The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 12/02/03PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North Tuesday, December 2, 2003 7:00 p.m. · 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT BUSINESS 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.1 Case 03-17 Request for a variance to allow a second curb cut on a residential property, 9117 35th Avenue North, Otto and Annette Lausten, Petitioners 4.2 Project 718 Review and discussion of City Center Task Force study area redevelopment proposals and recommendations 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 5.2 Report of Design & Review Committee - December 18, 8 a.m. Report of Codes & Standards Committee 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Miscellaneous Issues · Thunder Alley Speedway-Approved CUP 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 7.2 7.3 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of November 4, 2003 Review of City Council Minutes of October 27 and November 10, 2003 Review of EDA Minutes of November 10, 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. The Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. ,At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. ,A. If the Planning'Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. Planning Case: Petitioner: Address: Request: Meeting Date: Report Date: PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope December 2, 2003 November 26, 2003 03-17 Otto and Annette Lausten 9117 35~h Avenue North Request for a Variance to Allow a Second Curb Cut on a Residential Property Section 4-36 II1. Property Specifications Zoning: Location: I. Request The petitioners are requesting a variance to allow a second curb cut on a residential property, pursuant to sections 4-3(e)(4)(h)(10) and 4-36 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. I1. Zoning Code References Section 4-3(e)(4)(h)(10) General Provisions - Off-Street Parking Requirements - Stall, Aisle, Driveway Design and Driveway Access Minimum Administration - Variance Adjacent Land Uses: Site Area: Building Area: Lot Area Ratios: Planning District: Specific Information: R-l, Single Family Residential On the south side of 35th Avenue, between Hillsboro and Flag avenues approximately 200 feet west of Flag Avenue Single family residential uses in all directions Approximately 12,000 square feet Existing Building: 1,261 square feet (footprint) Addition: 1,184 square feet 2,445 Existing Building: 10.5% With Addition: 20.3% Green: 66% Paved: 14% No. 16; The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the Iow density residential areas of District 16 exhibit very good to excellent housing conditions. The city will continue to promote housing maintenance, through private investment, enforcement of the Housing Maintenance Code and scattered site renovation and redevelopment. The owners built this home in 1968 and then moved out of the city and rented the property for approximately 30 years. They have now moved back into the home and want to make some improvements to accommodate their lifestyle for the future years and to address health concerns. Planning Case Report 03-17 Page 1 11/26103 The topography of the property slopes up from the street and the existing- home has a double tuck-under garage on the west side of the home. There are many mature pine trees on the lot, with four located in the front yard and a number of trees on the east side of the yard. IV. Background The applicants are proposing to expand the existing home at 9117 35th Avenue in New Hope to include a new attached garage and a living area addition. The proposed garage and building addition would comply with all required setbacks within the R-1 district, however, the applicant is requesting a second curb cut for a single family home which is otherwise prohibited by Section 4-3(e)(4)(h)(10) of the New Hope Zoning ordinance, which restricts single family homes to a single curb cut. Currently, the home is served by a tuck-under garage. The modifications to the house are being requested to provide expanded living space and automobile access all on one level. The rationale is that the household occupants are aging and one has recently gone through two knee operations. Additionally, the applicant's sister, who is mentally disabled, also resides at the property. Due to current disabilities and continued aging of the home occupants, the applicants wish to modify their home to make it more disability accessible and user friendly for their family. Currently, the location of the lower level garage and the need to use stairs provides hardship for access for the occupants of the home. V. Petitioner's Comments The petitioner submitted a narrative on November 7 which indicated that they plan to build an addition on to the rear of the home with an attached garage on the east side of the existing home. The new garage and living area would be within the current setback requirements. The petitioner is requesting to have a new driveway extend straight down to 35"~ Avenue from the new garage. The existing code does not allow a second drive/curb cut on a single family property. The driveway from the new garage would need to be located across the front of the property to intersect with the existing driveway on the west side of the property. The petitioners believe it would be in their best interest to add the second access to 35th Avenue. Their narrative stated "Current city code, without the variance, would allow us to curve the new driveway across the front of the home and angle downward to intersect the existing driveway. This solution would result in the loss of four magnificent white pines, and a major landscaping project that would require a retaining wall, and render much of the front yard useless for other purposes. It would also be more difficult to maneuver in the winter than would a straight access to the street. The variance would allow a much nicer look to the property and thus to the neighborhood. We believe an important consideration is the width of our lot and the location of neighbor's driveway to the east and west. A second driveway would still be a full 60 feet from its east edge to the west edge of the Ostroot's driveway, 33 feet from the west edge of the new driveway to the east edge of our existing driveway. "A driveway that would go straight down and onto 35th Avenue from our proposed double garage on the east side of our home is the best solution for maintaining the aesthetics of the property. The following neighbors support our request for a variance (and have written letters): Irene Culhane, who lives directly across the street at 9108 35"~, Chris and Faye Ostroot at 9109 35~h on the east side, Jean and Dennis Putz, landlords of the home on the west side at 9125 35th. Jerry and Jeanette Jasmine at 9116 35th have given verbal support and promised to write a letter. "The new attached garage and the addition across the back will allow us to access our home on the main level. Currently we must climb 16 steps to the main living level. My wife, Annette, and I are 66 years of age. She has had two knee operations. Annette's sister, who is mentally handicapped, has lived with us for 28 years and is 64. We intend to remain in our New Hope home for as many years as possible. The likelihood that one of us will be unable to climb stairs at some point in our years here is very good. This addition and property modification is our solution to our future. As our population ages, many homes will have to be modified and retro-fitted allowing people to remain in their homes for as Planning Case Report 03-17 Page 2 11/26/03 VI. VII. many years as possible. The new living area will include 36-inch doorways and a 3/4 bath that will be handicapped accessible. "Complying with current city code would be a landscape hardship since the four mature, white pines would have to be removed, and much of the front yard transformed into a concrete drive. "Two homes in close proximity to us have two driveways leading from their home to the street - 3440 Hillsboro and 3241 Gettysburg." The petitioner submitted additional narrative and information on accessible lifts on November 24 to be included with the revised plans, which stated "At the November 13 Design and Review meeting, the review team made the following recommendations: Item 4: Staff very concerned about the steep grade, 23.6% of the proposed driveway. Item 5: Consider moving garage back or dropping the grade by five feet. Item 6: Consider a lift rather than a ramp in the garage. "We were receptive to those suggestions and instructed our architect, Mark Longworth, to redraw the elevations with the revised lower grade. "1 also began to research lift equipment beginning with a call to Merwin Drug (a supplier of equipment for the elderly and disabled). This call lead to one company after another that culminated in a contact with the Arrow Lift Accessibility company's sales rep in Minneapolis. Their model RE42 is the model recommended for home use. A copy of their correspondence, description, and specifications are attached. Since we are lowering the garage, we would not plan for a future ramp in the garage. The space that the ramp would have occupied would now be occupied by the accessibility lift (or some similar model). "It is obvious to us that there does not exist a plethora of manufacturers and/or equipment of this type available. However, we believe by shopping around we can better the $7,116 price tag." Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments. The applicant did submit letters from adjacent property owners who have stated they have no objection to the request. The properties the letters were received from are designated on the attached address map. Development Analysis A. Zoninq Code Criteria Variance · The Zoning Code limits single family uses to one ddveway access point per lot. The code specifically states: "Driveway access minimum. All property shall be entitled to at least one driveway access. Each property shall be allowed one driveway access for each 125 feet of street frontage. Single-family uses shall be limited to one ddveway access per lot." The applicant is asking for two curb cuts as a means of accessing the second garage. The applicant has indicated that they could curve the new ddveway across the front of the lot and angle it down to intersect with the existing driveway. This solution will result in the loss of four significant white pines and a major landscape project that would require retaining walls and render much of the front yard useless for other purposes. The applicant also claims that it would be more difficult to maneuver in the winter than a straight access to the street. To mitigate the amount of vadance being requested, the applicant is only proposing a 12-foot curb cut and driveway extending through the boulevard area from the curb to the property line, at which point, it would flair out to provide a full ddveway width for a two car garage. Planning Case Report 03-17 Page 3 11/26/03 The odginal site and building plan illustrated a ddveway with a very steep 23% slope. Through staff- review and Design and Review Committee recommendations, the garage floor elevation was lowered three feet and the driveway grade has been reduced to a 15% grade, as illustrated on the plans dated November 7. The applicant has also increased the curb cut width from eight feet to 12 feet to make the driveway more manageable. To accommodate the lower floor elevation, the applicant has abandoned the concept of a wheelchair ramp in the garage in favor of a wheelchair lift. The revised site plan also eliminates the need for retaining walls along the east side of the driveway reducing the side yard grades. The building elevation shows that the new addition will match the roofline of the existing house. Exterior building materials will match the existing house. The Zoning Code outlines the criteria for hardship that must be considered with any variance application. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under consideration and the granting of a vadance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Code. An application for variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the variance will result in undue hardship on the applicant, and, as may be applicable, the following cdteda have been met: 1. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property and results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of this code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic or similar conditions unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardship also includes inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable Use of the property exists under the terms of this code. 2. The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district. 3. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner or any previous owner. 4. Additional Criteria. The application for variance shall also meet the following criteria: a. It will not alter the essential character of the locality. b. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. c. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. d. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district. The planner's report states that the house placement and topography do complicate the use of the lot, however, these physical features are not solely unique to this property. New Hope has numerous similar lots that contain homes with tuck-under garages necessitated by the site's topography. The applicant requests the Planning Commission and City Council consider the physical need for improved accessibility as hardship for a variance. New Hope has given a variance for a second curb cut for reason of disability access in 1997. In this respect, there is some precedent for such consideration. Planning Case Report 03-17 Page 4 11/26/03 The applicant has attempted to implement the recommendations of staff and the Design and Review Committee as a means of reducing the amount of vadance requested and making the site plan functional. The revised site plan reduces the driveway grade, eliminates retaining walls and attempts to protect significant trees. The proposed curb cut is located in a manner that should not interfere with other curb cut locations. B. Development Review Team The Development Review Team met to review the requested driveway variance and was somewhat apprehensive of the request due to the steep grade of the second driveway. The following items were discussed: steep grade of proposed driveway, consideration to moving the garage back on the property and dropping the grade by five feet, installing a lift rather than a ramp, construct the new curb cut at 12 feet rather than eight feet as shown on original plans, retaining wall, distance between second driveway and neighbor's driveway to the east, home cannot become a twinhome, and any trees lost due to construction should be replaced. C. Desiqn and Review Committee The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner on November 13 and discussed the same issues. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting. D. Plan Description and Other Considerations 1. Comprehensive Plan - The proposed site falls within the Iow-density residential land use area. Low density residential land use objectives are described as follows: The city wishes to maintain the strong character of this residential single-family neighborhood. The city will undertake efforts to encourage reinvestment in single-family housing stock and explore opportunities to change setbacks and accessory building rules to provide opportunities for property owners to expand and/or modernize their existing homes. These efforts are intended to maintain the quality of the existing housing stock and promote higher value homes. The Comprehensive Plan outlines the following goals and policies applicable to this application: Goal: Provide a variety of housing type styles and choices to meet the needs of New Hope's changing demographics. Policies: C. Continue the city's effort to provide special need housing for people of various disabilities. In the case of the Laustens, providing opportunities to stay in their home and age in place addresses or satisfies this policy statement. Goal: Maintain and enhance the strong character of New Hope's single-family residential neighborhoods. Policies: A. Promote private reinvestment in the city's single family housing stock. B. Examine development regulations to provide a greater development flexibility for single family homeowners. The applicants are proposing to expand their existing single-family home and reinvest in their property. The proposed variance is a request for flexibility from current zoning rules related to the number of curb cuts for a single family home. The city, in past efforts of updating its zoning ordinance, has already incorporated a number of relaxed standards as a means of expanding the buildable area of each single-family lot. The variance is a flexibility that would be applied solely to this property. It is consistent with the policy statement of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Case Report 03-17 Page 5 11/26/03 2. R-1 District Standards - The property is zoned R-l, single family residential. Single family use is - a permitted use within this district. The lot requirements of the R-1 district are 75-foot width and 9,500 square feet in area. The lot in question has a lot width of approximately 92 feet and a total lot area of 11,868 square feet, exceeding the R-1 standards. 31 Setbacks - Within the R-1 district, the following setbacks apply: Front Yard: 25 feet. The applicant's existing home is approximately 32 feet from the front property line. Side Yard: 10 feet from principal building, five feet for garage. The applicant's existing house is approximately six feet from the west property line at its nearest point. This is the garage side of the house and as such, is conforming. The proposed new garage on the east side of the house would maintain a setback of approximately eight feet from the east property line. The living space behind the garage is more than 10 feet from the side lot line. Again, this would be conforming. Rear Yard: 25 feet. The applicant's home, with the new addition, would be set back approximately 55 feet from the rear property line. 4. Accessory Buildings - The Zoning Code outlines the criteria for accessory buildings. Within a single family zoning district, a property may have no more than a combined total of 1,400 square feet of accessory and garage space. No individual garage may exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area or 15 feet in height. The applicant's current garage is approximately 508 square feet in area. The proposed new garage would be 566 square feet in area, for a total of 1,074 square feet. The total floor area, as well as the individual floor area of the garages, are compliant with the city's standards. Within the R-1 district, a single family house is limited to no more than two accessory buildings, including attached garages. The applicant is proposing two attached garages, which complies with this standard. 5. Elevations/Buildinq Materials - The revised plans show the garage addition will have a metal insulated overhead door, four windows above the garage door, painted lap siding, aluminum- clad fascia, asphalt shingles roofing and aluminum-clad column. The applicant has indicated that the exterior materials of the addition will match the existing home. 6. Floor Plan - The floor plan of the main level addition would include garage and laundry room, 3/4 bath and coat closet, and dining room on rear of home. 7. Curb Cut - The plans show a 12-foot wide concrete curb cut "in accordance with city of New Hope standards." 8. Trees - The plans show that the four existing trees in the front yard would remain. The plans show 12 existing trees on the east side of the home near the addition, with five to be removed and seven to remain. 9. Fence - The plans show the existing chain link fence and gate to rear yard would be relocated. Planning Considerations Excerpts from the planning consultant's report have been included in this report and the full report is attached for reference purposes. Buildinq Considerations Comments from the building official are as follows: Planning Case Report 03-17 Page 6 11/26/03 The revised plans dated November 21 indicate the elevation of the proposed floor has been lowered from 972.61 feet to 969.04 feet. Lowering the garage floor by 3.5 feet will result in a lower slope of the driveway from the initial 23% slope to a more gradual 13-14% slope. The revised plans also indicate widening the proposed curb cut from eight feet to 12 feet. The lower of the final elevations improve site conditions by reducing the driveway slope and allowing a proposed retaining wall along the east side of the driveway to be eliminated. The proposed garage/house addition falls within the guidelines of the city's Comprehensive Plan of promoting improvements to existing housing stock to accommodate the changing needs of the owner/occupant of the property. The revised plans only show building elevations and do not indicate details of access to the main floor living level. A ramp inside the garage was originally proposed, but there was also discussion of possibly installing a lift device in the garage to save floor space in the garage. I would support approval of the proposed construction and variance request with the following four conditions: 1. All construction must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Any trees that die because of driveway excavation or building construction must be replaced. 3. Removal of existing door at lower level of house between the family room and the stair area. 4. Building cannot be used as a two-family residential building. Items 3 and 4 insure that current and future property owners do not use the building as a two-family (R-2) in a single family (R-l) zoning district. Leqal Considerations No legal considerations are anticipated, unless it is determined that a variance site improvement agreement is necessary or if the City Council denies the request, in which case the city attorney would be directed to prepare findings of fact. Enqineerinq Consideration,~ November 25 - Comments from the city engineer regarding the revised plans are as follows: 1. The slope of the driveway has been reduced from the initial submittal. Originally, a driveway slope of 23% was proposed. The revised plans have reduced the proposed slope to 15%. Typical industry standards for new home construction limit driveway slopes to 10%. While a 15% slope is still steep, it is manageable. Other driveways in the neighborhood have similar slopes. On this basis, the driveway configuration could be considered acceptable. 