsen clarified that the petitioner had indicated to
Planning Commission Meeting 4 July 8, 2003
the Design and Review Committee that he may further expand the home to
the north, which was another reason not to place the garage and driveway in
that area. Discussion ensued on the driveway placement and the
recommendation from the forester to keep the pavement at least nine feet
from the large tree.
Klipstein asked about the construction and frost footings for the alcove area
on the south side of the garage and was told that frost footings would probably
be required, but it would be best to check with the building inspectors.
Commissioner Hemken initiated discussion on moving the garage back into
the existing garage by five feet. It was determined that this would not be
possible with regard to weight bearing walls, and a large elevation change
between the existing and new garages. That change would also reduce the
amount of workshop space. Klipstein explained that his truck was 19.5 feet
long and he had planned to build a small indentation into the existing garage
for the front end of the truck.
Commissioner Buggy questioned why the preference was to not place the
garage on the north side of the home. Klipstein explained that the reasoning
was to preserve as many trees as possible and that some day they may want
to add a family reom onto the home on that side. The existing chimney would
remain if an addition were constructed in the future.
There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Barrick to
close the Public Hearing on Planning Case 03-11. All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Commissioner Svendsen read for the record comments from Commissioner
Oelkers, who could not be at the meeting. "When we changed the city zoning
code, we reduced the front yard setback to 25 feet. As I recall, I was very
proactive in this change. I think that 25 feet is a very reasonable and fairly
common setback throughout the northem suburbs. I recently sold a new home
in the city of Brooklyn Park and the setback in that development was actually
30 feet.
"1 have been pretty willing to look at variances throughout my service on the
Planning Commission. I tend to try to find a way to make a variance work. This
variance however does not make sense to me. It appears to me that the
proposed garage will be setting under 20 feet from the lot line and only about
32-34 feet from the curb. This seems way too close to the street. It would
change the site lines for the entire street.
"If we were to allow this variance, I fear we would be setting a precedent that
we surely would regret in the future.
"If I were to attend the meeting on Tuesday evening, I would vote against any
variance into the 25-foot setback."
Commissioner Svendsen stated that he strongly supported this variance.
When the subdivision was developed, all of the houses were set back to 40
feet. This variance would change the character of the neighborhood, but he
stated he felt it would be a positive change. The addition to the house would
be good for the current homeowner and for any possible future homeowner.
The value of the homes in the neighborhood may be increased. With regard to
setting precedence, each variance is viewed on a case-by-case basis. As an
example, the six-foot front yard variance that was approved on Northwood
Planning Commission Meeting 5 July 8, 2003
Parkway has only increased the character of the neighborhood. In looking at
all of the variances applied for in the last 13 years, there have only been two
front yard variances versus 43 side/rear yard variances, therefore, he said he
did not feel a precedent was being set. Svendsen reiterated that by
constructing the garage on the north side of the property, three trees would be
lost. With the garage addition on the front of the home, there may be a small
possibility that one tree would be lost, but by keeping at least a nine-foot
clearance to the tree, it may be saved.
Commissioner O'Brien wondered about setting precedence for other variance
requests of the same type. The city attorney stated that applicants could come
to the city and compare their application to previous applications. The fact that
the Planning Commission and City Council have granted other variances does
not mean that a variance had to be granted. Each case would stand on its
own. When the city starts approving too many variances, and the exception
becomes the rule, then maybe the rule needs to be changed. Zoning codes
are living documents that change with the times, and as the Planning
Commission and City Council would need to react to that. The key point in
granting a variance is a physical, not economic, hardship. In this particular
case, there is not a purely economic hardship, but a condition on the lot not
created by the property owner that is unique to the lot that warrants the
granting of a variance if the Commission so desires. By granting this variance,
it would not mean that every other variance request needed to be granted.
O'Brien was concemed that the next request may be for seven or 10 feet and
wondered what the limit might be.
Commissioner Buggy commented that residents reinvesting in their homes
was a good thing for the city. He felt that due to the large housing stock of
similar type homes, the city may be dealing with this type of request more
often in the future. He also wondered if the loss of the trees on the north side
of the home was necessarily a hardship now as opposed to the loss of the
trees when they want to construct a family reom addition in a few years.