2. The revised plans also include a 12-foot driveway width at the street. This is slightly wider than the previous application and will improve operation and safety when entering and leaving the driveway. 3. The proposed driveway was lowered from the previous application. Not only did this improve the driveway slope, it eliminated significant amounts of fill and the need for a retaining wall along the east side of the proposed driveway. This will greatly increase the likelihood of preserving the existing trees along the east property line. In general, the plans for this project are very thorough. The revisions have addressed the engineering concerns raised previously. November 12 - Comments from the city engineer on the original plans are as follows: 1. After reviewing the property and discussing the issue with Public Works, we do not feel a second driveway in this location will create traffic or street maintenance issues. It will be in the Planning Case Report 03-17 Page 7 11/26/03 middle of the block on a local residential street. It will not create additional safety concerns or - hazards on this street. While this single driveway will not create hazards, the city should not make a continued policy of allowing multiple driveway accesses for residential properties. If this were to occur frequently, traffic issues would be created. Therefore, approval of this variance should be based on a specific hardship. 2. If the driveway were constructed as proposed, it would be very steep. The estimated slope would exceed 23%. Typical standards in new developments limit driveways to a 10% slope. A 23% grade would be steeper than most if not all other driveways in New Hope. As a reference, the slope of the driveway in the northwest corner of the intersection of Boone Avenue and 36th Avenue is 18%. This driveway was considered very steep during the recent design and construction of 36th Avenue. The slope of the driveway could be reduced possibly to an acceptable slope if the garage addition was moved south on the property approximately 20 feet. 3. The new driveway will require a retaining wall. This wall will be approximately four feet tall and adjacent to mature trees. It is likely that the trees expected to remain will be impacted. I. Police Considerations The Police Department was involved in the review of these plans. J. Fire Considerations West Metro Fire District was involved in the review of these plans. VIII. Summary Staff feels that the petitioner has prepared good plans for this request and has done a good job revising the plans to address the concerns raised by both staff/consultants and the Design and Review committee. The city's Comprehensive Plan promotes the opportunity for private reinvestment in its single family housing stock. It also encourages private property owners to provide a variety of housing alternatives that meet the lifestyle needs of its changing demographics. In this respect, the Lausten's proposal is consistent with both objectives of the Comprehensive Plan IX. Recommendation Based on the facts outlined in this report, staff is recommending approval of the request, 'but realizes that there may be varying viewpoints on the request. While the topography and house location on the property presents a physical hardship in expanding the home, these hardships are not solely unique to the applicant's lot and do not fully satisfy the criteria for variance approval. In this respect, the Planning Commission and City Council have two options: Option #1 - Recommend approval of the variance with findings that attempts to narrow the application solely to the applicant's property. The following findings may be considered and added to: 1. The site's steep topography limits the opportunity for house expansion and use of a single driveway. 2. The curb cut variance would allow for the preservation of significant trees in the front yard of the lot. 3. The variance allows for a more functional and safer driveway access over a single curb alternative. 4. The home is located on a very Iow traffic volume local street and the curb cut location will not interfere or create a hazardous condition for other curb cuts. 5. Aside from the second curb cut, the house expansion complies with all other standards of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. Planning Case Report 03-17 Page 8 11/26/03 6. The variance is required to provide disability access to the home's residents. If the City Council approves the requested variance, staff recommends the added to the approval: 1. following conditions be The applicant to furnish floor plans that illustrate how disability access will be accomplished between the garage floor elevation and first floor living area. If this variance is based on accessibility, this information is critical. 2. The home shall not be converted to a two-family unit in the future. 3. Building materials of addition to match existing home. 4. Comply with building official recommendations. 5. Obtain curb cut permit from city. Option #2 - Recommendation for denial on the basis that the request does not satisfy criteria for variance. Approval of the variance may establish an undesirable precedent and grant a right to the applicant that would otherwise be denied to others in a similar situation. Attachments: Address/Zoning/Topo/Aerial Maps Property Survey Petitioner Narratives Neighbor Letter of Support Petitioner Photos - Existing home and other residences with two curb cuts Revised Site Plan Odginal Site Plan Revised North/East Elevations Original North/East Elevations Original South/West Elevations Original Main Level Floor Plan Original Lower Level Floor Plan Lift Accessibility Information from Petitioner Planner's Report City Engineer Comments Building Official Comments and Graphic Code Excerpts Previous Second Curb Cut Variance Request Application Log Planning Case Report 03-17 Page 9 11/26/03 94.16 3624 I 3625 3616 3617 36O8 3609 9OO8 3601 I / ~24 54.25 ~16 13417 I00 I 3401 3341 3333 3325 3317 3309 9401 3501 35TH AVE 9241 3341 3332 3333 3324 3325 3316 3317 3309 3308 9101 541//2 AVE N 34O8 35CM. 3516 3508 3501 9008 9001 3517 35O9 34,48 5449 3438 3437 3430 3429 34.22 34.21 Z 35O0 3464. 3456 3448 34.32 3424 3416 34O8 3404 8916 3340 S CATF $ONNESYN ELEMENTARY ............. ~ .... 34TH- ' - .......... ALLIANC~ .......... m , . ...... . ~ ~ ......... lo jl × / / ! ~' / / CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY II,(EASLIEEYENT$ $HOIAV IN FEET AND DECII~AL$ O~ A FOOT~ FOR I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY. PLAN OR REPOF" WAS PREPARED BY ME O~ UNDER UY DIRECT SUPERVISION AJ~...,.T~HAT I A~ ~Y LICE~SED~A~YOR UNDE~ Rone~ L Kur~h.' L.L~.~. Russe I J Kurlh. L.L.S No I~11~ I iii ,~T' QI (~ .oc~ 2.9 ,~t..~ Iq- I li-"L i Purpose of the Zoning Variance Request Our current plans are to build an addition on the rear of our home, and an attached garage on the eas side of our home. The new garage and living area will be within the City of New Hope setback regu- lations. At issue with our building plans is our request to have a new driveway go straight down our property and onto 35th Avenue. Current city code disallows a second drive from a single family home that exits onto the street. The existing code would allow us to construct a curved driveway across the front of the house and intersect with the existing driveway on the west side of the property thereby eliminating the need for a variance. However we believe it would be in the best interest of us, our neighbors, and the city to add the second access to 35th Avenue. Point 1--aesthetics Current city code, without the variance, would allow us to curve the new driveway across the front of the home and angle downward to intersect the existing driveway This solution would result in the loss of four magnificent white pines, and a major landscaping project that would require a retain- ing wall, and render much of the front yard useless for other purposes. It would also be more difficult to maneuver in the winter than would a straight access to the street. The variance would allow a much nicer look to the property and thus to the neighborhood. We believe an important considera- tion is the width of our lot and the location of neighbor's driveway to the east and west. A second driveway would still be a full 60' from its east edge to the west edge of the Ostroot's driveway, 33' from the west edge of the new driveway to the east edge of our existing driveway Point 2--support of the neighbors Adriveway that would go straight down and onto 35th Avenue. from our proposed double garage on the east side of our home is the best solution for maintaining the aesthetics of the property. The following neighbors support our request for a variance: Irene Culhane, who lives directly across the street at 9108-35th Avenue, has written a letter supporting our request. (letter attached) Chris and Faye Ostroot who live in the home at 9109-35th Avenue--next door on the east side--have written a letter supporting our variance request. (letter attached). Jean and Dennis Putz, landlords of the home on our West side at 9125-35th have no problem with the second driveway to 35th Avenue. (letter attached) Jerry and Jeanette Jasmine at 9116-35th Avenue, also across the street from our home, have given verbal support and have promised to write a letter. Point 3--hardship due to slope, topography and age of residents The new attached garage and the addition across the back, will allow us to access our home on /the main level. Currently we must climb 16 steps to the main living level. My wife Annette and I are 66 years of age. She has had two knee operations. Annette's sister Barbara, who is mentally handicapped, has lived with us for 28 years and is 64. We intend to remain in our New Hope home for as many years as possible. The likelihood that one of us will be unable to climb stairs at some point in our years here is very good. This addition and property modification is our solution to our future. As our population ages many homes will have to be modified and retro-fitted allowing people to remain in their homes for as many years as possible. The new living area will include 36" door- ways and a 3/4 bath that will be handicapped accessible. Complying with current city code would be a "landscape hardship" since the four mature, white pines would have to be removed, and much of the front yard transformed into a concrete drive. Point 4--other homes with two accesses to the street T34 o homes in close proximity to us have two driveways leading from their home to the street-- 40 Hillsboro and 3241 Gettysburg. (Photos attached.) Otto W. Lausten and Annette M. Lausten · 9117-35th Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55427 1709 763-544-3317 Lot 15, Block 2, Dempsey's First Addition email: owlausten@msn.com written 10-31-2003 To: Otto and Anne Lausten From: Chris and Faye Ostroot 9109 35th Ave. N. New Hope, MN 55427 763-546-2514 Dear Otto and Anne: Faye and I feel their is no problem with a variance for 2nd driveway. An addition to your property would increase the value of our neighborhood. We feel a wrap around driveway will not work well on your lot, so a second driveway seems your only other option. Everything you've done to your property in the past shows me you plan things out and take great care in having an attractive home. Let us know what happens and "Good Luck ". City of New Hope Design and Review Committee From: Otto W. Lausten 9117-35th Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 763-544-3317 emaih owlausten@msn.com Subject: Request for a Variance At the November 13, 2003 Design and Review hearing the Review Team made the following recom- mendations: ITEM 4: · Staff very concerned about the steep grade, 23.6~ of the proposed driveway. ITEM 5: · Consider moving garage back or dropping the grade by five feet. ITEM 6: · Consider a lift rather than a ramp in the garage. We were receptive to those suggestions and instructed our architect Mark Longworth to redraw the elevations with the revised lower grade. I also began to research lift equipment beginning with a call to Merwins Drug (a supplier of equip- ment for the elderly and disabled). This call lead to one company after another that culminated in a contact with the Arrow Lift Accessibility company's sales rep in Minneapolis. Their model RE42 is the model recommended for home use. A copy of their correspondence, description, and specifications are attached. Since we are Iowedng the garage we would not plan for a luture ramp in the garage. The space that the ramp would have occupied would now be occupied by the Accessibility Lift (or some similar model). It is obvious to us that there does not exist a plethora of manufacturers and/or equipment of this type available. However we believe by shopping around we can better the ~7116 price tag. Otto W. Lausten Irene Culhane 9108 35"' Avenue North New Hope. MN >:,4_, 763-546-2894 September 29. 2003 Otto & Anne Lausten 9117 3? Avenue North Mpls. MN 55427 Dear Otto & Anne, i am giving my written approval of having an addition built per your letter requesting acceptance. Sincerely, Irene Culhane 'i .! j,',. !i~ '!!I Acldilion and Alterations to: LAUSTEN RESIDENCE 9117 35th Avenue North New Hoi:~, Minnesota I I I I t I I ?/ I / LAUSTEN RESIDENCE ,~1_,, 9117 351~ AYe.ue Nort~ New Hol~, Minnesota IX. ~ NC71~ I I I I I I Addition and Alterations to: LAUSTEN RESIDENCE 9117 35~h Avenue Norlfi New Hope, Minne~ola Addition and Alterations to: LAUSTEN RESIDENCE 9117 3$th Avenue North New Hol~e, Minnesota !i ,/ Add~on and Alteralions to: LAUD'FEN RESIDENCE 9117 35fit Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota ..© Addition and AJteradons to: LAUSTEN RESIDENCE 9117 35Iff Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota Addition and Alterations to: ii ~ z .................. ,~ ;', - J' il: ~ - Addition and Alteral~ons to: LAUSTEN RESIDENCE 9117 3Sth Avenue Norl~ New Hope, Minnesota Addition and Alterations to: ~1 '~ ~ ~:~1 ,~ ARROW LIFi' ACCESSIBILITY P.O. Box 34 Duluth. MN 55801 Twin C~e$ Dulutr, Sa~es Fax f612) 529-787-' (218) 279-604.- 1-888-B1 November 17, 2003 Otto Lausten 9117 35"~ Ave N New Hope, MN 55427 Dear Otto: Thank you for contacting us recently about wheelchair lifts. Pursuant to your request attached are a brochure and proposal for the RE 42 Vertical Wheelchair Lift by National Wheel O Vator. In order to legally install wheelchair lifts in MN you must be licensed and are required to take out a permit with the MN State Elevator Committee. Arrow Lift is licensed elevator contractor #CE00126 and we have been in business over 17 years safely and legally installing these products. Hopefully, this will provide you with some useful material as you gather information for your project. If we can answer any further questions, or help out in any way, please call: 612-379-3137. Yours truly, Andy Newstrom Territory Representative Arrow Lift Accessibility Err'CTi~IC JUNCTION DO× I'OR: LO'#~ ~.-'~TC LOW~.R ~/$£ND I LANDING i !, ELECTRIC ,JUNCTION BOX FOR; UI::'I:'~'"A' CAT£ UPPER CALL/SEND POWER TO LE~ HANO s~Rou~ I '' I ARROW LIFT ACCESSIBILITY P.O. Box 34 Duluth, MN 55801 November 17, 2003 Otto Lausten National Wheel-O-Vator RE 42 Wheelchair Lift Twin Cities: (612) 529-7874 Duluth: (218) 279-6043 Sales: 1-888.81 Fax: (218) 279-5919 · · · · · 42" Travel Capacity Pass Through Cab Emergency Stop in Car Drive System: Motor Minimum of % HP, instant reverse, 1750 rpm 115 VAC, single phase Acme Screw Drive with backup safety nut 700 lbs. Capacity Speed: 9 fpm (approximately) Cab Size 36" W x 51" L Manual Lowenng Wrench · Grounded Electrical System · 36" SideGuards · Non-skid Platform and Access Ramp Floonng · Under Platform Obstruction Safety Sensing Device · Keyless Operated Control on Platform · Flip Up Ramp @ Lower Landing · Standard Color Pearl White · (2) Surface Mounted Call Controls · (1) Upper landing gate · Presentation Drawings · Permit, Tax and Installation Total Price. $7,116 Customer is responsible for · Construction of slab to State code and manufacturers specifications. · Providing an electrically fused disconnects. · Providing support backing for tower of lift and for upper gate anchoring. Warranties: · The National WheeI-O-Vator Limited Warranty covers replacement of any defective parts for a period of one-year. · Arrow Lift Accessibility warrants all labor costs for the first 90 days after unit is installed and inspected. There after labor charges will occur for all service work provided. The equipment ordered is custom Produced for your application. All order cancellations must be made prior to manufacturing. Order cancellation charges will be determined at time of cancellation. All pricing to be verified at the time of acceptance. Terms: 50% due upon signed contract, 50% due upon completion. Price Quote valid for 60 days. Accepted by: Date: Al Wliee]zo-'Vator cO.,' Inc. " -- ARROW LI~ ACCESSIBILITY 14420/NAT Buyline 60~1 Andy Newstrom 636 Broao~a'. ~: I,d- ~,~s'~e.~: Mmneapot~-_ MN 554~..- Fa', Na.tio al' _Wh _ _ , _ .--.. :.= ..... ,.eel 0 .V..a. tors ve_rtic..al Phffo Lif . Vertical Platform Lifts Architectural barriers are elements of a building or structure that prevent access or movement bv mobility impaired persons. /he National Wheel-O-Vator Co.. Inc. is committed to providing solutions for architectural hamer issues, there- by'. access'.for all persons. We are a respected national leader in the design and.. manufacture of vertical platform lifts, owned and operated from the heartland of America. Our other durable prodt:cts include: stairway chairlifts. inclined platform lifts..:esidential elevators. 'and LU/LA elevators. Our design and engineering experts can produce a verti- cal platform lift to meet the needs of any building, struc- ture, or user. W/th the use of an Acme screw or a Hydraulic drive, a vertical platform lift is a safe, economical, and space effective way to overcome architectural barriers up to twelve feet high. In commercial applications, the lifts satis~, the require- ments of ADA laws when properly instali~,d. The Acme screw drive has an automatic lubri'cating Oev,ce mize service needs and maxlm~ze durabilitx. Tilt' Hydraulic drive gives a faster ride. Custom installations are often made in existing strut'- tures where "standard" models would be unsmtablc. ()ur representatives and engineers work with vou i~rom star~ finish to create your vertical platform'lit',,. TIliy tomization~ feature is just one of the many standards excellence provided to you by National Wheel-O-\:ator. Model CDE Vertical Platform Lift with ACME Screw Drive Model HCDE Vertical Platform Lift with Hydraulic Drive The CDE and HCDE models are manufactured with a stationary enclosure, including ~ates and doors, as needed for each application. These units do not require a boistway or runwav to be built by others. The enclosure structure uses steel tubing tbr indoor use ~nd aluminum for outdoor use. It has steel panels in the walls, making a smooth interior for the lift to operate. Also. the CDE and HCDE can he enclosed overhead to protect the user from inclement weather. Optional lighting and ventilation can be provided. New Handle S~wle comes slanda~ on all units CDE/HCDE 3-Gate CDE/HCDE 2-Gate CDE/HCDE 2-Gate Model PCDE Vertical Platform Lift with ACME Screw Drive Model HPCDE Vertical Platform Lift with Hydraulic Drive 14420/NAT. Buyline 6071 The PCDE and HPCDE models come equipped with factorx' supplied enclosures made with clear or tinted acrvlic panels. The ac~'lic panels provide a smooth interior for the lift to operate. All other features are the same as the CDE and HCDE models. The PCDE and HPCDE models are attractive and permit ambient light into the lift hoistwav. The user has a wew £rom The lift durin~ opera,ion. The PCDE and HPCDE models can he enclosed overhead To protect ~he user from ~he elements. PCDE/HPCDE PCDE/HPCDE PCDE/HPCDE Model BC Vertical Platform Lift with Acme Screw Drive Model HBC Vertical Platform Lift wid~ Hydraulic Drive The BC and HBC models are manu£actured as an unenclosed lift. Many times this unit is insmlted wilhin u hoisrwav or runway built by o[hers. Some areas approve iow rise unenclosed Ii'is 10r commer- cial seuin~s. This installation allows the unit m ma~ch fi~e buildin,2 or surroundings: thereby, main- l;li~lHl,,d Iht' desired archilecluraJ mtegrilv. ~llnlos- pherc or aesthetics. National Wheel-O-Valor can st~pply a wide variety of flush mounted doors. includin~ Fire ramd. t'(~r use a~ each level. Local c~(it,s and re~tllalions wil[ specify the type m' door p('rlllHl('(] iN your ar(qi. 3 - Stop BC/HBC in hoistway by mher~ 2 - Stop BC/HBC in hoistway by others Model RE Residential Lift The RE model unit is designed with the homeowner in mind. This lift is identical to the BC model, except that our auto-lubrication system supplied in all com- mercial models is an option and the plattbrm side guards and gates are only 36" tall. which makes the unit "/'or residential use only". The RE model is an affordable alternative to lengthy. cosily, and unsightly ramps. The lifting heights of 24". 42". 60". and 72" will satisfy most applications. For heights greater than 72". a BC'model may be used. 144201NAT Buyline 6071 Low Profile Carriage The "low profile carriage" option is available on all enclosed vertical platl'orm lift.,,. This feature reduces the lower landing height by approximately. 509. Currently. the typical ramp required to access a non- pitted vertical platlbrm lilt is 30" long. National Wheel-O~ Vator's design will reduce this to 16" in new construction and allow a IO" ramp in existing construction. This feature decreases the total space required and greatly enhances user convenience. GUIDE SPECIFI ONS Vertical Platform Lifts are installed in both new and existing constructions. Due to the wide variety of applications and available options, specifications va.ry greatly from ,job to job. Below is a general guide specification' containing pertbrm- ance and descriptive requirements which apply to a varietx, of standard and custom products of the National Wheel-O- Co.. Inc. Edit this section to include onlY, requiremen'ts applicable to your project. National WheeJ-O-Vator Co. cat~ supply specific specifications including propriera .ry specs., alternate specs., eic. Contact us for assistance. PART I -.GENERAL I. 1 Description of Product The product described herein, manufactured by The National WheeI-O-Vator Co.. Inc.. is a vertica-I platform lift consisting of a machine tower with a lifting platform, selected and dimensioned to pro- vide adequate lifting height to suit the individual building requirements. The lift can be used either indoors or outdoors to vertically transport a wheelchair user or mobility impaired person over a barrier creating access to or within a building. 