Commissioner Anderson reminded the Commission that a goal of the
Comprehensive Plan was for property owners to reinvest in their homes and
remain in the city.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Hemken,
to approve Planning Case 03-11, Request for Front Yard Variance to
Allow Construction of an Attached Garage, 4053 Nevada Avenue North,
Kurt and Jill Klipstein, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant to demonstrate that there would be no negative impact
on the site drainage and comply with the city engineer
recommendations.
2. Comply with the building official recommendations.
3. Siding and shingles to match existing house.
4. Applicant to consider city forester's recommendations with regard
to tree preservation measures.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Anderson, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien, Svendsen
Barrick
Brauch, Oelkers
Design and Review
Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council
on July 28 and advised the petitioner to attend.
Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met with the
Planning Commission Meeting 6 July 8, 2003
Committee
Item 5.1
petitioners to review their plans and discuss several options. He added that it
was very helpful to have a certificate of survey to know the exact location of
the building on the property.
McDonald added that staff expected a request for a total redevelopment of the
Sinclair station on Medicine Lake Road/Highway 169 and a sign variance for
the station on 36th Avenue/Highway 169 to be submitted for the August
meeting, therefore, the Design and Review Committee would be meeting in
July.
Codes and Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
Hemken reported that the Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in
June. McDonald added that there may be several items for the Committee to
discuss later this summer.
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
Chairman Landy stated that the City Center Task Force would be meeting on
July 10 and gave a short update on what the task force had been doing. An
open house may be held on the concept plans in September or October and
then proposals would proceed to the Planning Commission for review.
McDonald addressed rumors of the potential closing of Bally's Fitness Center,
and reported on additional financial information for the City Center study. Aisc
discussed at the task force meetings was the inclusion of the city pool and
City Center Park into the redevelopment.
Discussion ensued on the proposed Culver's redevelopment on 42r~/Nevada
avenues, Ahren's Trucking vacation of the property and demolition of the
existing building. McDonald stated that the city expected construction plans to
be submitted soon for Navarre, St. Joseph Church, the pet hospital, and
Woodbridge Senior Cooperative. The city had been continuing the negotiation
process with a developer for the East Winnetka Livable Communities area.
Special TIF legislation was passed by the legislature which must be used
within one year. A grant had recently been submitted to the Metropolitan
Council for the East Winnetka site and the golf course site. The course of
action would be to come to an agreement with a developer, agree on a plan,
create a Tlr district and acquire the balance of the properties.
O'Brien initiated discussion on several vacant properties. McDonald stated
that the Egan property was on the market and the property may be subdivided
prior to sale. The Ware Manufacturing property is vacant at this time. The city
had been coordinating with a new company desiring to move into the vacant
building at 4000 Winnetka Avenue, as well as a new company moving into
5001 Boone Avenue.
McDonald informed the Commission that the city would possibly be acquiring
the fourplex property on Bass Lake Road that was recently partially destroyed
by a fire. The property is included in the Livable Communities redevelopment
area.
The city processed an administrative permit for the 24-hour drive through
operation at McDonalds Restaurant.
McDonald stated that in 2001 the Planning Commission and City Council
approved plans for the Mid-America Financial Plaza on Bass Lake Road. At
the time of the planning approval, the city required a solid wood fence from the
highway to the edge of the building and left the balance of the landscaping as
it was. The city was now receiving calls from neighboring residents
complaining about the windows on the north side of the building overlooking
their back yards, and the lack of proper screening between the building and
the residential neighborhood. City staff has contacted the owner of the building
who has agreed to add more landscaping. McDonald added that he may have
Planning Commission Meeting 7 July 8, 2003
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
the owner submit landscaping/screening plans for Planning Commission and
City Council review and approval.
Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Buggy, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June 3, 2003. All
voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council and EDA minutes were reviewed.
McDonald reminded the Commission that the August meeting would be held
on Wednesday, August 6, due to National Night Out on the regular Tuesday
meeting night. Commissioner Svendsen stated he would not be able to attend
the August meeting.
McDonald informed the Commission that due to budget cuts there would not
be a volunteer recognition picnic this year, but that all the work the
Commissioners did was much appreciated.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
R~e~ectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 8 July 8, 2003
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
June 23, 2003
City Hall, 7:00 p.n~
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
ROTATING VOTES
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
StaffPresent:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Roger Axel, Building Official
Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator
Doug Debner, Assistant City Attorney
Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist
Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer
Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember
Collier, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2003. All present
voted in favor. Motion carried.
Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember
Cassen, to approve the Work Session Meeting Minutes of June 16, 2003.
Voting in favor: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Sommer; Abstained: Gwm-Lenth. Motion
carried.
· Michael Faber, 4641 Oregon Avenue North, spoke regarding the Twin City
Poultry business at 4630 Quebec; questioned the safety of the rooftop where
the compressors are located.
· Gennifer Heuisler, 6120 Ensign Avenue North, presented a petition requesting
amendments to the sign ordinance; she spoke in favor of garage sale signs to
be located in the street right-of-way. Mayor Enck advised that the issue will
be studied by city commissions and public meetings will be held.
· Jim Day, 9010 61-1/2 Avenue North, expressed disappointment that the city
did not alert residents that the ordinance regulating the placement of garage
sale signs was going to be enforced; also questioned why the other ordinances
such as parking of recreational vehicles is not strictly enforced.
· Kathy Boyle, 8821 61st Avenue North, requested revisions to the sign code
regulating garage sale signs; commented that taxpayers have a right to use the
street right-of-way.
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 fa'st
followed by the Councilmembers in alphabetical order.
June 23, 2003
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION
Consent Items
BUSINESS LICENSES
Item 6.1
FINANCIAL CLAIMS
Item 6.2
RESOLUTION 03-100
Item 6.4
MOTION/WAIVE
FEES CORN FEED
Item 6.5
MOTION/WAIVE
FEES DUK DUK DAZE
Item 6.6
RESOLUTION 03-101
Item 6.7
RESOLUTION 03-102
Item 6.8
RESOLUTION 03-103
Item 6.9
IMP. PROJECT 685
Item 6.10
IMP. PROJECT 748
Item 6.11
2002 AUDIT
Item 6.12
ORDINANCE 03-13
Item 6.13
ORDINANCE 03-14
Item 6.14
BID/GENERATOR
Item 6.16
PUBLIC HEARING
Item 7.1
Mayor Enck introduced the consent items as listed for consideration and stated that
all items will be enacted by one motion unless requested that an item be removed
for discussion. Item 6.15 was removed for disenssion later in the meeting.
Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, to approve all remaining items on the Consent Agenda. All present
voted in favor. Motion carried.
Approval of 2003 Business Licenses.
Approval of Financial Claims Through June 23, 2003.
Resolution Approving City Manager's Revocation of Election to be Excluded
from Membership in Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA).
Motion to Approve Waiving the Fees for Sign and Tent Permits for Lions Club
Annual Corn Feed to be held on August 13, 2003.
Motion to Waive Fees for Eight Special Event Signs for 2003 Duk Duk Daze
Festival.
Resolution Authorizing Release of Financial Guarantee for Olson General
Contractors Development at 9201 52na Avenue North (Planning Case 02-04).
Resolution Imposing a Fee for Issuance of Revenue Bonds.
Resolution Authorizing Application for the Livable Communities Demonstration
Account (LCDA) Development Grant Program for the Hope Village Livable
Communities Redevelopment Area.
Motion Approving Final Payment to BCB Construction, Inc. for Completion of
City Contract for the Construction of the City-Owned Twinhome Located at 7105
62na and 6151 Louisiana Avenue North (Improvement Project No. 685).
Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain Appraisal of 5512 Winnetka Avenue North
(Improvement Project No. 748).
Acceptance of 2002 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Ordinance No. 03-13, An Ordinance Establishing a Park Dedication Requirement
and/or Cash Payment in Lieu of Land Dedication.
Ordinance No. 03-14, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2 of the New Hope City
Code Regulating the Various Commissions Established to Advise the City
Cotmcil.
Approval of Quote from Zeigler Power Systems for One (1) Portable Generator in
the Amount of $21,622.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 7.1, Public Heating: Resolution
Giving Preliminary Approval to Issuance of Multifamily Housing Refunding
Revenue Bonds.