1.2 OuaJiLy Assurance A. Manufacturers 0ualifications A company with not less than ten years of experience in design, fabrication and assem- bly of vertical platform lifts. B. Subcontractor 0ualifications A company that has been listed as an authorized National Wheel-O-Vator dealer. C. Special Requirements of Regulatory Agencies Unit shall comply with all requirements of ASME Al8.1 and be approved by the authofiW having .jurisdiction PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2. I Acceptable Manulhcturer The Unit shall be manufactured by National WheeI-O-Vator. as distributed by 2.2 Materials Units shall have thc tbllowing characteristics: A. Model B. Capacity: 750 lbs. C. Speed: Acme Screw - 9 fpm. Hydraulic - 20 ~m D. Drive System: I. Acme Screw: Motor minimum of'/4 HP. instant reverse, 1750RPM. 115 VAC. single phase. 1220 volt optional} Acme screw drive with back-up safety nut and auto-lubrication system or- 2. Hydraulic: 24 VDC I~J_, HP. Drive = 1:2 Leaf citain hydraulic w/type -A~ instant- aneous slack chain safety device E. Static/Running Load Test: All load ratings and sali'tv factors shall meet or exceed those specified in ASME AlS. I 2.3 Safety Devices The unit shall be equipped with the following safety features: A. Upper and lower limit switches B. Final limit switch C. Secondary safety nut {Acme Screw} or Slack Chain Device {H'ydraulic} D. 24V low voltage controls E. Grounded electrical system F. 42" side guards {36' ~sidentia]) G. Non-skid plattbrm and access ramp H. Key-lock controls 1. Platform safety pan or Runway Enclosure J- Emergency stop/alarm K. Top and bottom landing gates/doors provided with combination mechanical lock and elec- trical contact. {Local code may varx'} L. Grab rail 2.4 Fabrication A. Platform shall be constructed of 12-~.au~e imum zinc clad steel. If unit is not installed 3-inch pit, a stationary ramp shall be provided that extends under the lower landing ,~atetdoor. B. Platform side panels must be 42" high. Side panci frame shall be a min. I" x I /." x .065 {outdoor units aluminum}. The solid infill panels shall be a min. of 24 gauge zinc clad steel. C. Main frame tubings shall be square or rectangular tubing with a minimum. 120 wall thickness. D. Carnage assembly arms shall be a minimum of I" wide steel flatbar along with :/.," thick steel flatbar uprights. Cam rollers shall be used lbr axial car- nage guidance and wear pads used lbr horizontal stability. Unit to be equipped with the "simplex" base and carriage design, which allows the carnage to be folded to reduce the shroud anq carnage width to 18' without removal of any carnal~e attaching bolts. On Hydraulic unitsl cam milers shall be supported by a minimum 6.25~t/fl. "T" rail with tongue and groove ends mated at the split sections of the machine tower. E. Loaded fasteners shall be grade five or higher. Locking fasteners shall be used in alt cmica] locations. F. Machine Tower 1. Acme Screw: Machine tower sides shall be of 12 gauge steel and from and hack covers shall be 18 gauge zinc clad steel minimum or- 2. Hydraulic: The removable machine tower sides shall be of 16 gauge zinc clad steel and front and back covers shall be 18 gau~e zinc clad steel minimum. The machine tower shall be split tbr ease of installation with bottom section of tower no taller than 69 inches. PART 3 - EXECUTION .3. I Preparation Field verifiy all dimensions, hoistwav size. concrete pad thickness and floor to floor height. 3.2 installation Install vertical platform lift in accordance with these specifications, drawings and items required by the local authority having jurisdiction. All installation work in this section to be performed by trained employees of the lift contractor. ]nsrailation shall be in accordance with all regulatory agencies {ref. part 1.2. Item C) 3.3 Adjustments and Cleaning Adjust ali limit switches to ensure proper leveling of platform. Clean all exposed surfaces. Use non- abrasive cleaners on all surfaces. Unit Dimensions Pie~.le note: All units sl3own are eclu,3men! chmens~ons only ancl are suDIect to ctlange. Platform s,ze anti configuration may ct3ange almens~ons. Aclcht~onal room for runmng clearances will also be require0 MODEL BC, HBC and RE = MODEL PCDE and HPCDE MODEL CDE and HCDE 2-GATE 144201NAT Buyline 6071 MODEL CDE and HCDE 3-GATE MODELS R.._..__~E°, Be. CDE. PCDE ACME SCREW DRIVE, Shroucl D~menslon -W'* ALL UNITS 36 1/4" ¢0.92m~ MODEL 24 RE ONLY ~ 42 6'"~--'~' 7._.~..._~2 96 MAX. LIFT HEIGHT 27' f0 69m ' - , 108 120 144 ~ ..... . . ~ 45 1.14m) ~ 63" 1.60m) ' 75'(191m) ' 99-(251m -~ , .~ ~ ~ SHROUD X 46 ~1.17mI I 64'(1.63m) , · 111 [2.82m . 123 13.12m ~ 147"(373m ~ ' ' mi 171" ~4.34mt MODELS HBC.HCDE. HPCDE 1:2 CHAIN HYDRAULIC DRIVE. Shroud D,mens~on 'W' ALL UNITS 41 3/8' 11.05mi MODEL 24 ~ ~ MAX. LIFT HEIGHT ..__._~SHROUD "X" REF.__.__ERENCE: ~.51m I 111'~ ; 123" 3.12m) NA 69' 11.75m~ : 87" [2.21m! ! 99' (2.51ml 123" ~ mi ' 147~ (3.73m~ · RE AVAILABLE IN 24.42, 60 & 72 MODELS ONLY! Standard Color Optio.al Pearl Witite Te. rture Beige 144 LIFT HEIGHT MUST INCLUDE PIT DEPTH. WHEN PITTED!" 171" t4 34m~ 'Due to vanatlons ,n/he Dnntmg process, actual colors may vary shgl~lly Optio.al Optio.al Optio.al Brotrn or Brou,. Texture Gra.v Black Texture THE NATI O,,WATOR (20. Portable Vertical Platform Lift The portable vertical platform lift can be an ideal soiution for ~emporar3 usaec witi. stages or plalrorms. On some sta~es. ~ permanent installation would obstruc~ other functions when the stage is no1 m use. A variance may Oe required. The portable vertical platform lift i~ equ~pl)ed with wi~eeis and a .lack m rmsc I~e unl~ 1() move H. The unH can t)e titled with an optional, exlernallv a0justable timits. 1~ make selup easier. A lypica'~ applicaUon is a school stage on the side of ;~ gymnasium. This situation ~s found in manv older school buildings. Customized Vertical Platform kif't National Wheel-O-Valor spcciallze~ m manufactur~n~ CUSlonlized vertical plalfl)rm ]i{D, lO fit XoUr lilt'dh. W~III[~,. Ol desires. Let us know wha~ wc can do lo~ you? The Wood Panel Vertical Platform Lift The 'Stage" Vertical Platform Lift The Casino Vertical Platform Lift The National Wheel-O-Vator Co., Inc. 509 West Front Street · Roanoke, IL 61561-0348 PH: 800-551-9095 · FX: 309-923-5091 www.wheelovator, com [:mail: sales@ wheelovator, com Prlntecl rn USA VPL5/2000 Umts are aes~gnecl to conlorm to all a,oDhcaDle ANSI A18.1 safe~y gu~Oehnes. Urals ava~laDle with U.L. i;shng, ed Dealer Is: I"' ~ Telephone: 952.$95.ge3Ei Facsimile: 952.595.9837 Dlanners~nac~Jann~ncj.cor.n ~' PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Alan Brixius November 25, 2003 New Hope - Otto Lausten Variance 131.01 - 03.17 BACKGROUND Mr. Otto Lausten is proposing to expand his existing home at 9117 35th Avenue North in New Hope to include a new attached garage and a living area addition. The proposed garage and building addition would comply with all required setbacks within the R-1 District, however, Mr. Lausten is requesting a second curb cut for a single family home which is otherwise prohibited by Section 4-3 (e)(4)(h)(10) of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance, which restricts single family homes to a single curb cut. Currently, the home is served by a tuck under garage. The modifications to the house are being requested to provide expanded living space and automobile access all on one level. The rationale is that the household occupants are aging and Mrs. Lausten has recently gone through two knee operations. Additionally, Mrs. Lausten's sister, who is mentally disabled, also resides at the property. Due to current disabilities and continued aging of the home occupants, the Laustens wish to modify their home to make it more disability accessible and user friendly for their family. Currently, the location of the lower level garage and the need to use stairs provides hardship for access for Mrs. Lausten and her sister. In this report, we will outline our site and building plan review as well as our review of the variance request with the intention of identifying any issues that might exist with the overall site design. ISSUES ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan. The proposed site falls within the Iow density residential land use area. Low density residential land use objectives are described as follows: The City wishes to maintain the strong character of its residential single family neighborhoods. The City will undertake efforts to encourage reinvestment in smgte family housing stock and explore opportunities to change setbacks and accessory building rules to provide opportunities for property owners to expand and/or modernize their existing homes. These efforts are intended to maintain the quality of the existing housing stock and promote higher value homes. The Comprehensive Plan outlines the following goals and policies applicable to this application: Goal: Provide a variety of housing typestyles and choices to meet the needs of New Hope's changing demographics. ,policies C. Continue the City's effort to provide special need housing for people of various disabilities. In the case of the Laustens, providing opportunities to stay in their home and age in place addresses or satisfies this policy statement. .Goal: Maintain and enhance the strong character of New Hope's single family residential neighborhoods. Policies: A. Promote private reinvestment in the City's single family housing stock. B. Examine development regulations to provide a greater development flexibility for single family homeowners. The Laustens are proposing to expand their existing single family home and reinvest in their property. The proposed variance is a request for flexibility from current zoning rules related to the number of curb cuts for a single family home. The City, in past efforts of updating its Zoning Ordinance, has already incorporated a number of relaxed standards as a means of expanding the buildable area of each single family lot. The variance is a flexibility that would be applied solely to this property. It is consistent with the policy statement of the Comprehensive Plan. R-1 District Standards. The property is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential. Single family use is a permitted use within this district. The lot requirements of the R-1 District is a 75 foot width and 9,500 square feet in area. The lot in question has a lot width of approximately 92 feet and a total lot area of 1i,868 square feet. exceeding the R-1 standards. Setbacks. Within the R-1 District, the following setbacks apply: Front Yard: 25 feet. The applicant's existing home is approximately 32 feet from the front property line. Side Yard: 10 feet from principal building, five tfeet_ for garage. The applicant's existing house is approximately six feet from the ~'~'~roperty line at its nearest point. This is the garage side of the house and as such, is conforming. The proposed new garage on the w~t~side of the house would maintain a setback of approximately eight feet from the w~ I~roperty line. The living space behind the garage is more than 10 feet from the side lot line. Again, this would be conforming. Rear Yard: 25 feet. The applicant's home, with the new addition, would be setback approximately 55 feet from the rear property line. Accessory Buildings. Section 4-3(b)(6) outlines the criteria for accessory buildings. Within a single family zoning district, a property may have no more than a combined total of 1,400 square feet of accessory and garage space. No individual garage may exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area or 15 feet in height. The applicant's current garage is approximately 508 square feet in area. The proposed new garage would be 566 square feet in area, for a total of 1,074 square feet. The total floor area, as well as the individual floor area of the garages, are compliant with the City's standards. Within the R-1 District, a single family house is limited to no more than two accessory buildings, including attached garages. The applicant is proposing two attached garages, which complies with this standard. Variance Request. Section 4-3(e)(4)(h)(10) limits single family uses to one driveway access point per lot. The applicant is asking for two curb cuts as a means of accessing the second garage. The applicant has indicated that they could curve the new driveway across the front of the their lot and angle it down to intersect with the existing driveway. This solution will result in the loss of four significant white pines and a major landscape project that would require retaining walls and render much of the front yard useless for other purposes. The applicant also claims that it would be more difficult to maneuver in the winter than a straight access to the street. To mitigate the amount of variance being requested, the applicant is only proposing an 12 foot curb cut and driveway extending through the boulevard area from the curb to the property line, at which point, it would flair out to provide a full driveway width for a two car garage. The original site and building plan illustrated a driveway with a very steep 23 percent slope. Through staff review and Design and Review Board recommendation, the garage floor elevation was lowered three feet and the driveway grade has been reduced to a 15 percent grade, illustrated on the plans dated 11/07/03. The applicant has also increased the curb cut width from 8 feet to 12 feet to make the driveway more manageable. To accommodate the lower floor elevation, the applicant has abandoned the concept of a wheel chair ramp in the garage in favor of a wheel chair lift. The revised site plan also eliminates the need for retaining walls along the east side of the driveway reducing the side yard grades. The building elevation shows that the new addition will match the roof line of the existing house. Exterior building materials will match the existing house. Section 4-36 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance outlines the criteria for hardship that must be considered with any variance application. The variance criteria include: 1. Hardship may exist by reason of physical condition unique to the property that results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application and terms of this code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic or similar conditions unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardships also include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code. Undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not generally applicable to other properties in the same district. The hardship or circumstance is unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner or previous owner. 4. Additional Criteria. The applicant for variance shall also meet the following cntena: a. Shall not alter the essential character or locality. b. Shall not impair adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property or substantially increase congestion of the public streets or increase danger of fire or endanger the public safety. c. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. cl. Does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district. The house placement and topography do complicate the use of the lot, however, these physical features are not solely unique to this property. In that New Hope has numerous similar lots that contain homes with tuck under garages necessitated by the site's topography. The applicant requests the Planning Commission and City Council consider the physical need for improved accessibility as hardship for a variance. New Hope has given a 4 variance for a second curb cut for reason of disability access in 1997. In this respect, there is ~ome precedent for such consideration. The applicant has attempted to implement the recommendations of staff and the Desigr- and Review Board as a means of reducing the amount of variance requested an¢ making the site plan functional. The revised site plan reduces the driveway graae eliminates retaining walls and attempts to protect significant trees. The proposed cur:' cut is located in a manner that is should not interfere with other curb cut locations. CONCLUSION The City's Comprehensive Plan promotes the opportunity for private reinvestment in its single family housing stock. It also encourages private property owners to provide a variety of housing alternatives that meet the lifestyle needs of its changing demographics. In this respect, the Laustens proposal is consistent with both objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. While the topography and house location on the property presents a physical hardshio in expanding the home, these hardships are not solely unique to the Lausten's lot and do not fully satisfy the criteria for variance approval, in this respect, the Planning Commission has two options. Option #1 - Recommendation for denial on the basis that the request does not satisfy criteria for variance. Approval of the variance may establish an undesirable precedeqt and grant a right to the Laustens that would otherwise be denied to others in a similar situation. Option #2 - Recommend approval of the variance with findings that attempts to narrow the application solely to the applicant's property. The following findings may be considered and added to: o The site's steep topography limits the opportunity for house expansion and use of a single driveway. The curb cut variance would allow for the preservation of significant trees in tr~e front yard of the lot. The variance allows for a more functional and safer driveway access over a single curb alternative. The home is located on a very Iow traffic volume local street and the curb cut location will not interfere or create a hazardous condition for other curb cuts. Aside from the second curb cut, the house expansion complies with all other standards of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. 6. The variance is required to provide disability access to the home's residents. If the City Council approves the requested variance, we would recommend the following conditions be added to the approval: The applicant furnish floor plans that illustrate how disability access will be accomplished between the garage floor elevation and first floor living area. If this variance is based on accessibility, this information is critical. 2. The home shall not be converted to a two family unit in the future. Bonestroo Rosene Anderlii( & Associates Engineers & Architects MEMO Botle~troo, Ro~ene, An~lik and Aa$OC~tes, Inc. ~ an A~t~ A~qual Op~un~ Em~o~r ~nd E~ ~ ~ls: ~ B~s~, P.E. · Mawin L. Sow~a, P.E. · ~enn R. ~k, P.E. · Ro~ G. S~cN, P.E. · de~ ~ B~, P.E. Sen~ C~su~anls: Ro~ W. Ro~, P.E. · d~eph C. ~effik, P.E. · RIc~ E. Tu~r, PE. · Susan M. E~Jn, C.P.A. Ass~fe ~nci~/s: H~a~ A. Sanfo~, P.E. · Keith A. ~on, P.E. · Ro~ R. ~e~e,e, P.E · Ric~ W. Fosler, P.E. · Dasd 0. Losk~a, P.E. · Ro~ C. Ru~ek, A.IA. · Maff A. Hanson. P.E. · MJc~l T. Raut~nn, P.E. · T~ K. Fi~, P.E., Ken,th P. ~e~on, P.E · Ma~ R R~ts. P.E · Davi~ A. Bo~stmo, MBA. · Sid~y P. Walmmson. P.E., L.S. · Ages M. Rs~, MB.A.,, Nlan Rick Schmidt, P.E. Offices: St. Paul, R~ter. W~lmar a~ St. Cloud. MN · Milwaukee. WI Website : ~.~$t~.~ TO: FROM: CC: DATE: SUBJECT: Kirk McDonald Vince Vander Top Mark Hanson, Guy Johnson November 12, 2003 9117 35~h Avenue, 2"d Driveway Variance Our File No. 34-Gen E03- We have r:ceived plans for the proposed house addition and the second driveway. We understand the seconc driveway access does not meet City Code and would require a variance. After reviewing the property and discussing the issue with Public Works, we do not feel a second driveway in this location will create traffic or street maintenance issue. It will be in the middle of the block on a local residential street. It will not create additional safety concerns or hazards on this street. While this single driveway will not create hazards, the City should not make a continued policy of allowing multiple driveway accesses for residential properties. If this were to occur frequently, traffic issues would be created. Therefore, approval of this variance should be based on a specific hardship. If the driveway were constructed as proposed, it would be very steep. The estimated slope would exceed 23%. Typical standards in new development limit driveways to a 10% slope. A 23% grade would be steeper than most if not all other driveways in New Hope. As a reference, the slope of the driveway in the Northwest comer of the intersection of Boone Avenue and 36th Avenue is 18%. This driveway was considered very steep during the recent design and construction of 36th Avenue. The slope of the driveway could be reduced possibly to an acceptable slope if the garage addition was moved south on the property approximately 20 feet. 3. The new driveway will require a retaining wall. This wall will be approximately 4 feet tall and adjacent to mature trees. It is likely that the trees expected to remain will be impacted. Please call me at 651-604-4790 with questions. 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & ,Rssociates Eflglfleers & .Arcl~ltects MEMO TO: leHOM: CC; DATE: SUBJECT: /Cirk l~icDorald Vines Vandcr Top Mark I-Iaaaon, Guy Johnson November 25, 2003 91 l? 35~ Aveau=, 2~d Driveway Var/anoo Our 1;/lo No. 34-Oen ~,03- 37 have rece/ved ~_e revised plan~ for the pw~,oscx/house addition and the second driveway. Our comments have bees revised flora the initial renew. We uruicrs~s~d thc second drive, way access docs not meet City Cod= and would r~cluirc a variaacc. 1. After reviewing the property and discussing the issue with Public Works, we do not feel a second ctriveway in this location will croaW traffio or stro~t maintc,~ance issue. It will be in the middle of the block on a local residential st~t. It will not create additional safmty concerns or hazard; on this street. WI/lc th/s single driveway will not create hazards, the CiD' should not rnmke a conMnucd policy o£allowin~ multil~le driveway, accesses for residential properties. I£ this were to occm' frequently, traffic issues would be created. Therefore, approval o£this variance should be baaed an a specific hardship. T~, slope of the drivewayha~ be~n r~lu~d from ~= i~ susie, ~~ly, m ~ay ~opo 0923% was ~poa~. ~= ~v~ed pl~s have ~d~ed ~e propo~ sl~e TO 1~%, ~ical-~~ ~d~ for n~ home cons~cfi~ ~t ~v~ay s~p~ ~ 10~. ~o a 15~ slope is sffil ~, it is ~age~lc. ~ ~v~a~ ~ the o~id~d ~~le. and leavin . .