New Hope City Council
Page 2
June 23, 2003
MOTION
CLOSE HEARING
Item 7.1
RESOLUTION 03-104
Item 7.1
PUBLIC HEARING
Item 7.2
MOTION
CLOSE HEARING
Item 7.2
RESOLUTION 03-105
Item 7.2
New Hope City Council
Page 3
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, stated the public hearing is to consider approval
of the issuance of refunding revenue bonds. He stated LaNel Financial Group
owns Anthony James Aparmaents located at 6100 West Broadway. He reported
that the city is attaching its name to the bonds but is in no way obligated to repay
the bonds if the petitioner were to default. He commented on the excellent
management of the apartment complex and recotx-nend approval of the revenue
bonds.
Mr. Greg Bronk, LaNel Financial Group, was recognized. He commented of their
intent to take advantage of lower interest rates by refinancing.
Mayor Enck opened the floor for comments. There was no one present to address
the council on the item.
Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember
Sommer, to dose the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO
ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REFUNDING REVENUE
BONDS". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded
by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier; Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the
following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None;
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the
mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 7.2, Public Hearing: Resolution
Vacating an Easement for a Public Alley and Authorizing the Preparation,
Execution and Recording of Documents Relating to the Same (Improvement
Project No. 665).
Mr. Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, explained that the alley
easement located north of the parcels of 7500-7528 42na Avenue North is no
longer needed and vacation of the easement will aid in the redevelopment of the
site.
Councilmember Sommer questioned the size of the vacated property easement and
whether it was included in the appraisal.
Mr. Doresky indicated the property is 20' x 320' and expressed uncertainly as to
whether it was included in the appraisal or not.
The Council expressed the need to maintain access to the area for fire protection
purposes.
Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, to close the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION VACATING AN EASEMENT FOR A PUBLIC
ALLEY AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION, EXECUTION AND
RECORDING OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE SAME
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 665)". 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 thereofi Enck, Cassen, Collier,
Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained:
June 23, 2003
None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
PLANNING CASE
03-04
Item 8.1
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Planning Case 03-04, Request for
Final Plat Approval for Property to be Known as Parish Community of St. Joseph,
8701 36t~ Avenue North, Church of St. Joseph, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the petitioner is
requesting final plat approval for subdivision of the property of Parish Community
of St. Joseph into two parcels. The plat consist of lot 1, block 1, which is an 8.9
acre parcel containing the existing church and proposed church addition and a 2.42
acre outlot A that is planned for eventual residential development. He stated the
council reviewed the preliminary plat at its last council meeting.
Mayor Enck pointed out that this item relates only to platting of the property (not
the development).
Councilmember Sommer requested that the neighborhood be kept apprised of the
project. Mr. McDonald stated the area residents will be notified of the council
meeting date that plans and specifications will be considered. He noted it could be
as early as the meeting of July 28, 2003.
RESOLUTION 03-106
Item 8.1
Councilmember Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 03-04,
REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY TO BE
KNOWN AS PARISH COMMUNITY OF ST. JOSEPH, 8701 36TM AVENUE
NORTH, CHURCH OF ST. JOSEPH, PETITIONER". The motion for the
adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Enck, Cassen, Collier; Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the
same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by
the city clerk.
PLANNING CASE
03-07
Item 8.2
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Planning Case 03-07, Request for
Final Plat Approval for Property to be Known as Thompson New Hope Addition,
8501 54ta Avenue North, David Thompson/Red Wing Properties LLC.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the petitioner is
requesting final plat approval for Thompson New Hope Addition to divide one
existing lot into two parcels, to be know as Lot 1 and Outlot A. He stated the
approval would be subject to the conditions outlined in the resolution.
RESOLUTION 03-107
Item 8.2
Councilmember Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 03-07,
REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY TO BE
KNOWN AS THOMPSON NEW HOPE ADDITION, 8501 54TM AVENUE
NORTH, DAVID THOMPSON/RED WING PROPERTIES LLC". The
motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof.' Enck, Cassexh 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.
HRD ENGINEERING
Item 8.3
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.3, Resolution Approving Short Form
Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. for Environmental Acoustical Services.