-.rr ,~,, ,~u wul mlprove operation and safety when ent--~-,,- g the d~vew~y. --~,e The proposed driveway ~ lowered i~rom the previous application_ Not only did this /reprove the dr/veway slope, it el/m/rated s/~nific~nt antounts o/'fill and the need/'or a 2~35 Weet Hlghwmy 38.8£ Paul, MN l:'lcaa= ~aU m= ~t 651-~04-4790 w/th ~335 ~'=~st Hl~hway 3~ · St. P, ul, MN $~112 · ~$f-~2O-4~00. Fax: $Sf-$3~-f3f f Memorandum Date: November 24, 2003 To: Kirk McDonald From: RogerAxel ~, Re: Lausten Variance 9117 35"~ Avenue North The revised plans dated 11-21-03 indicate the elevation of the proposed floor has been lowered from 972.61' to 969.04'. Lowedng the garage floor by 3.5' will result in a lower slope of the ddveway from the initial 23% slope to a more gradual 13-14% slope. The revised plans also indicate widening the proposed curb cut from 8' to 12'. The lowering of the final elevations improve site conditions by reducing the driveway slope and allowing a proposed retaining wall along the east side of the driveway to be eliminated. The proposed garage/house addition falls within the guidelines of the City's Comprehensive Plan of promoting improvements to existing housing stock to accommodate the changing needs of the owner/occupant of the property. The revised plans only show building elevations and do not indicate details of access to the main floor living level. A ramp inside the garage was originally proposed but there was also discussion of possibly installing a lift device in the garage to save floor space in the garage. I would support approval of the proposed construction and variance request with the following four conditions: 1. All construction must comply with the MN State Building Code. 2. Any trees that die because of ddveway excavation or building construction must be replaced. 3. Removal of existing door at lower level of house between the family room and the stair area. 4. Building cannot be used as a two-family residential building. Items 3 and 4 insure that currant and future property owners do not use the building as a two-family (R-2) in a single family (R-l) zoning district ' ZONING § 4-3 (8) (9) Refuse. All vehicles inchidmg, but not limited to, passenger automobiles, station wagons. trucks, motorized vehicles, trailers, campers which are not currently licensed by the state, or which are because of mechanical deficiency, incapable of movement under their own power, parked or stored outside for a period m excess of seven consecutive days, and all other materials stored outside m violation of the Cit~' Code are considered refuse or junk and shall be removed from premises in th~ In all areas the owner of vacant land shall keep such land free of refuse, weeds and waste 611. Exterior storage. All materials and equipment, except as specifically authorized elsewhere in this Code, shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties or public street right-of-way, except for the following: a. Clothesline pole and wires. b. Recreational equipment and vehicles. 1. Recreational equipment and vehicles may be stored in the front, side, or rear yards. 2. Front yard storage shall meet the following standards: i. Must be on a surface of material that is durable, weather resistant, and suitable to control dust and drainage. Landscaped yard or grass areas are not suitable for storage. fi. All front yard storage must be set back 15 feet from the street curb and storage shall not encroach on any sidewalk. iii. Storage shall not occur in a required parking stall. 3. The designated storage area shall maintain at least a five foot setback from side or rear property lines and shall be screened from adjoining properties through either landscaping or fencing. c. Construction and landscaping material currently being used on the premises. d. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles and trucks not exceeding a gross weight · of 12,000 pounds in R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 district. (10) Radiation and ele~a-ical ~"mi~sions. No activity shall be permitted that emits danger- ous radioactivity beyond enclosed areas. There shall be no electrical disturbance adversely affecting the operations at any point of any equipment crea _t~r. ~ SUCh disturbances, other than that of the (e) Off-street parking requirerne~s~ (1) Purpose. The regulation ~f off-strset parking spaces in these zoning regulations is intended to alleviate or prevent congeWdon of the public right-of-way and to promote CD4:~9 § 4-3 NEW HOPE CODE the safety and genera] weffare of the public, by establish, rog minim~rn reqmrements for off-street parking of motor vehicles m accordance with the mtensit?, of utilization of the various parcels of land or structures. (2) Application of off-street parking regulations. The regulations and reqmrements set forth herein shall apply to all off-street parking facilities in all of the zoning districts of the city. (3) Site plan drawing necessary. All applications for a building or an occupancy permit in all zoning distr/cts shall be accompznied by a site plan drawn to scale and dimensioned indicating the location of off-street parking and loading spaces m compliance with the requirements set forth in this section. (4) General provisions. a. Floor area. The term "floor area" for the purpose of calculating the number of off-street parking spaces required shall be determined on the basis of the exterior floor area dimensions of the buildings, structure or use times the number of floors, minus ten percent except as may be hereinafter modified. b. Reduction of existin~,off-street parkin~ space or lot area. Off-street parking spaces and loading spaces or lot area existing upon the effective date of this Code shall not be reduced in number or size unless said number or size exceeds the requirements set forth herein for a similar new use. c. Nonconforming structures. Should a nonconforming structure or use be damaged or destroyed by fire, it may be re-established if elsewhere permitted in these zoning regulations, except that in doing so, any off-street parking or loading space which existed before shall be retained. d. Change ofase or occupancy of land. No change of use or occupancy of land already dedicated to a parking area, parking spaces, or loading spaces shall reduce the area necessary for parking, parking stalls, or parking requirements below the minimum prescribed by these zoning regulations. e. Change of use or occupancy of buildings. Any change of use or occupancy of any building or buildings including additions thereto requiring more parking area shall not be permitted until there is furnished such additional parking spaces as · required by these zonin~ regulations. f. Residential off-street parking. Off-street parking fadlit/es accessory to residential use sha~l be ut/l/zed solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles; no more than one truck not to exceed gross weight of 12,000 pounds; and recreat/onal vehicles and equipment. Under no c/rcnm=tances shall parking facilities accessory to resident/al structures be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or equipment or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants, or customers of business or manufacturing estab- li~h~ente not a res/dent at the res/dent/al site. CD4:40 ZONING § 4-3 (A) Angle of Parking 90° 7§° 60° 45° 0o ho Calculating space. 1. Fractions of a space. When determining the number of off-street parking spaces results in a fraction, each fraction of one-half or more shall constitute another space. 2. Places of public assembly. In stadiums, sports arenas, churches and other places of public assembly in which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews or other similar seating facilities, each 22 inches of such seating facilities shall be counted as one seat for the purpose of determining requirements. 3. Floor area. The gross floor area of each use shall be calculated and a ten percent reduction shall be made for nonproductive space. The resulting net useable floor space figure shall be utilized to determine the off-street parking requirement. 4. Snow storage in parking stalls. Provision shall be made in the parking area for adequate snow storage or removal to ensure that the required number of spaces are available at all times during the year. Stall, aisle and driveway design. 1. Parking space size. Each parking space shall be not less than eight feet nine inches wide and 19 feet in length exclusive of access aisles, and each space shall be served adequately by access aisles. 2. Parking stall standards. Except in the case of single-family, two-family and townhouse dwellings, parking areas and their aisles shall be developed in compliance with the fonowing standards: (C) Stall Stall (B) Curb (D) Depth Depth In- (F) (F) Stall Length Stall Wall to ter-lock to Aisle One Width Ffwlth Per Car Length Aisle Aisle Way Two Way 8'9" 8'9" 19'0" 19'0" 19'0" ' 24'0" 24'0" 8'9"* 8'9" 18'0"* 18'0"* 18'0"* 24'0" 24'0" 8'9" 9'0" 19'0" 20'3" 19'5" 20'11" 23'0" 8'9"* 9'0" 18'0"* 19'3"** 18'5"** 20'11" 23'0" 8'9" 10'0" 19'0" 20'3" 19'5" 18'6" 22'0" 8'9"* 10'0" 18'0"* 19'2"* 18'6"* 18'6" 22'0" 8'9" 12'3" 19'0" 18'5" 17'3" 13'0" 22'0" 8'9"* L?,'3" 18'0"* 1T9"* 16'6"* 13'0" 22'0" 8'0" 22'0" 22'0" 8'0" 8'0" 12'0" 24'0" *The parking lot dimensions may be reduced upon submission and prior city council approval of a comprehensive snow removal site plan. The snow CD4:41 § 4-3 NEW HOPE CODE removal site plan shall be contractual in nature, signed by the property.- owner and filed with the city clerk. The reduction shall not be allowed until the conditions of this section are met. A = Angle of parking C= Curb lenglh per car D = Stall ~ I: = $1all F = Amle wicltn Park/ng Lot Dimension~ Within structures. The off-street parking requirements may be furnished by providing a space so designed within the principal building or one structure attached thereto; however, unless provisions are made, no building permit shall be issued to convert said parking structure into a dwelling un/t or living area or other activity until other adequate provisions are made to comply with the required off-street parking provisions of this Code. Streets not used. Except under joint parking provisions or in the case of ' single-, two-family and townhouse dwellings, parking areas shall be de- signed so that circulatio~ between parking bays or aisles occurs within the designated parking lot and does not depend upon a public street or alley. Except in the case of single-, two- family and townhouee dwellings, parking area design which requires baeirin~ into the public street is prohibited. Curb cut proximity to intersection. No curb cut or other driveway access shall be located less than 40 feet from the intersection of two or more street rights-of-way. This distance shall be measured from the intersection of lot CD4:42 ZONING § 4-3 Curb cut mRYimum. No curb cut access shall exceed the follo~Ung width dimensions measured at a point setback 20 feet from the property Line: Residential ............................................... Residential single.family with a three car garage. 28 fee: Corem ercial/mdustrial. .................................... 26 feet All curb cuts shall be installed to comply with the ci .ty's curb cut design standards. The curb radius for any curb cut shall not exceed 35 feet. Curb cut widths up to 32 feet may be permitted subject to review and recommen- dation of the city engineer and approval of the city manager. Before the cit~' engineer recommends a curb cut exceeding the maximum widths set out herein, they shall consider the type of land use the curb cut will serve, the extent and nature of the vehicular traffic anticipated the type, the width of the street serving the property where the curb cut will be located, and any regulations promulgated by the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation relative to driveway and curb cut dimensions. 7. Curb cut minimum. Curb cut openings shall be located at minimum five feet f~om the side yard lot line in all districts. 8. Curb cut separation. Driveway access curb openings on a pubhc street except for single-, two-family and townhouse dwellings shall not be located less than 40 feet from one another. 9. Parking area grades. The grade elevation of any parking area shall not exceed five percent. 10. Driveway access minimum. All property shall be entitled to at least one ...... driveway access. Each property shall be allowed one driveway access for each 125 feet of street f~ontage. Single-family uses shall be limited to one driveway access per lot. 11. Surfacing. All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust and drainage. Driveway aprons shall be constructed and surfaced with either concrete or bituminous in compliance with adopted city construction specifications.... Except in the case of single-family and two-family dwellings, driveways and stalls ahall be sLu~aced with a six inch class five base and two inch bituminous topping. Plana for surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalla for five or more vehicles shall be submitted to the city engineer for review nn~ the final drainage plan shall be subject to written approval of the 12. Striping. Except for single-family, two-family and ~ouses, all parking atalla ahall be marked with painted lines not less than four inches wide, which stripin~ ahall be maintained for legibility on a regular basis. 24 feet § 4-3 NEW HOPE CODE (5) (6) (7) 13. Lighting. Any lighting used to ill,,minate an off-street parking area shall be so arranged as to reflect the light away from adjoining propert3: abutting residential uses and public rights-of-way and be m compliance with subsec- tion 4-3(d)(5) of thi.~ Code. 14. Signs. No sign shall be so located as to restrict the sight lines and orderly operation and traffic movement within any parking lot. 15. Curbing and landscaping. All open off-street parking shall have a contmu- oas perimeter concrete curbing, unless otherwise recommended by the city engineer, around the entire parking lot, said curb barrier shall not be closer than five feet to any lot line. Plantings or surfacing material shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area. No landscaping in the boulevard shall interfere with the view of the street for drivers entering or exiting the premises. This requirement shall not apply to off-street parking areas for single-fRmily or two-family dwellings or Wwnhouse units with direct street access to garages. 16. Required screening. Ali open, off-street parking areas of five or more spaces shall be screened and landscaped from abutting or surrounding residential districts in compliance with subsection 4-3(dX3) of tiffs Code. Maintenance. It shall be the joint and several responsibility of the owner of the principal use (or lessee,//'there bo one), to use and to maintain in a neat and adequate manner, the park/ng space, accessways, str/ping, landscaping, and reqnired fences. Location. All accessory off-street parking facilities required by tiffs Code shall be located and restricted as follows: a. Same lot. Requ/red accessory off-street parking shall bo on the same lot under the same ownership as the principal use being serviced, except under the provisions of subsections 4-3(eXll) and 4-3(e)(12) of this Code. b. Head in parking. Except for single-, two-family and townhouse dwellings, head-in parking, directly off of and adjacent to a public street, with each stall having its own direct access to the public street, shall be prohibited. c. Parking distance from property line. There shall be no off-street parking within three feet of any property l/ne.. d. Boulevard parking prohibited. The boulevard portion of the street right-of-way shall not be used for parking. Other use of requ/red parking area. Requ/red accessory off-street parking spaces in any district shah not be utilized for open storage, sale or rental of goods, storage of inoperable vehicles as regulated by subsection 4-3(dXS)a of tiffs Code, and/or storage of snow. No parking area shall be used for sales, dead storage, body repair work, including, but not limited to, frame or fender repair, or mechanical repairs of any k/nd, except that tiffs shall not apply to home maintenance work of a customary or routine 2865 Quebec Avenue CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OctoDer 7, 1997 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 Sonsin called the meeting to orcler at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Hernken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oetkers, Svendsen Stulberg, Damiani, Kramer Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Cary Teague, Planning Consultant, Stephanie Olson, Community Development Specialist, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT ITEMS There were no consent items on the agenda. PU~_~.IC-I~ARING ....-"P'C97-21 ~,. Item 4.!~.'l' Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Variance to Allow a Second Driveway Access, 2865 Quebec Avenue North, Patrick and Carol Benolkin, Petitioners. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioners were requesting a variance to allow a second driveway access at the home they recently purchased at 2865 Quebec Avenue, which is located on the north side of the ~Y" intersection of Valle Vista and Quebec Avenue North. The existing driveway access/curb-cut is located on Valle Vista and a new curb-cut is being requested on Quebec Avenue to facilitate a driveway extension and a circular drive. The Zoning Code limits single family dwellings to one driveway access per lot and the petitioners are requesting a variance from that code requirement. McDonald stated that the petitioners ara requesting the second driveway entrance on Quebec Avenue to facilitate the unloading and loading of disabled relatives. Currently there is no easy access to the home from the existing driveway. The petitioners indicated in correspondence that disabled people would have to enter through the garage, which involves three narrow steps, then through a porch and another rise to the dining room, or along an outside sidewalk with a turn and a potentially difficult time during poor weather conditions. The petitioners also indicated that the curve on the current driveway makes backing down difficult and potentially dangerous because of the streets intersecting at that location. They stated that the proposed Quebec access was not near any of the neighbors driveways, adjacent to, or across the street. Mr. McDonald stated the property is located in an R-l, Single Family Residential, Zoning District and is surrounded by R-1 properties. The property is an irregular, triangular-shaped lot that contains 9,500 square feet. The existing structure on the site meets all setback requirements. The topography of the property is flat and the lot contains several mature trees. The driveway extension/second curb-cut would provide some additional parking on the site, besides the four parking spaces currently available. McDonald stated that property owners within 350' of the site were notified. City staff received one inquiry about the request and a concern was expressed about the number of vehicles parked at the site. Planning Commission Meeting I October 7, 1997 t~.;r. McDonald reminded the Commissioners that the purpose of a variance is to provide relief from the strict application of the Zoning Code where undue hardship prevents reasonable use of ~13e property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship can ex~st by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property. The circumstances should be unique to the property and not createcl by the land owners. Mr. McDonald stated that this request was reviewed by Department Heads and no serious concerns were raised. The Public Works Department indicated that there would be no changes macie ~n snow plowing efforts. The Design & Review Committee reviewed this request and discussed the uniqueness of the lot, the purpose of the request, confirmed that the materials for the new driveway extension would match the existing driveway, and the Committee was supportive of the request. Mr. McDonald reported that staff felt the request was justified because of the irregular shape of the lot which yields a difficult driveway arrangement, circumstances are unique, the situation was not a result of the actions of the owner, the variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood or diminish property values, and there would be no public safety concern or street congestion. The request was made to accommodate disabled relatives, and several other requests like this have been approved in the past. McDonald explained that Council had directed staff to study the accessory building issue, with one garage/one driveway limitation. The Codes & Standards Committee will undertake this study later this fall. Mr. McDonald explained that the proposed second curb cut would be located approximately 120 feet north of the Quebec/Valle Vista intersection and the next closest driveway entrance on the west side of Quebec is approximately 100 feet north of the proposed curb cut. The property owner had submitted photographs of the proposed driveway location which were shown to the Commissioners. Mr. Patrick Benolkin, and his wife Carol, 2865 Quebec Avenue, came to the podium to answer questions of the Commission. Commissioner Oelkers thanked the petitioners for the pictures and stated that the Commission was concerned that the new driveway materials match the existing driveway. Commissioner Svendsen asked with where the RV would be parked during the winter months. Mr. Benolkin stated that the RV was in the driveway at this time only for repair. It would be taken back to Mille Lacs soon. Chairman Sonsin inquired about the age and condition of the existing driveway and whether there would be two shades of black when the extension was added. Mr. Benolkin stated that the existing driveway would be replaced when the extension is added. Chairman Sonsin stated that the second curb cut could have an affect on the property value and was not sure whether the curb cut would increase or decrease the value of the home. Mr. Benolkin replied that they had observed some circle driveways south of Medicine Lake Road and east of Winnetka to get ideas for the shape of the new driveway and stated he felt the circle driveway would look nice. Commissioner Hemken questioned whether there was any response from Planning Commission Meeting 2 October 7, 1997 neighbors and Mr. McDonald stated that one neighbor was concernea with the number of vehicles parked in the driveway. Mr. Benolkin stated that the trailer would be moved when they were finished using it for another project. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svenclsen, to approve Planning Case 97-21, Request for a Variance to Allow a Second Driveway Access, 2865 Quebec Avenue North, Patrick and Carol Benolkin, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1. Materials of driveway extension to match existing driveway. 2. City standards must be complied with on the boulevard portion of the new driveway, with a driveway permit. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Hemken, Keefe, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen None Stulberg, Damiani, Kramer Chairman Sonsin informed the petitioner that this planning case would appear on the City Council agenda on October 13, 1997. PC97-19 Item 4.2 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Recluest for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Outdoor Storage Trailer, 2751 Winnetka Avenue North/Midland Shopping Center, Arc of Hennepin County/Value Village Thrift Store and Kraus-Anderson Realty Company, Petitioners. Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioners were requesting a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor storage trailer at the rear of the shopping center. Value Village Thrift Store is owned and operated by the non- profit organization Arc of Hennepin County and has been located at City Center Shopping Center at the corner of 42"= & Winnetka Avenues for the past five years. They have outgrown their current location and are expanding and relocating within New Hope into the Midland Shopping Center at Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. The store would occupy over 5,000 square feet and would be located in the tenant spaces adjacent to and just north of Cinema Caf~ at the northwest corner of the center..The new location would include a sales floor, an expanded support room, and a drive-up donation drop-off area. Value Village would feature a staffed donor drive-up drop-off center at the rear of the building, as well as a loading area and door for the removal of recycled textiles. A plain, signage-free trailer would collect and remove small bales of textiles. The parking lot location for this trailer would be striped, and the trailer would be removed monthly and replaced with an empty trailer. McDonald explained that the petitioner stated that this activity would not cause disruption to the neighborhood, and would not increase noise or traffic at the center. The Value Village location in Richfield had been utilizing a trailer in this capacity for over one year, and the surrounding neighborhood and residences in proximity to this location have not experienced disruption or offered any negative comments in regard to Value Village operations. McDonald showed some photographs of the trailer and signage at the Richfield site. Mr. McDonald stated that Midland Shopping Center is located in a B-4, Community BusineSs, Zoning District and retail stores are allowed as a permitted use. This application should focus on the outside storage issue. The petitioner was requesting a CUP to allow one semi-trailer at Planning Commission Meeting 3 October 7, 1997 COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda A~enda Section DeveT~pment City Manager & Planning I'--"") 10-13-97 Kirk McDonald / Item No. By: Management Assistant By:. ~ 8.3 PLANNING CASE 97-21, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SECOND DRIVEWAY ACCESS. 2865 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH, PATRICK & CAROL BENOLKIN, PETITIONERS The petitioners are requesting a variance to allow a second ddveway access, pursuant to Sectior 4.036(4)(x) - New Hope Code of Ordinances. The petitioners recently purchased the home at 2865 Quebec Avenue North, which is located on the north side of the "Y" intersection of Valle Vista and Quebec Avenue North. The existing ddveway access/curb-cut is located on Valle Vista and a new (second) access/curb-cut is being requested on Quebec Avenue to facilitate a driveway extension and a circular drive. The Zoning Code states that "Each property shall be allowed one driveway access for. each 125 feet of street frontage; that all property shall be entitled to at least one driveway access; and that single family uses shall be limited to one driveway access per lot. The petitioners are requesting a variance from this code requirement. The petitioners state that they are requesting the second access/driveway entrance on Quebec Avenue to facilitate the unloading and loading of a disabled mother and sister. They state that currently there is no easy access to the home from the current driveway. They indicate that disabled people would have to enter through the garage, which involves three narrow steps, then through a porch and another dse to the dining room, or along an outside sidewalk with a turn and a potentially difficult time during poor weather conditions. The petitioners also state that the curve on the current driveway makes backing down difficult and potentially dangerous because of the streets intersecting at that location. They state that the proposed Quebec access is not near any of the neighbors driveways, adjacent to, or across the street. The property is located in an R-l, Single Family Residential, Zoning District and is surrounded by R-1 properties. The property is an irregular, triangular-shaped lot that contains 9,500 square feet. The existing structure on the site meets all setback requirements. The topography of the property is flat. ! ~'~-00~ ~ Request for Action Page 2 10-13-97 This request was reviewed by appropriate Department Heads and no serious concerns were raised by the Police Department or Public Works. Public Works indicated that City crews will continue to plow streets without changing pace or method at driveways. The extra plowing or shoveling due to the driveway extension is significant and the responsibility of the property owner. The Design & Review Committee of the Planning Commission reviewed this and discussed the uniqueness of the lot and confirmed with the petitioner that the materials for constructing the driveway extension would match the existing drive. The Committee was generally supportive of the request. Staff find that the request is justified due to the following factors: 1. The irregular lot shape yields a difficult driveway arrangement; 2. The circumstances are unique; 3. The situation does not result from the actions of the owner; 4. The vadance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or diminish property values; 5. No public safety concern or street congestion is created. 6. The request is being made to accommodate disabled relatives; several other requests of this nature have been approved in the past. 7. Also of importance is the location of the proposed second curb cut. The new access would be located approximately 120 feet north of the Quebec/Valle Vista intersection and the next driveway entrance on the west side of Quebec is approximately 100 feet north of the proposed curb cut. Council direction to staff recently has included a request to reconsider the entire issue of accessory buildings and the "one garage" limitation, which is directly related to the "one driveway" limit. For many property owners, a second garage is possible only with a second driveway, such as corner lots, etc. The Codes & Standards Committee will be undertaking a study of accessory buildings and related issues this fall. The Planning Commission considered this request at its October 7 meeting and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Materials of ddveway extension to match existing driveway. 2. City standards must be complied with on the boulevard portion of the new driveway, with a driveway permit. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. i WISCONSIN 30T~ I I I [ ' I 30TH AV~. N 30 TI-I &VF N EWCREST LA NE Z?2/ ROAD mlmmm lmmmm S.89' ~'E ~58.94 l C, Ei:I'P,F'Y '~HA? ~ ~1 I'HE .~ROP~::I~'i"Y Oil OWNEI::I'S ~E~:~.ESENTAT1V-- AND TH. AT / (sT) Appli- cation number 03-17 Ao B. C. D. B Applicant Name Address Phone Otto and Annette Lausten 9117 35~h Avenue N New Hope 55427 763-544-3317 CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG C Date application received by City 11/7/03 D Date Applicant was sent notice that required information was missing Date 60- day time limit expires 1/6/04 Date 120- day time limit expires 3/6/04 G H I ~ Date Applicant was notified of extension Deadline for City action under extension or waiver 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: December 2, 2003 Report Date: November 26, 2003 Improvement Project No. 718 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North Review and Discussion of City Center Task Force Study Area Redevelopment Proposals and Recommendations I. Request Staff requests to review and discuss the City Center Task Force study area redevelopment proposals and recommendations with the Planning Commission. The comments and recommendations from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the City Council. The purpose of this meeting is to present all of the information to the Planning Commission and to solicit feedback from the Commission on the development proposals for each of the City Center sites. All of the information is contained in the attached 3-ring notebook. Staff is recommending that the order of the presentation be as follows: 1. Introduction: Staff 2. Summary of Task Force Process: Aimee Gourlay, facilitator 3. Presentation of Concept Plans and Recommendations: GeoffMartin, DSU planner 4. Zoning Issues: Al Brixius, planning consultant 5. Summary of Financial Concepts: Greg Johnson, financial consultant 6. Task Force Member Input 7. Public Input I1. Background The redevelopment of the City Center area has been discussed a number of times in the past years, with the most recent being the New Hope City Center Streetscape Master Plan completed in 1998. Over the past several years, there have been a number of changing conditions in the City Center area and the city feels that the timing is right for a major redevelopment of the area. The City Council believes broad citizen input and support is essential as the city explores redevelopment of. the City Center area and authorized staff to form a task force to study redevelopment opportunities, as well as develop specific goals and a timeline for the task force. Task Force Goals: Goals for the task force were established in May 2002. The general goals are: 1. Establish a sense of place and a unifying theme that connects and inter-relates the entire City Center. 2. The City Center redevelopment shall be integrated with the surrounding neighborhoods to encourage community residents to patronize the City Center. 3. City Center designs shall take advantage of in place amenities that contribute to the City Center sense of place. Planning Case Report 00-13 Page 1 11/26/03 4. Pursue land use densities and values that make redevelopment financially feasible. This will_ require flexibility from current zoning standards related to setbacks, density, parking, greer space, and building height. 5. Retain or pursue commercial and residential products that are needed and/or lacking within the city of New Hope. The City Center planning process includes four stages: 1. Physical and Market Analysis 2. Framework Plan 3. Implementation Strategies 4. Design Framework Manual Preparation Applications for the task force were accepted for several months in mid-2002. In December 2002, the City Council named the 15 members of the task force and the first meeting of the task force was held in January 2003. When appointing members to the task force, the City Council included community residents, civic leaders, business owners and faith-based organization representatives to ensure diversity within the group. The current members of the task force are: · Ms. Jennifer Kirchoffner · Mr. Roger Landy · Ms. Bev Erickson · Mr. Tom McKinney · · · · Mr. Jim Brinkman Mr. Chris Lange Ms. Kimberly Johnson Mr. Richard D. Friedrichsen Consultants involved with the planning process: · Mr. Kevin Tiffany · Ms. ShariVelazquez · Mr: Stan Mack · Mr. Jim Collins · Ms. Tina Haugstad · Pastor Dave Rodquist · Mr. Bahram Akradi · Geoff Martin, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, planner · Alan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants, planning consultant · Greg Johnson, Krass Monroe, financial consultant · Mark Hansen, Bonestroo & Associates, city engineer · Rick Martens, Brookstone, Inc., developer consultant · Aimee Gouraly, mediation facilitator Task Force Actions: The task force has met nine times since established. At the first meeting held in January 2003, the task fome reviewed a number of previous studies and planning documents for the city. Included in these were: · City Center Streetscape Master Plan · Comprehensive Plan · Zoning Code update · Life Cycle Housing Study · Thrift Store Study In March 2003, the task force members participated in a visual preferences survey. The survey showed various land use alternatives in other cities as well as existing conditions in New Hope. Specifically, the survey included items showing general image and character, commercial building types, franchise architecture, residential building types, signs, parking lot treatments, and open spaces. The task force evaluated each photo and the results were tabulated. Planning Case Report 00-13 Page 2 11/26/03 Throughout the study, the task force received and studied information regarding other redevelopment sites in the Twin Cities as well as ideas related to strip mall redevelopment and smart growth development. In April 2003, they toured the following three area development projects: · Golden Valley Town Square · Park Commons, St. Louis Park · Woodlake Centre, Richfield The task force members considered various aspects of each development, including housing types, retail, density, parking, focal points and public space. A market research study was completed to provide preliminary analysis of the mix and types of housing and commercial development that may be appropriate for the City Center area, as well as the price points and target markets the site could serve. In May 2003, the research was presented to the task force and indicated that there is a market in New Hope for a broader range of housing products including co-ops, townhomes, manor homes, stacked flats, condominiums, and others. The research also found that New Hope has well above the Twin Cities average in senior care facilities and multi-unit housing. The commercial market research indicated: · The City Center's highly visible location and strong traffic counts made it an attractive site for new retail. · The city should follow the industry trend and "prune back" the large volume of current retail at City Center to a sustainable level of perhaps 75,000 to 125,000 square feet of neighborhood retail. · The office market in New Hope is weak and that new office space should be limited to about 50,000 square feet. In June, the task force reviewed and presented comments on conceptual redevelopment plans developed by Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban and considered financing options. This review process continued at the July meeting where the task force reviewed updated concept plans and provided recommended adjustments. A draft design guideline document for the redevelopment area was presented to the task force at the August meeting. The purpose of the guidelines is to foster high quality architecture and site planning, maintain an urban development pattern, and protect public and private investment in the area. The task force has recommended approval of these guidelines. A Livable Communities Demonstration Account Opportunities Grant application was submitted this past summer to the Metropolitan Council and the city was notified in mid-September that funding for the $55,500 grant application was approved. The grant will be used to offset costs of planning activities associated with the redevelopment. An open house was held on September 18 and was attended by nearly 100 interested individuals. The concept plans developed by the task force were displayed and a presentation was made outlining the process, followed by a question and answer session. Useful feedback on the four different concept plans was received. The feedback indicated support for the concept that included a grocery component as well for the concept with a major retailer. The task force met in October and discussed input received from the open house and began to formulate its final recommendations. The task force has taken the feedback into consideration, as well as the market research and financial feasibility available for the different concept plans, and formulated its final recommendations. Following are the policy and implementation recommendations that the task force finalized in November: Planning Case Report 00-13 Page 3 11/26/03 Policy Recommendations: · An all-housing option with minimal retail will not create a "town center" feel and should not be considered. · The framework plan should be flexible to accommodate changing market conditions. · The best option for a grocery store may be to include it within a major retailer in the school district property. · We want to encourage restaurant/sports bars in the area. The Planning Commission and City Council should consider regulatory changes to make it easier to attract them. · We prefer to have as little rental housing as possible. · We want the park to be public, multi-seasonal, not solely used by the neighborhood residents. · Retaining existing businesses that contribute to a vital business community should be a high priority. · Upgrading buildings that remain should be pursued. · Allow for a reduction in parking requirements in situations when it can be shown that the required number is not necessary. · Require at least one enclosed parking unit per residence. · Explore other redevelopment opportunities in keeping with the City Center concept along County Road 9. Implementation Recommendations: · The city should be proactive in making the redevelopment occur, through land acquisition, investigating opportunities through discussion with property owners, and soliciting developer proposals. · The first action should be to pursue relocating the school district bus garage and administration building. This will spur other redevelopment in the area and provide sites for existing businesses from other sites in the redevelopment area. The next steps would be to work with Winnetka Center or the Kmart site. · The city should allocate adequate resources to coordinate the project. · The task force should stay involved with the project on an as-needed basis, for ongoing civic development of the area, fundraising, feedback on plans, etc. · Adopt the proposed design guidelines and future supportive ordinances to foster high quality architecture and site planning, reinforce the character envisioned by the community and protect public and private investment in the City Center area. · The city should pursue the action steps outlined in the implementation strategy. Other information: A petition indicating support of the Unique Thrift Store has been started by a local citizen, which is located in the Winnetka Shopping Center. A copy of the petition is available for viewing. Additionally, a draft resolution proposing that the City Council table any decision to proceed on the City Center development for a minimum of 120 days has been submitted. In related news, the co-owner of the New Hope shopping center has begun making significant exterior improvements to the center, including new signage, outdoor dining areas, etc. The Bally's Total Fitness located in the center closed in late September. The facility underwent significant renovations and has reopened as Lifetime Fitness. III. Recommendation Staff is recommending that the Commission review and respond to the proposals in concept form only; this is not intended to be a detailed review of each proposal. The concepts will be presented to the City Council on December 8, and it is anticipated that the Council will only review the proposals and recommendations in concept form and then meet for a more detailed review and question/answer Planning Case Report 00-13 Page 4 11/26/03 session at a City Council work session after the first of the year. At that time, it is anticipated that the Council will either select a concept plan for each site or provide other direction to staff. Any specific development proposals that proceed would be reviewed in detail by the Planning Commission at a later date. Attachments: 3-Ring Notebook Planning Case Report 00-13 Page 5 11/26/03 City.of New Hope To: From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development November 26, 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. November 10 Council/EDA Meetinqs - At the November 10 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: · Project #756, Motion authorizinq staff to neqotiate the potential purchase of 7601 Bas,= Lake Road Extension based on its appraised value of $220,000: Approved, see attached Council request. · Proiect #685, Resolution approvin.q sale of 6151 Louisiana Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. · Project #626, Resolution adoptin.q assessments for 36th Avenue infrastructure. improvements: Adopted, see attached Council request. A letter of objection was received from St. Joseph's Church, which was entered into the record. · Motion placin.q parkin.q restrictions on Boone Avenue between Bass Lake Road and Science Center Drive: Approved, see attached Council request. · PC03-16, Request for CUP to allow a commercial recreational facility in an industrial zoning district and a variance from the arterial street access requirement, 8801 Science Center Drive: The Council approved the request and added a condition that the applicant relocate the accessible parking stalls from the south side of the building to the front entrance. Motion authorizin,q staff to obtain an appraisal of 4301 Nevada Avenue Approved, see attached Council request. Proiect #665, Resolution callin.q for public hearin.q to approve sale of city owned pror~ertv at 7500-7528 42"d Avenue to JCS Development Inc. and Frey Development Inc.: Approved, see attached EDA request. Project #733, Update on potential redevelopment of Frank's Nursery site at 5620 Winnetka Avenue and motion authorizinq tax increment financin.q analysi.