New Hope City Council
Page 4
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated staff
June 23, 2003
RESOLUTION 03-108
Item 8.3
IMP. PROJECT 728
Item 8.4
RESOLUTION 03-109
Item 8.4
New Hope City Council
Page 5
recommends that the City Council approve a short form agreement with HDR
Engineering, Inc. for environmental acoustical services in the amount of $4,730 to
perform noise monitoring tests and analysis of 47~h and Quebec avenues. At the
June 16 Council work session, the Council reviewed a report from SEH
Engineering stating that the noise test results presented in the HDR reports reflect
an accurate assessment of the situation and meet or exceed the requirements of the
MPCA. The City Council directed that HDR be contacted for a proposal to
conduct a final round of noise testing in conjunction with Twin City Poultry. This
final test will be coordinated with Twin City Poultry on the turning on/off of roof-
top compressors and testing the sound levels from several locations at the same
time.
Mr. Jim Sweazey, 4656 Oregon Avenue North, was recognized. He stated he does
not believe the testing is necessary as code 9.421 defines the business as a
nuisance.
City Attorney Steve Sondrall pointed out that the city has separate ordinances that
relate to noise levels and nuisance issues. He commented that it would be difficult
for the city to consider the business a nuisance based on the residents' opinion that
the noise is excessive.
Mr. Michael Faber, 4641 Oregon Avenue North, addressed the council and stated
he does not believe the permits were issued in the proper manner. He also
questioned the property's change in zoning classification.
Mr. Sondrall noted the property is zoned industrial use. He clarified that the zoning
code was recodified in 2001 at which time there were minor changes to the zoning
district key.
Mr. John Peterson, 4733 Oregon Avenue North, called attention to lxuck noise near
the Lund's Bakery. He asked whether the city would monitor track traffic during
the third shift and whether this site could be included on the noise test.
Mayor Enck directed staff to deal with the Lund's Bakery issue as a separate
matter.
Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING SHORT FORM AGREEMENT
WITH ItDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ACOUSTICAL SERVICES". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing
resolution was seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-
Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained:
None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.4, Resolution Awarding a Contract
and Ordering Construction of Relocation of Utility Pipelines at the Navarre
Corporation Site (Improvement Project No. 728).
Mayor Enck acknowledged the low bidder was Veit & Company for $280,490.
Councilmember Collier indicated he owns stock in Navarre Corporation and
therefore will abstain from voting on the item
Councilmember Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT AND ORDERING
CONSTRUCTION OF RELOCATION OF UTILITY PIPELINES AT THE
NAVARRE CORPORATION SITE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
June 23, 2003
SECOND HAND
DEALERS LICENSES
Item 10.1
728)'. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded .by
Councilmember Cassen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted
against thc same: None; Abstained: Collier; Absent: None; whereupon thc
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was
attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Ordinance No. 03-16, An
Ordinance Amending New Hope Code Section 8-33 Regulating Second Hand
Dealers Licenses.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, explained that in
March of 2002 the New Hope City Council expressed a concern about the
increasing number of thrift and second-hand merchandise stores locating in the
city. A moratorium was imposed while a planning study was undertaken. As a
result of that study, staff drafted the proposed ordinance to regulate second hand
dealers types of businesses.
Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, stated the current moratorium will expire the
end of June. He stated the city already has an ordinance to regulate pawnbroker,
precious metal dealer and second hand dealer businesses. The present ordinance
exempted thrift stores from the license requirements. The proposed ordinance
removes some of the exemptions; however, several restrictions that are placed
upon pawnbroker businesses will not apply to thrift store businesses.
Mr. Sondrall acknowledged receipt of a letter from Marshall Tanick, legal counsel
for Unique Thrift Store. He addressed several issues contained in Mr. Tanick's
correspondence. He pointed out that no outdoor drop off areas will be allowed, a
minimum of one changing room is required for privacy reasons, and clothing
consignment businesses and those selling second hand sporting goods equipment
are required to comply with the licensing requirements. Mr. Sondrall also
explained that the license fees involve a one-time application fee of $200 (for new
businesses) and an annual fee of $300.
Mr. Marshall Tanick, Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, P.A., was recognized. He called
attention to the prohibition of unattended drop-offs and that the actual violators
should be held responsible for this type of action rather than punishing the thrift
store businesses if there are violations. He objected to the changing room
requirement and commented that the ordinance appears to be directed at Unique
Thrift Store as it is the only local store without changing rooms. He noted
customers and employees would like the opportunity to present their views but
were unable to do so on such short notice.
Mr. Sondrall advised the council to delete the word "not" in 8-33(c)(2) of the
proposed ordinance as it was not his intent to exempt second hand sporting goods
equipment businesses from the licensing requirements.
Mr. Dave Kloeber, owner of Unique Thrift Store at 4471 Winnetka Avenue North,
was recognized. He reported that in November of 2002 he addressed the Planning
Commission regarding installation of a security system with cameras to record
license plate numbers of persons who illegally dump trash by the store. He stated
they clean the site nightly and questioned whether there have been any complaints
since November.
New Hope City Council
Page 6
Mr. Kloebcr pointed out that he does not want customers to try on clothing.
Reasons he cited against the changing rooms included the store's use of staples to
affix price tags and the related liability issues and theft as it is difficult to
determine if the customer is wearing his own clothing on the store's clothing when
he leaves the dressing room.
June 23, 2003
ORDINANCE 03-16
Item 10.1
BAN/LIVABLE
COMMUNITY TASK
FORCE STUDY
AREAS
Item 10.2
ORDINANCE 03-12
Item 10.2
DISCHARGE OF
WATER
New Hope City Council
Page 7
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth suggested clarifying the ordinance in the future by
including the requirement that businesses install signage such as "this store
prohibits unattended drop-off of goods and violators will be prosecuted".
The council expressed support of the proposed ordinance including the changing
room requirement.
Ms. Bev Russell, owner of Down on 42"d Avenue" consignment store, was
recognized. She commented that she has been in business for 12 years and does
not believe this type of business fits the category of thrift stores as several products
are new. Ms. Russell noted she accepts clothing by appointment only. She also
objected to the license fee, and questioned whether it could be waived based on
past history of good management.
Mayor Enck commented that he would oppose waiving the fee, but a lower fee
could be considered.
Mr. Sondrall provided background of the issue when the Salvation Army
attempted to located at the site vacated by Walgreeus on 36t~ and Winnetka. He
stated the city council was concerned about the proliferation of second hand dealer
businesses located in shopping centers in New Hope. Recommendations of the city
planner's report were to amend the existing pawn shop, precious metal and second
hand dealers license regulations. He stated the fees will cover the minimal
investigation of the owner and operation as well as additional law enforcement
required to patrol the businesses to deter illegal dumping of trash.
Councilmember Collier introduced the following ordinance and moved its
adoption: "ORDINANCE NO. 03-16, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW
HOPE CODE SECTION 8-33 REGULATING SECOND HAND DEALERS
LICENSES". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance 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 ordinance 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, Ordinance No. 03-12, An
Ordinance Extending Ban on Development in all Four Livable Community Task
Force Study Areas.
Mr. Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, stated staff recommends
approval of an ordinance extending the ban on development in all four Livable
Community Task Force study areas. The original moratorium was adopted on
August 21, 2002, with a July 31, 2003, termination date. Staff recommends a 12-
month extension to July 31, 2004.
Councilmember Sommer introduced the following ordinance and moved its
adoption: "ORDINANCE NO. 03-12, AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING BAN
ON DEVELOPMENT IN ALL FOUR LIVABLE COMMUNITY TASK
FORCE STUDY AREAS". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing
ordinance was seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-
Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained:
None; Absent: None; whereupon the ordinance 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, Ordinance No. 03-15, An
Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 of the New Hope City Code Relating to Discharge
June 23, 2003
Item 10.3
of Water into the Sanitary Sewer System_
Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, reported that the city has been proactive in the
past in its efforts to reduce infiltration/inflow and sump pump discharge into the
sanitary sewer system_ The city has, and continues to inspect a portion of the city's
sanitary sewer collection system every year, review sump pump installations
during point of sale and building permit inspections, and continually monitors the
sanitary sewer flow to the Metropolitan Council's Environmental Services for
trealment. A voluntary compliance program did not produce significant results and
the city's sewer flows have increased significantly which validates the necessity of
a sump pump ordinance.
Mr. Sondrall stated the ordinance would require an inspection of every property
that discharges into the city's sanitary sewer system. If the owner does not want
the city to perform the inspection, the owner has the option of hiring a city-
approved licensed plumber to conduct the inspection. A $100 monthly fee will be
imposed to property owners who are not in compliance with the ordinance or that
refuse to allow their property to be inspected to determine whether there is
compliance. Mr. Sondrall noted that numerous communities have similar
ordinances.
ORDINANCE 03-15
Item 10.3
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following ordinance and moved its
adoption: "ORDINANCE NO. 03-15, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 5 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE RELATING TO
DISCHARGE OF WATER INTO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM".
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance 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
ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was
attested to by the city clerk.
VOLUNTARY UNPAID
LEAVE PROGRAM
Item 10.4
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.4, Resolution Approving Voluntary
Unpaid Leave Program Effective July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2005.
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, explained that a voluntary unpaid leave program
is permitted under state law and such a program would help reduce personnel costs
and provide flexibility for employee's personal needs. He stated all regular full-
time and benefit earning part-time employees who work 1,040 hours or more in a
year are eligible. Employees can take unpaid leave with no loss of benefits.
RESOLUTION 03-110
Item 10.4
CONSENT ITEMS
REMOVED
REVENUE BONDS
Item 6.15
Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING VOLUNTARY UNPAID LEAVE
PROGRAM EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2003, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2005". The
motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by
Councilmember Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereofi Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following
voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; 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 the Consent item which was removed, Item
6.15, Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on Issuance of Revenue Bonds.
Councilmember Cassen reported that she serves on the Board of Directors for St.
Therese. She noted she has no financial interest, but will abstain from the vote on
this item_
RESOLUTION 03-111
New Hope City Council
Page 8
Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
June 23, 2003
Item 6.15
OTHER BUSINESS
COMMISSION
INTERVIEW
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 12.1
ADJOURNMENT
adoption: "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON
ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS". The motion for the adoption of the
foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Collier, Gwin-
Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained:
Cassen; 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 commented that prior to tonight's meeting, the Council interviewed
Dan Hudson for the Human Rights commission.
Motion made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, to appoint Dan Hudson to the Human Rights Commission. 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
· Reported that fireworks are being planned for Duk Duk Daze and
contributions are still being accepted by the New Hope Lions & New Hope
Women of Today
· Reminded the Council of the June 24 joint council meeting with Crystal and
Golden Valley regarding the joint water commission's water system study.
· Advised that the AMM is seeking policy committee members
· Acknowledged receipt of letters from New Hope Elementary and Sonnesyn
Elementary supporting the DARE program and commending Officer Elder
Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, 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 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
New Hope City Council
Page 9
June 23, 2003
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
EDA Minutes
Regular Meeting
June 23, 2003
City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVE MINUTES
IMP. PROJECT 665
Item 4
EDA Minutes
Page 1
President Enck called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order
at 9:06 p.m.
Present:
W. Peter Enck, President
Sharon Cassen, Commissioner
Don Collier, Commissioner
Mary Gwin-Lenth, Commissioner
Steve Sommer, Commissioner
Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Sommer,
to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2003. All present voted in
favor. Motion carried.
President Enck introduced for discussion Item 4, Joint Development Proposal
Concept Consideration and Authorization to Prepare a Purchase Agreement for
City-Owned Property at 7500-7528 42na Avenue North (Improvement Project No.
665).
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated staff is
requesting concept consideration and authorization to prepare a purchase agreement
with the developers for a joint development proposal for the city-owned site at
7500-7528 42na Avenue North. The proposal is for two uses: a Culvers restaurant on
the western portion of the site and three office condominium buildings (eight
separate ownership units) on the eastern portion of the site.
Mr. McDonald updated the EDA on the proposal. The developers are offering a
combined price of $510,000 for the site, or $4.62 per square foot. The developer's
representative, RSDS, initially proposed a brokerage fee of $40,000 to be paid by
the city. At the EDA's request, the brokerage fee has been eliminated from the
proposal. He also reported that storm water ponding issues have been discussed
with the developer. He illustrated the revised site plan.
Commissioner Sommer initiated discussion regarding the difference between the
appraised price and the proposed purchase price. Mr. Ken Doresky, Community
Development Specialist, commented that the appraisal did not take into
consideration the property's limitations as mandated by the MPCA.
President Enck objected to the city bearing the costs for monitoring and mitigation
plans related to the contaminated soil cleanup. He noted Electronic Industries
should be obligated to pay as they caused the contamination.
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, explained that staffwould clarify this issue.
Mr. John Seibert, JCS Development, was recognized. He noted it would likely take
four months to close on the property and three months to complete construction.
Mr. McDonald recommended that a shared parking arrangement be explored at the
site between JCS Development and the Sunshine Factory Restaurant.
June 23, 2003
IMP. PROJECT 749
Item 5
The EDA expressed support for the joint development proposal, and directed staff
to pursue a purchase agreement.
President Enck introduced for discussion Item 5, Discussion Regarding
Development Proposal for City-Owned Property at 5501 Boone Avenue North and
Direction to Proceed (Improvement Project No. 749).
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Commumty Development, indicated staff is
requesting EDA discussion and direction to proceed regarding a development
proposal from Project for Pride in Living (PPL), for the city-owned site at 5501
Boone Avenue North. The proposal is for the construction of a 70-unit residential
building split between owner-occupied condominiums and affordable rental units.
He expressed support for the proposal based on the following reasons: the proposal
utilizes the entire site, meets the CDBG eligibility requirements, provides potential
extra off-street parking for North Ridge Care Center, replaces some existing rental
units in the city which will be lost due to redevelopment efforts, and pays the city
market value for the property, less soil correction costs.
The EDA expressed concern with combining owner-occupied units with rental
units, and questioned whether PPL would provide assurance that at least 50% of the
units would be owner occupied.
Mr. Chris Wilson, Project for Pride in Living, was recognized. He stated 50% of the
units would be owner-occupied and covered by a separate homeowners association.
He noted PPL is undertaking a marketing study to determine the market for the
proposed owner and rental units.
The EDA held a brief discussion regarding the soils. Mr. Wilson noted his intention
of installing pilings and underground parking.
The EDA expressed support for the proposed project at 5501 Boone Avenue North,
and directed staff to continue coordination regarding the potential redevelopment of
the property.
IMP. PROJECT 734
Item 6
President Enck introduced for discussion Item 6, Discussion Regarding
Development Proposal for City-Owned Property at 4317 Nevada Avenue North and
Private Property at 4301 Nevada Avenue North (Improvement Project No. 734).
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, requested EDA
discussion and direction regarding a development proposal submitted by Master
Civil & Conslxuction Engineering for the city-owned site at 4317 Nevada Avenue
North and the private property at 4301 Nevada Avenue North. The development
proposal is for the replacement of two existing single-family homes with twelve
units of market-rate townhomes. The developer is also desirous of acquiring 4415
Nevada Avenue North (the property to the north) for the construction of six
additional units.
BROOKSTONE, INC.
Item 7
EDA Minutes
Page 2
Following discussion, the EDA declined pursuing the proposal due to the city
assistance requested and the proposed density. The EDA indicated support for a
lower density project at the location without city financial assistance.
President Enck introduced for discussion Item 7, Motion Acknowledging Expiration
of Letter of Intent with Brookstone, Inc. and Agreement to Continue Coordination
on Informal Basis for the redevelopment of the city center area.
Mayor Enck reported that Brahm Akradi, co-owner of New Hope Mall, has agreed
to serve on the City Center Task Force as Robert Rappaport's replacement (owner
of Winnetka Center).
June 23, 2003
ADJOURNMENT
The EDA expressed support to continue coordination on an informal basis with
Brookstone, Inc. for the redevelopment of the city center area.
Motion was made by Commissioner Sommer, seconded by Commissioner Gwin-
Lenth, to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The
New Hope EDA adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
R~pectfully submitted,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
EDA Minutes
Page 3
June 23, 2003