=: Approved, see attached EDA request. November 24 Council/EDA Meetings - At the November 24 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: · Project #665, Resolution approvin.q declaration of covenants for 7500-28 42nd Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. · Project #728, Resolution vacating dedicated drainaqe and utility easements, sanitary and storm sewer easements and sidewalk easement: Approved, see attached Council request. · Ordinance 03-24, An ordinance amendin.q Chapter 3 of the New Hope City Code re.qulatinfl buildin.q sprinkler systems: Approved, see attached Council request. · Project #665, Resolution approving purchase agreements with JCS Development Inc. and Frey Development Inc. for sale of 7500-28 42"d Avenue DroDertv: Approved, see attached EDA request. · Proiect #665, Resolution approvin.q declaration of covenants for 7500-28-42"d Avenue: Approved, see attached EDA request. · Project #665, Resolution approvin.q environmental monitorina ~3roposal for 7500-28 42"a Avenue property: Approved, see attached EDA request. · Project #756, Resolution approvin.q purchase aqreement and relocation benefits for 7601 Bass Lake Road: Approved, see attached EDA request. Codes and Standards Committee - The Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in November. Staff will be requesting to schedule another committee meeting in January to discuss the following items: A. Transit Shelters -Two things occurred since the Planning Commission reviewed this matter, 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.S. 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. City staff will be meeting on a staff level to discuss these issues and reviewing similar ordinances approved by the city of Roseville and will then coordinate a committee meeting. B. 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. (3. 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 November with the petitioners. The deadline for the January Planning Commission meeting is December 12. Committee members will be notified regarding the status of the December 18 Design and Review meeting. There are several applications that may proceed forward, as listed under #5 below, depending on the applicant's readiness to proceed. Future Applications - Future applications or businesses that staff is currently working with include: · Culvers and office condo project, 42® and Quebec · St. Joseph's Church residential development · Dakota Growers (Creamettes) expansion · Ryland/East Winnetka · CVS/West Winnetka · AC Carlson new development · Independence Avenue · Collisys-amend CUP · YMCA addition City Center Task Force Update - The task force has completed the concept plan portion of the study and submitted its recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. The notebook is enclosed with the packet for your review prior to the meeting. Livable Communities Study - Staff is working with developers on all four target sites and will update the Commission at the meeting. 2004 Planninq Commission Schedule - The final 2004 schedule is attached. Please note the following changes: Tuesday, July 13, Wednesday, August 4, and Wednesday, November 3. Packets will be delivered on the Friday prior to the meeting. PlanninqlCouncillEDA Minutes - Enclosed are Council/EDA meeting minutes for your review. If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff. Attachments: 7601 Bass Lake Road 6151 Louisiana Avenue 36th Avenue infrastructure improvements Parking restrictions on Boone Avenue 4301 Nevada Avenue 7500-28 42nd Avenue 5620 Winnetka Avenue 7500-28 42nd Avenue declaration of covenants - Coucnil Vacating easements on Navarre project Ordinance amendment - sprinkler systems 7500-28 42"d Avenue purchase agreements 7500-28 42"d Avenue declaration of covenants - EDA 7500-28 42"d Avenue monitoring proposal 7602 Bass Lake Road City Center Task Force Minutes 2004 Planning Commission Schedule Council/EDA Minutes CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 4, 2003 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT BUSINESS 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 p.m. Present: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Landy, O'Brien, Svendsen Absent: Hemken, Oelkers Aisc Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC03-16 Item 4.1 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for conditional use permit to allow a commercial recreational facility in an industrial zoning district and a variance from the arterial street access requirement, 8801 Science Center Drive, Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway, Inc./CSM Equities, Petitioners. Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, stated that the applicant was requesting a conditional use permit to allow a commercial recreational facility in an industrial zoning district and a variance from the arterial street access requirement. The property is located in an industrial zoning district on the southwest quadrant of Science Center Drive and Boone Avenue. The site is surrounded by industrial properties, with the North Ridge Care Center somewhat to the north and east across Boone Avenue. The site contains 11.3 acres. The building area contains 130,140 square feet, or 26 percent of the entire lot, parking occupies 23 percent of the lot, and the balance of the site, 51 percent, is green space. The site is located in Planning District 3 of the Comprehensive Plan, which indicated this area of the city has a strong industrial base in excellent condition, The building is currently vacant. Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway submitted an application for a CUP to operate an indoor carting and corporate entertainment center ~t 8801 Science Center Drive. The applicant was proposing to relocate, from Brooklyn Center, an indoor go-cart facility into an existing building within an industrial area. The proposed use would include indoor go-cart tracks for children and adults, an on-site restaurant, office and meeting room space. The October 10 narrative stated Thunder Alley felt the business would enrich the community of New Hope and the surrounding business community. Corporate and private groups utilize their facility. They host events for Thursday's Child, AASP, the Arthritic Foundation, and a variety of other organizations. Thunder Alley offers two different tracks to accommodate all age groups, and they pride themselves on past track safety records. The selection of different carts and barrier systems make the tracks the safest available. Their European engineered barriers also allow them to change the track configuration to always make it exciting and new for their customers. Additional correspondence was submitted with the revised plans that detailed the changes in the plans. McDonald reported that the purpose of a conditional use permit was 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, the city may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings, similar uses already in existence and located on the same premises or close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises. Commercial .recreation facilities are defined to include cart tracks and are a permitted conditional use within the industrial district. In determining whether to approve or deny a CUP, the City Council and Planning Commission shall find that the CUP complies with specific criteria. The burden of proof demonstrating compliance is the responsibility of the applicant. 1 ) The property is guided for industrial use and the proposed use is a permitted conditional use within this district. An existing vacant building would be utilized with the approval of this business. 2) The proposed use is a permitted conditional use within the industrial district and the applicant would be using an existing building within this district. 3) The proposed use shall comply with all applicable performance standards contained in the Zoning Code as a condition of approval, unless waived by the City Council. 4) The use would utilize an existing building within the industrial district and would be completely contained therein. The use should not adversely affect the area. 5) The applicant indicated that it would provide noise decibels related to the use. In addition, the applicant would install a ventilation system in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. 6) The proposed use would provide an economic return to the community, as it would bring a new commercial recreational use to the city. Additional criteria related to commercial recreational facilities would include street access to the building, compatibility of the building in appearance, lighting to be shielded from a residential zoned use, entire area other than that occupied by buildings or plantings should be surfaced with a bituminous or concrete material to control dust and drainage, and landscaping plan to be provided and subject to the approval of the city. With regard to the variance, McDonald explained that the access issue was a hardship created by the specific terms of the Zoning Code, which required recreational facilities to have direct access to an arterial street. Upon review of the application and the proposed use of the existing facility in the industrial district, staff determined that traffic issues might better be averted by permitting continued access via Science Center Drive, a neighborhood collector street. McDonald stated that the city engineer believed that the use would be adequately served by a collector street and that the ordinance should be amended to eliminate the requirement of access via an arterial street. The access issue was specific to this property and was not generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district. The hardship was unique to the parcel and had not been created by the landowner. Permitting continued access to the existing building via Science Center Drive would not alter the essential 'character of the neighborhood, would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, increase the congestion on the public streets, or increase danger of fire or public safety. Permitting continued access to the existing building via Science Center Drive would be the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. Commercial recreation facilities are defined to include cart tracks and are a permitted conditional use within the industrial district. McDonald stated that staff, the planning consultant, and the Design and Review Committee reviewed the plans and discussed parking, sidewalk/ entrance, lighting, landscaping, fuel storage, building code issues, loading docks, signage, hours of operation, and the go carts. Revised plans were submitted as a result of those meetings, which included the following details. Lighting should be hooded and so directed that the light source would not be visible from the right-of-way or from a residential use zone. The plans do not indicate any proposed additional lighting for the parking areas or surrounding property. The applicant should provide a photometric plan prior to the City Council meeting. The plans indicate that existing landscaping includes maple and pine trees. No additional landscaping was proposed for the site. The amount of landscaping near the front entrance has been reduced, as Planning Commission Meeting 2 November 4, 2003 recommended. All setbacks comply with the code. The applicant was proposing to install 550-gallon outdoor aboveground fuel storage tank on the site, which meets all Minnesota standards on secondary containment and would sit on a six-inch deep 8 by 10 platform surrounded by a four-foot fence. The location of the fuel tank would be directly behind the building in the rear parking lot. That location was selected due to underground power lines and the fact that a vent pipe would be 12 feet above ground and five feet from any building opening. The New Hope Zoning Code does not set forth specific parking standards for commercial recreational uses. Uses not specifically referenced are to be determined on an individual basis by the City Council and based on factors including national parking standards, parking standards for similar businesses and land uses, expected volume and turnover of customer traffic. The plans depict 228 parking stalls. The Zoning Code requires 90 degree parking stall dimensions of 8'9" by 19 feet. Existing stalls are slightly smaller than code requirements, but staff felt the size would be okay due to the existing condition. Calculations used to determine the number of parking stalls included American Parking Association standards for a go-cart track and New Hope standards for the type of building, which indicated the need for 104 stalls. The existing parallel parking spaces in front of the entrance have been eliminated per the recommendations of the Design and Review Committee and city staff. McDonald continued by stating that the applicant indicated that deliveries would occur through the front door of the building and that major use of the loading docks was not anticipated. Any loading activities that would require the use of the loading docks would occur at times other than normal business hours. The plans indicated existing sidewalks in front of the building (north side). Existing sidewalks should provide adequate pedestrian access for the proposed use. No signage plan had been submitted yet, however, the applicant indicated that they would be installing a wall sign on the north side of the building directly over the entrance. The size and type of sign are not indicated. The applicant would also install an illuminated sign on the east side of the building facing Boone Avenue with lighted letters that would read "Indoor Karting" or "Thunder Alley Indoor Karting." The size of the lettering is not indicated in the application. Wall signs are permitted within the industrial district. Tenants occupying a comer location are permitted to display identification signs to both street frontages. No individual tenant sign may exceed 100 square feet in area. The applicant was proposing to construct and install a new pylon sign to replace the existing pylon sign on the northeast corner of the site. The sign would be eight feet in length and six feet in height and would be illuminated. The code states that freestanding signs should not exceed 100 square feet or exceed 30 feet in height. The plans show a trash receptacle located within the rear loading dock area. The floor plan indicated two cart tracks, one for kids and one for adults. Both tracks have pit areas. On the west side of the interior space, cart repair and arcade areas are shown. The applicant would need to apply for appropriate permits or licensing with the city clerk for the arcade. Restrooms are located in both the track and front office areas. The front area on the lower level would include four offices, storage, restaurant/kitchen, three meeting rooms, waiting area, gift shop, break room and restrooms. The second level office plan shows two offices, a large meeting room, storage areas, and restrooms. Accessibility issues need to be addressed before this portion of the building is utilized for public use (elevator or lift). The applicant is aware of this situation and indicated they would comply with ADA standards prior to public use of this second level. The building official was concerned that no photometric plan had been provided. There are also many issues with various code requirements that must be dealt with at the time of the building permit application process. The city engineer indicated in correspondence that two-way traffic must be maintained in front of the building entrance and sidewalks should be provided Planning Commission Meeting 3 November 4, 2003 along the building to provide efficient pedestrian access to the parking lot. The police department was concerned with the need for adequate lighting on the exterior of the building. West Metro Fire stated that horn and strobes should be provided throughout the space, a fire alarm pull station would be required behind the front counter, as well as fire extinguishers. The building is fully sprinkled. McDonald summarized that the proposed use was a good re-use of a vacant industrial building and would bring a new business to the city. The use would be located on good transpiration routes, and would be isolated from residential areas so as not to create a nuisance or land use conflict. Staff was recommending approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Sam Baxter, 20140 Vance Street, Elk River, came forward to address the commission. He stated that the photometric plan would be submitted later this week. Commissioner Svendsen requested clarification on the number of carts per race and was told that approximately 10 to 12 adult carts were on the track at one time. Svendsen reiterated that he felt parking would not be an issue on the site. Pedestrian access should not be an issue either with a small number of vehicles on site at any one time. He did not feel that the landscaping should be eliminated to install a sidewalk on the east side of the building. Patrons would probably walk from their car, through the parking lot, to the building entrance. He added he felt this would be a great use of the space. Commissioner O'Brien questioned the safety of the fuel tank. Mr. Baxter stated that the fuel tank had been state certified at the Brooklyn Center location. The tank has a double wall and has a built-in secondary containment. There would be a decorative stone wall constructed around the tank. He stated depending on the weather, they would try to construct the wall yet this fall, but may have to do the work in the spring. If the work cannot be done this fall, they would put up a temporary fence around the tank for the winter. The tank would not be visible with the wall around it. Three posts encased in cement would be installed in front of the fuel tank. Baxter stated that the fire marshal was requesting a red stop button on the tank. No smoking signs would also be posted. A chain link fence would be installed across the top so no one could get inside the fenced area. A padlock would be on the gate/tank. Thunder Alley staff would fill a 30-gallon portable tank from the fuel tank and take the portable tank inside to fuel the go-carts. Near the rear loading dock in the existing building is an explosion proof room that would be utilized to store the fuel and any other needed chemicals. A switch inside the building would shut off power on the tank so no one other than employees could get gas out of the tank. Commissioner Brauch initiated discussion on why Thunder Alley was leaving Brooklyn Center. Baxter indicated that through the bankruptcy of Kmart, the subsequent building owner raised their rent substantially. Commissioner Buggy questioned where the trash receptacle was located and was told that the trash containers would be located indoors, rolled out the night before pick up and put back inside after the trash collection. No one in the audience wished to address the Commission, and the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to close the Public Hearing on Planning Case 03-16. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting 4 November 4, 2003 Commissioner Svendsen questioned what the decibel reading might be for this use. Mr. Baxter responded that information would be given to the building official for the inside of the building. Noise from the go-carts would not be heard outside the building. A question was raised on whether the noise would bother another tenant in the building and Baxter stated that there were no issues with Slumberland, the current adjacent tenant in Brooklyn Center. Commissioner Brauch asked for a comparison of the size of the proposed track to the current track in Brooklyn Center. Baxter indicated that this track may be a little longer and wider than at the current location. The barrier systems for the track can be changed to keep it interesting and exciting for the patrons. The lanes are approximately 30-feet wide. Mr. Baxter stated that the inside walls at the entrance and first floor office area would be moved around so that when people walk into the facility, they can see the track right away. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Barrick, to approve Planning Case 03-16, Request for conditional use permit to allow a commercial recreational facility in an industrial zoning district and a variance from the arterial street access requirement, 8801 Science Center Drive, Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway, Inc./CSM Equities, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1. Access to the site shall continue via Science Center Drive. 2. The applicant will provide an updated lighting/photometric plan. 3. All fuel storage issues and any storage of flammable materials shall be subject to the review and approval of the city's fire inspector and building official. 4. Loading and deliveries shall occur at times other than normal operating hours. 5. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan for review and approval by city staff. 6. The applicant shall submit noise decibel levels related to the use. 7. Approval of all plans and permits by the building official, including addressing the second floor access by the public to assembly room issue. 8. Approval by West Metro Fire and compliance with recommendations stated in October 14, 2003, memo. 9. Approval by city engineer and compliance with recommendations in October 15 and 30, 200'3, correspondence, excluding sidewalks. 10. Restaurant/kitchen facilities subject to review/approval of Hennepin County Health Department. 11. Obtain necessary permits/license from city clerk for video arcade. 12. Execute conditional use permit agreement with city to be prepared by city attorney. Voting in favor: Anderson, Barrick, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Hemken, Oelkers Motion carried. Brauch, Buggy, Landy, O'Brien, Landy s~ted thatthis planning case would be considered bythe City Council on November10. Design and Review Committee Item 5.1 Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met with representatives from Thunder Alley Speedway in October. A residential second curb cut will be reviewed at the December Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting 5 November 4, 2003 meeting. A Design and Review meeting will be held on November 13. Codes and Standards Committee Item 5.2 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Landy reported that the Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in October. Staff would be coordinating another meeting sometime soon. Landy reported that the sign ordinance had been accepted by the City Council and would be reviewed early next year at a work session. After some discussion on the 2004 planning schedule, the consensus was to hold the July meeting on the second Tuesday of the month, and hold the August and November meetings on the first Wednesday, due to National Night Out and the general election on the first Tuesday of those months. Landy reported that the City Center Task Force would be meeting on November 6. The task force would, hopefully, be finalizing the concept plans so they could move forward to the Planning Commission and City Council. McDonald gave a development update on several projects in the city, including Culvers/office condominiums, City Center, Navarre, East Winnetka area, West Winnetka area, Franks possibly moving to the Lyndale Garden site, plans for the Franks site, signage at the New Hope Mall, Sinclair station on Medicine Lake Road, Woodbridge, and the pet hospital. Motion was made by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of October 7, 2003. All voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed. There were no announcements. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8 p.m. _.P, est~ctfully subm.~i~ed. Pamela Sylvester' Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 6 November 4, 2003 City Council Minutes Regular Meeting CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 October 27, 2003 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OPEN FORUM ROTATING VOTES CONSENT AGENDA MOTION Consent Items New Hope City Council Page 1 The New Hope City Council met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Mayor Enck called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The City Council and all present stood for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Council Present: W. Peter Enck, Mayor Sharon Cassen, Councilmember Don Collier, Councilmember Mary Gwin-Lenth, Councilmember Steve Sommer, Councilmember Staff Present: Amy Baldwin, Community Development Intern Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator Doug Debner, Assistant City Attorney Dan Donahue, City Manager Ken Doresky, Community Development Assistant Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works Valerie Leone, City Clerk Kirk McDonald, Director of Commumty Development Steve Son&all, City Attorney Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember Cassen, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of October 13, 2003. Voting in favor: Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; Voting against: None; Abstained: Enck, Collier; Absent: None. Motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2003. Voting in favor: Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; Voting against: None; Abstained: Enck, Collier; Absent: None. Motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Gwin- Lenth, to approve the Work Session Meeting Minutes of October 20, 2003. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. There was no one present to ad&ess the Council for the Open Forum. Mayor Enck acknowledged the presence of Brian Berg, a Cooper High School student earning his citizenship badge for Eagle Scouts. Please note that votes taken on each agenda item are called by the secretary on a rotating basis; however, the written minutes always list the Mayor's name first followed by the Councilmembers in alphabetical order. Mayor 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. Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to approve all items on the Consent Agenda. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. October 27, 2003 BUSINESS LICENSES Approval of business license(s). Item 6.1 FINANCIAL CLAIMS Item 6.2 RESOLUTION 03-153 Item 6.4 RESOLUTION 03-154 Item 6.5 RESOLUTION 03-155 Item 6.6 RESOLUTION 03-156 Item 6.7 PUBLIC HEARING Item 7.1 MOT/ON/CONTINUE HEARING Item 7.1 IMP. PROJECT 677 Item 8.1 New Hope City Council Page 2 Approval of financial claims through October 27, 2003. Resolution ordering published notice and public hearing on sale of 6151 Louisiana Avenue North (improvement project no. 685). Resolution approving Metropolitan Council livable communities demonstration account (LCDA) opportunity grant (improvement project no. 718). Resolution approving purchase agreement for 5500 Winnetka Avenue North (improvement project no. 753). Resolution awarding contract to Valley-Rich Company, Inc. for the repair of a storm water system. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 7.1, Planmng case 03-13, motion accepting temporary signs in boulevard study recommendations from the planning commission and citizen advisory commission. Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated this is a public heating to consider recommended changes to the sign code and zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission and Citizen Advisory Commission have completed the Temporary Signs in Boulevard Study and the report is contained within a three- ting notebook. He reported that the two commissions did not agree on all aspects of the recommendations, primarily the signage setback requirements, therefore, staff and consultants have not prepared a final ordinance for approval pending final direction from the city council. Staff recommends that the council accept the report and defer discussion to an upcoming work session. Staff recommends that the council table the public hearing until a future council meeting. The council discussed upcoming agenda items and agreed to review the report at its January, 2004 work session and continue the public hearing to the council meeting of February 9, 2004. Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, to continue the public hearing of the study until the February 9, 2004, Council meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Council consideration and discussion regarding a written offer to purchase the fire damaged four-plex apartment building located at 8113 Bass Lake Road for the property owner's requested price of $296,190.28 (improvement project no. 677). Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Commumty Development, explained that both items 8.1 and 8.2 relate to the fire-damaged property at 8113 Bass Lake Road. The council last discussed this property at its meeting of October 13, 2003, and tabled it until tonight's meeting. During the meeting, the Council discussed future redevelopment plans for the area or lack thereof. Mr. McDonald emphasized that the potential purchase of the property was initiated by staff, not the property owner. He stated no specific redevelopment plan or developer has approached the city regarding this site. Staff viewed it as an oppormmty to landbank the property for future redevelopment purposes. Mr. McDonald stated the city presently has a number of projects in progress; therefore, if the council declines to pursue acquisition of the property, staff October 27, 2003 MOTION/NEGOTIATE PURCHASE Item 8.1 IMP. PROJECT 677 Item 8.2 MOTION/ EXEMPT/ON TO MORATORIUM Item 8.2 ELDORADO COURT APARTMENTS Item 8.3 New Hope City Council Page 3 recommends an exception to the building permit moratorium as outlined in Item 8.2. He noted although the property is contained within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force, he would support an exception to the moratorium as there is no pending city-approved redevelopment project for the subject property. Mayor Enck commented that the city has several existing projects and lacks the financial resources and staffing to proceed with this area at the present time. He expressed support for providing an exception to the building permit moratorium. Councilmember Collier concurred with Mayor Enck. He noted the moratorium ordinance allows exceptions for extenuating circumstances. Mr. Wade Klick, property owner of 8113 Bass Lake Road, was recognized. He noted he is pleased with the Mayor's recommendation as it is his preference to repair the property than to sell it. He noted he brought information on properties with comparable market values but will not need to share the information if the council determines to decline purchase. He also emphasized the need to take action on repairs to the properties before winter weather causes subsequent property damage. Councilmember Cassen commented that she believes this is a good opporumity for the city to purchase the property as there is a developer interested in the southwest quadrant at Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue. She noted this is one of the priority areas and she would like to keep it a priority. She stated the purchase price will only increase in the future. Councilmember Cassen also pointed out the long process (over two years) it took to acquire the east Winnetka properties. Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Gwin- Lenth, directing staff to negotiate a purchase for $286,190.28. Voting in favor: Cassen, Gwin-Lenth; Voting against: Enck, Collier, Sommer; Absent: None; Abstained: None. Motion failed. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Consideration of an exemption to ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending section 1.50) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force, for the property located at 8113 Bass Lake Road (improvement project no. 677). Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, clarified the difference between this request for an exemption to the ordinance and the previous request made by the property owner of 5434 Winnetka. He stated the property owner of 8113 Bass Lake Road needs the exception in order to return the property to a useable state whereas the property owner of 5434 Winnetka was proposing an expansion to the property. He advised the council that action to grant the exception would pose no threat of inconsistent treatment. Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember Collier, to approve the exemption to ordinance 03-17 construction moratorium. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.3, Motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of the Eldorado Court Apartments, 7701, 7721, 7741 and 7761 62nd Avenue North. Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, asked the council to determine whether or not it is interested in a potential purchase of the four seven- unit properties. October 27, 2003 Although the city has many other potential redevelopment projects proceeding at this time, staff wanted to present this matter for consideration due to the fact that the owner desires to sell the property. He stated the long-term goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to redevelop the south side of 62nd Avenue between Winnetka Avenue and West Broadway. Mayor Enck affirmed the appropriateness of staff staying in contact with property owners of redevelopment areas for potential sale of properties. However, he pointed out that the subject properties are not contiguous with the property currently owned by the city. He indicated he believes a purchase at this time would be premature. Councilmember Cassen disagreed with Mayor Enck's assessment and emphasized that the subject properties are located within Planning District 2 of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ross Taormina, property owner, was recognized. He indicated although he is not actively pursuing the sale of the properties, he contacted the city as a result of correspondence sent by the city inquiring of a potential sale. Mr. Taormina reported that he purchased the property approximately 2-1/2 years ago at which time the buildings were in poor condition. He explained that he has been making significant improvements and re-investment into the properties. The Council expressed appreciation to Taormina for undertaking property improvements. MOTION Item 8.3 Motion was made by Conncilmember Sommer, seconded by Conncilmember Gwin-Lenth, declining an interest to purchase the Eldorado Court Apartments at 7701, 7721, 7741 and 7761 62"a Avenue North. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. IMP. PROJECT 731 Item 8.4 Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.4, Resolution ordering construction of and awarding contract for construction of the 9200 49th Avenue North regional pond (improvement project no. 731). Mayor Enck reported that the city received notification today of a $90,000 grant from the Metropolitan Council to be used towards the regional storm water pond. He expressed appreciation to the Bonestroo staff, especially Shem Buss, for her involvement in securing the grant. Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, noted the low bidder for the work was Veit & Company, Inc. for $169,403.50. Funding for the city's portion of this project would come from the Storm Water Fund. RESOLUTION 03-157 Item 8.4 Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION ORDERING CONSTRUCTION OF AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE 9200 49TM AVENUE NORTH REGIONAL POND (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 731)". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. STORM WATER ANALYSIS Item 8.5 New Hope City Council Page 4 Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.5, Motion approving storm water analysis for livable communities redevelopment area by Bonestroo & Associates at estimated cost of $16,300. October 27, 2003 MOTION/APPROVE ANALYSIS Item 8.5 IMP. PROJECT 727 Item 8.6 RESOLUTION 03-158 Item 8.6 New Hope City Council Page 5 Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated staff requests that the City Council approve a motion approving a storm water analysis for the proposed development projects in the Livable Communities Redevelopment Area by Bonestroo & Associates at an estimated cost of $16,300. This is one of the key items that is needed before a site plan is finalized for the East Winnetka development, and staff/consultants believe it would be more economical to address a number of other projects in the planning stages at the same time with this analysis. The cost for the analysis would be spread among the appropriate development/improvement projects, with the goal of passing the cost for the study on to the appropriate developer. Mr. Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer, explained that storm water infrastructure will influence redevelopment in the Bass Lake corridor. He emphasized the importance of understanding the impacts of redevelopment in order to plan appropriately. He noted storm water systems can occupy large space and their placement can impact the amount of redevelopment area. Mr. VanderTop indicated the analysis will update the city's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that was completed in 1996. He stated the reasons to update the plan include: 1) redevelopment must meet water quality requirements of the city and Shingle Creek Watershed; 2) runoff from new development must be controlled to prevent flooding of new and existing properties; and 3) existing flooding issues may be corrected in conjunction with redevelopment infrastructure. Mr. VanderTop stated the report would be presented to Shingle Creek Watershed as an amendment to the existing SWMP. This would enable the city to redevelop in accordance with the amended SWMP potentially preventing the need for a detailed storm water review of each specific redevelopment area by the Watershed. Also, the report would lead to the identification of regional storm water improvements such as new trunk storm sewers, water quality ponds, and water retention areas. Each redevelopment area would contribute a "fair share" toward this regional system with the construction of actual infrastructure or the contribution of fees. The council commented on the value of the report for present and future redevelopment. Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Gwin- Lenth, approving the storm water analysis for livable communities redevelopment area by Bonestroo & Associates at estimated cost of $16,300. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.6, Resolution relating to the decerfification of a parcel from tax increment financing district no. 02-01 (improvement project no. 727). Mayor Enck explained that tax increment finance district no. 02-01 was created during the Navarre Corporation expansion project when it was believed that the Ahrens Tracking facility would relocate to 9200 49th Avenue. However, Ahrens did not purchase the city-owned property, and the property was later sold to the Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital. The Pet Hospital is not a qualifying use so the city must remove the parcel from the TIF district. Mayor Enck announced that action on this issue must first be taken by the EDA. The council meeting was suspended at 7:40 p.m. at which time the EDA meeting was held. The council meeting reconvened at 8:15 p.m. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE DECERTIFICATION OF A October 27, 2003 WEST METRO FIRE- RESCUE DISTRICT 2004 BUDGET Item 10.1 RESOLUTION 03-159 Item 10.1 ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEES Item 10.2 PARCEL FROM TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 02-01 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 727)". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Resolution Approving West Metro Fire-Rescue District's 2004 Budget. Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, explained that the city entered a joint powers agreement with the city of Crystal in 1998 to create the West Metro Fire-Rescue District for fire protection services. The 2004 budget is $1,228,829 which is a decrease of $370 from the 2003 budget. The share for New Hope is $528,281 (based on a formula of 48%). Mr. Donahue illustrated the budget covering the past five years. He stated the majority of the budget supports wages of five full-time employees and 66 paid-on- call fire fighters. Mayor Enck acknowledged the presence of Steve Reed and thanked him for his service on the West Metro Fire-Rescue District Board of Directors. Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING WEST METRO FIRE-RESCUE DISTRICT'S 2004 BUDGET". 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 10.2, Ordinance no. 03-21, an ordinance implementing an electric franchise fee on Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation d/b/a Xcel Energy, for providing electric energy service within the city of New Hope. Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, reported that franchise fees (or user fees) are allowed under state law. Utility companies typically use public property (right-of- way) for transmission lines. He noted other cities that have enacted franchise fees including Coon Rapids, New Brighton, Robbinsdale, and Ramsey. There are several other cities considering establishing franchise fees. The city of New Hope proposes to collect a flat rate rather than based on energy usage. He reviewed monthly charges based on the type of electric and natural gas account. City-wide, the natural gas franchise fee will provide $188,388 per year in revenue and the electric franchise fee will total $248,922 annually. The rate for a residential household (based on $1.50/month per utility) will total $3.00 per month. The ordinance will be effective commencing with the January, 2004 billing cycle. Mr. Donahue explained that the city council spent many hours reviewing budget issues and ways to maintain city services and programs. After much deliberation the council directed staff to proceed with the franchise fee ordinances to offset state aid cuts. New Hope City Council Page 6 October 27, 2003 Each council member commented on reasons for supporting or opposing the franchise fees: · Mayor Enck noted earlier this year it was premature to consider franchise fees; however, after thoroughly analyzing the budget and possible service cuts, he supports the franchise fees in order to maintain the delivery of city services at their present level. · Councilmember Sommer indicated he opposes the franchise fees because he would prefer a more balanced budget approach. He commented that staff was asked to arrive at $820,000 in budget cuts but the council only agreed upon $17,000 in cuts. He also noted that franchise fees, coupled with a maximum tax levy, will generate more than the loss of state aid. Councilmember Gwm-Lenth expressed support for the franchise fees in order to establish revenue to support the services desired by residents. She emphasized that the city's proposed 2004 budget does not reveal any irresponsible expenditures. She believes New Hope is a fiscally responsible city, and it would be unwise if the council didn't obtain the revenue in order to support services wanted by the community. Councilmember Cassen stated she was originally opposed to franchise fees. She stated after reviewing the proposed budget and much input and research, she realizes there is no other choice. She mentioned the need to pay the city back $108,000 that was taken from reserves. Councilmember Collier stated the budget review process led the city council to its decision relative to the need to adopt franchise fees. ORDINANCE 03-21 Item 10.2 GAS ENERGY FRANCHISE FEES Item 10.3 ORDINANCE 03-22 Item 10.3 Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: "ORDINANCE NO. 03-21, AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING AN ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE ON NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION D/B/A XCEL ENERGY, FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC ENERGY SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was seconded by Councilmember Collier, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth; and the following voted against the same: Sommer; 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. 03-22, an ordinance implementing a gas energy franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco, a division of CenterPoint Energy Resources Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, for providing gas energy service within the city of New Hope. Councilmember Collier introdUced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: "ORDINANCE NO. 03-22, AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING A GAS ENERGY FRANCHISE FEE ON CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO, A DIVISION OF CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, FOR PROVIDING GAS ENERGY SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE". 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; and the following voted against the same: Sommer; 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. RECOMMISSIONING FACILITY ANALYSIS Item 10.4 New Hope City Council Page 7 Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.4, Resolution approving agreement with enerTECH to provide a comprehensive recommissionmg facility analysis in conjunction with Xcel Energy at no cost to the city. Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, recommended entering into a contract with October 27, 2003 RESOLUTION 03-160 Item 10.4 COMMUNICATIONS Item 12.1 ADJOURNMENT enerTECH to provide an analysis of the city's mechanical systems and energy usage. He noted the city's existing ten-year energy audit agreement with Honeywell will expire in 2004. A decision must be made whether to continue with a service contract with Honeywell or another vendor. New Hope, along with four other cities (Coon Rapids, Brooklyn Park, New Brighton, and Anoka) will enter into a contract with enerTECH. Xcel Energy will fund up to 50 percent of the assessment report and enerTECH will pay the remaining costs. There will be no cost to the city. He stated the results of the analysis will be presented at a later date for discussion on future action concerning HVAC operations. Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH ENERTECH TO PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE RECOMMISSIONING FACILITY ANALYSIS IN CONJUNCTION WITH XCEL ENERGY AT NO COST TO THE CITY". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, 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 12.1, Exchange of commumcation between members of the city council. Mayor Enck · Reminded community of 12th Annual Mayor's Prayer Breakfast on Friday, October 31 · Commented that he and Councilmember Collier toured the Ryland Homes development in Circle Pines on Saturday, October 25. Ryland is the proposed developer for the East Winnetka area; Ryland welcomes the community for tours of the model townhomes. City Manager Donahue · Announced the open house for the PPL project at 7610 Bass Lake Road on Wednesday, October 29 from 4-6 pm · Reminded the Council of Stan Johnson's retirement party at the golf course on Thursday, October 30 from 3-5 pm · Shared ideas for the next "in the Pipeline" · Reported that Congressman.Sabo visited city hall today Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Gwin- Lenth, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no further business to come before the Council. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope City Council adjourned at 8:55 p.m. .~ ectfully submitted, Valerie Leone City Clerk New Hope City Council Page 8 October 27, 2003 City Council Minutes Regular Meeting CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 November 10, 2003 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OPEN FORUM New Hope City Council Page 1 The New Hope City Council met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Mayor Enck called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The City Council and all present stood for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Council Present: W. Peter Enck, Mayor Sharon Cassen, Councilmember Don Collier, Councilmember Mary Gwin-Lenth, Councilmember Steve Sommer, Councilmember Staff Present: Dan Donahue, City Manager Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator Doug Debner, Assistant City Attorney Dan Donahue, City Manager Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist Sherry Draper, Director of Admimstration Valerie Leone, City Clerk Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Dale Reed, Operations Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Gwin- Lenth, to approve the regular meeting minutes of October 27, 2003, with a correction on page 7. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to approve the work session Minutes of November 3, 2003. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Ms. Peggy Leppik, Metropolitan Council Member of District 6, was recognized. She stated district 6 includes New Hope, Crystal, Golden Valley, St. Louis Park and southwest Minneapolis. Ms. Leppik referred to recent grants awarded to New Hope for development and water quality issues. She also mentioned the status of the Regional Development Framework 2030. Mayor Enck complimented the housing staff at the Met Council. He expressed concern with the Framework 2030 as it appears to be aimed at undeveloped cities rather than fully developed cities. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth made Ms. Leppik aware that the Joint Water Commission is undertaking a study of an independent water source and legislation may be necessary if the JWC decides to proceed. Ms. Leppik conveyed her appreciation to the city council and invited them to contact her at any time with city concerns. Juanita Hoffe, 4632 Flag Avenue North/representing "Citizens for Sensible Government in New Hope", invited interested persons to a tour of the Unique Thrift Store. Mayor Enck interrupted Ms. Hoffe and advised that she is spreading misinformation as the thrift store has not been slated to be torn down. He commented that the Task Force is studying long range redevelopment for the entire City Center area but no decisions have been November 10, 2003 ROTATING VOTES CONSENTAGENDA MOTION Consent Items FINANCIAL CLAIMS Item 6.2 STORM WATER ANALYSIS Item 6.4 IMP. PROJECT 756 Item 6.5 RESOLUTION 03-161 Item 6.6 PUBLIC HEARING IMP. PROJECT 685 Item 7.1 CLOSE HEARING Item 7.1 RESOLUTION 03-162 Item 7.1 New Hope City Council Page 2 made. Please note that votes taken on each agenda item are called by the secretary on a rotating basis; however, the written minutes always list the Mayor's name first followed by the Councilmembers in alphabetical order. Mayor 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. Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to approve all items on the Consent Agenda. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Approval of financial claims through November 10, 2003. Motion approving storm water analysis for the Flag Avenue and 47th Avenue watershed area by Bonestroo & Associates at an estimated cost of $5,900. Motion authorizing staff to negotiate the potential purchase of 7601 Bass Lake Road Extension based on its appraised value of $220,000 (improvement project no. 756). Resolution approving administrative changes to flexible benefits plan. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 7.1, Resolution approving sale of 6151 Louisiana Avenue North (improvement project no. 685). Mr. Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, reported that the 6151 Louisiana Avenue property is the southern unit of the twinhome and is handicap accessible. The twinhome was designed by Project for Pride in Living and was constructed by BCB Construction. The other twinhome unit (7105 62~a Avenue North) was sold in September. The sales price is $185,000 for each unit consistent with the apprised value. The mortgage structure is $157,500 for the fast mortgage and $27,500 through Hennepin County HOME Second Mortgage/Down Payment Assistance program. The prospective buyer, Jason Blomquist, has cerebral palsy, and staffbelieves he would be an excellent match for the accessible unit. Mr. Jason Blomquist was recognized. Mr. Blomquist expressed his gratitude to everyone involved in the twinhome project and who made his home purchase a reality. Mayor Enck welcomed Mr. Blomquist to the community. Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember Cassen, to dose the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carded. Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING SALE OF 6151 LOUISIANA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 685)". 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 November 10, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING IMP. PROJECT 626 Item 7.2 the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 7.2, Resolution adopting assessments for improvement project No. 626 (36~ Avenue infrastructure improvements). Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, stated the public hearing is to consider adoption of the resolution to adopt assessments to two properties as a result of the 36t~ Avenue infrastructure improvement project. He stated the total project cost was $1,488,015.64. The proposed assessment to Parish Community of St. Joseph is $87,545.34 and to the City of New Hope is $7,782.50. Only street reconstruction costs were used in determining the assessment rate. Mr. Donahue mentioned that the new assessment policy limits assessments to benefiting tax-exempt properties. He stated approximately 20 residential properties benefited from the project but will not be assessed due to the previous establishment of the infrastructure fund. Mr. Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer, noted that he and the Public Works Director had met with the church administrator, John Olson, on October 30, and it appeared the church had agreed to the assessment. Mayor Enck opened the floor for comments. Mr. Giles Kobilka, Chairman of the Finance Committee for St. Joseph's Church, was recognized. He submitted a letter of objection to the assessment. He cited the following reasons for the objection: 1) the improvement for which the assessment is being levied provides no special benefit to St. Joseph's property different from the benefits conferred on non-assessed property; 2) the assessment is not being uniformly imposed on all property benefited by the improvements; and 3) the assessment exceeds the benefit received. MOTION Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, stated the assessment policy is being uniformly applied as it is consistent with the New Hope Assessment Policy. He stated the letter of objection from the Church perfects their right of appeal. Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Cassen, to enter into the record the letter of objection to the assessment from St. Joseph's Church. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. CLOSE HEARING Item 7.2 RESOLUTION 03-163 Item 7.2 PUBLIC HEARING CURRENCY EXCHANGE BUSINESSES Item 7.3 New Hope City Council Page 3 Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 626 (36TM AVENUE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS)". 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 7.3, Consideration of currency exchange license renewals at Tienda Mexico Supermercado Inc. (4361 Winnetka Avenue North) and Fast Cash Check Cashing LLC (2761 Winnetka Avenue North). Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, stated a state license is necessary to operate a currency exchange business. New Hope does not require a local business license for this type of business, but a state license is not granted without approval by the local governing body. The city has received no adverse information regarding the November 10, 2003 CLOSE HEARING Item 7.3 MOTION Item 7.3 BOONE AVENUE PARKING RESTRICTIONS Item 8.1 MOTION Item 8.1 PLANNING CASE 03-16 Item 8.2 New Hope City Council Page 4 operations of either business in the past year. Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Cassen, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Collier, to approve the currency exchange license renewals at Tienda Mexico Supermereado Inc. (4361 Winnetka Avenue North) and Fast Cash Cheek Cashing LLC (2761 Winnetka Avenue North). All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Motion placing parking restrictions on Boone Avenue North between Bass Lake Road and Science Center Drive. Mr. Dale Reed, Operations Manager, explained the need for parking restrictions on the west side of Boone Avenue between Bass Lake Road and Science Center Drive. On-street parking on both sides of Boone Avenue causes traffic congestion and raises safety concerns and street maintenance issues. Staff believes the parking restrictions on the west side of Boone will alleviate the congestion. Mayor Enck inquired whether staff considered placing a 2-hour time restriction for the east side. Mr. Reed stated Minnesota Masonic Home North Ridge agreed to notify their employees not to park on Boone Avenue. Mayor Enck commented that in the future, parking time limits can be imposed for the east side of Boone Avenue if it is determined necessary. Councilmember Collier questioned whether there were any parking restrictions for 54th and 56th Avenues. Mr. Reed indicated there are restrictions on the south side of the streets. Mr. Gary Mittlebusher, representing Waymouth Farms, was recognized. He expressed support for the parking restrictions on Boone Avenue. He noted Waymouth Farms has been in its present location for ten years and are experiencing parking problems. He stated presently parking is restricted on the west side of Boone between 54~ and Science Center Drive. He requested consideration of a crosswalk across Boone Avenue at 54th Avenue. Mr. Reed indicated staff will meet with representatives fi:om the police department, community development, and engineering finn to discuss the crosswalk request. Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, supporting the placement of parking restrictions on the west side of Boone Avenue between Bass Lake Road and Science Center Drive. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Planning case 03-16, request for conditional use permit to allow a commercial recreational facility in an industrial zoning district and a variance fi:om the arterial street access requirement, 8801 Science Center Drive, Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway, Inc./CSM Equities, petitioner. Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a commercial recreational facility in an industrial zoning district and a variance fi:om the arterial street access requirement, pursuant to Sections 4-20.e.5, 4-33, and 4-36 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The applicant is proposing to relocate an indoor go-cart facility into an existing building within an industrial area located on the comer of Boone November 10, 2003 Avenue and Science Center Drive. The proposed use includes indoor go-cart tracks for children and adults, on-site restaurant, office, and meeting room space. The Planning Commission considered this request at its November 4 meeting and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: · Access to the site shall continue via Science Center Drive. · The applicant will provide an updated lighting/photometric plan. · All fuel storage issues and any storage of flammable materials shall be subject to the review and approval of the city's fire inspector and building official. · Loading and deliveries shall occur at times other than normal operating hours. · The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan for review and approval by city staff · The applicant shall submit noise decibel levels related to the use. · Approval of all plans and permits by the building official, including addressing the second floor access by the public to assembly room. · Approval by West Metro Fire and compliance with recommendations stated in October 14, 2003, memo. · Approval by city engineer and compliance with recommendations in October 15 and 30, 2003, correspondence, excluding sidewalks. · Restaurant/kitchen facilities subject to review/approval of Hennepin County Health Department. · Obtain necessary permits/license from city clerk for video arcade. · Execute conditional use permit agreement with city to be prepared by city attorney. Mr. McDonald indicated the commercial site is 11.3 acres and the building area is 130,140 square feet. He noted Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway is currently located in Brooklyn Center in the former K-Mart building, and would like to relocate to the 8801 Science Center Drive site. Mr. McDonald illustrated the site plan and reviewed the aspects of the site plan including: lighting, surfacing, landscaping, fuel storage, parking, loading, pedestrian access, indoor air ventilation, noise, hours of operation, signage, and trash receptacle location. He also reviewed legal, engineering, police, and fire department comments. Council questioned the ventilation system, potential noise issues, and liability issues. Mr. Sam Baxter, General Manager of Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway, was recognized. He invited the City Council to visit the facility in Brooklyn Center, and assured the Council that the noise of the go-carts cannot be heard outside of the building. He stated safety is their number one concern and an elaborate ventilation system will be installed. He reported carbon monoxide sensors will be placed within the building in four zones. He stated go-cart patrons must sign a waiver and minors must have parental consent. Mr. Baxter reported that they have not had any serious injuries. He advised that they are not a franchise operation. Mr. Baxter also reported that their only deliveries will be UPS and food supplies. He does not foresee any need for usage of the loading docks. He stated all doors will remain closed at all times to prohibit exterior noise. Councilmember Cassen initiated discussion regarding the number of accessible parking stalls. She recommended relocating the ADA parking spaces from the south side of the building to the area near the front entrance. Mr. McDonald stated many technical issues will be dealt with through the permit process. New Hope City Council Page 5 November 10, 2003 RESOLUTION 03-164 Item 8.2 4301 NEVADA AVENUE NORTH Item 8.3 MOTION Item 8.3 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Item 10.1 RESOLUTION 03-165 Item 10.1 INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS/ WAGE INCREASES Item 12.1 New Hope City Council Page 6 Councilmember Sommer commented that he has visited the go-cart facility in Brooklyn Center and it was a positive experience. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption with the additional requirement that the ADA parking spaces at the south side of the building be relocated to near the front entrance: "RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 03-16, REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL FACILITY IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND A VARIANCE FROM THE ARTERIAL STREET ACCESS REQUIREMENT, 8801 SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE, THUNDER ALLEY INDOOR SPEEDWAY, INC./CSM EQUITIES, PETITIONER)". 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 Item 8.3, Motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of 4301 Nevada Avenue North. Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated staff is requesting City Council discussion and consideration of a motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of 4301 Nevada Avenue North at an estimated cost of $350. The potential acquisition could facilitate a project with a housing organization for 4301 and 4317 Nevada Avenue North. Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember Cassen, authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of 4301 Nevada Avenue North. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Resolution approving the City of New Hope Emergency Operations Plan dated October, 2003. Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, stated every city in the state has a plan on how to respond to disasters. He expressed gratitude to Fire Chief Dana Alexon and staff for their efforts in updating the Emergency Operations Plan for the city of New Hope. Councilrnember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF NEW HOPE EMERGENCY OPERAT/ONS PLAN DATED OCTOBER, 2003". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Cassen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Discussion regarding 2004 insurance contribution and wage increases. Ms. Sherry Draper, Director of Administration, explained that staff requests discussion and council direction on insurance contribution and wage amounts so employees can make informed decisions when completing their insurance enrollments for 2004. Formal resolutions will be presented at the December 8 meeting, following approval of the budget. Ms. Draper explained that prior to 2004, staff budget requests included a specified November 10, 2003 MOTION Item 12.1 CITY COMMUNICATIONS Item 12.2 COMMUNICATIONS Item 12.3 ADJOURNMENT dollar mount for insurance contributions and a specified percentage amount for wage increases. For 2004, staff requested a total package of 3.0% for insurance and wages, with the distribution of the 3.0% to be determined after reaching renewal decisions for health insurance. Medical insurance will be renewed with Health Partners with six different plan options. Staff is requesting a $50 increase (from $500 to $550) in the monthly insurance contribution. If Council supports the requested insurance contribution amount, the balance of the 3.0% remaining for wage increases is 2.3%. Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Cassen, authorizing an increase of $50 to the city's contribution of insurance premiums. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.2, Council Input on City Commumcation. The council reviewed various city communications. Mayor Enck intxoduced for discussion Item 12.3, Exchange of communication between members of the city council. Mayor Enck · Received letter from a resident requesting enforcement of littering law · Supported donations to New Hope Crime Prevention Fund · Announced meeting on Nov. 18 (11:30 am - 1:15 pm) at Hotel Sofitel for an overview of the Met Council's 2030 Regional Development Framework · Acknowledged that the city sent letters to business owners in the City Center Shopping Center clarifying redevelopment process · Reported that the "Remodeling Planbook" for split-entry style homes is available Councilmember Cassen · Commented on the successful planbook - someone in New Jersey is interested in developing similar publication · Announced the joint informational meeting to be held November 17 with Crystal and New Hope at the Crystal Community Center regarding the police department merger study. Councilmember Collier · Noted that he was interviewed for "Closer Look" Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Gwin- Lenth, 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 9:00 p.m. ,Respectfully submitted, Valerie Leone City Clerk New Hope City Council Page 7 November 10, 2003 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 EDA Minutes Regular Meeting November 10, 2003 City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVE MINUTES IMP. PROJECT 665 Item 4 EDA RESOLUTION 03-09 Item 4 IMP. PROJECT 733 Item 5 New Hope EDA Page 1 President Enck called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order at 9:01 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 Gwin- Lenth, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2003. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. President Enck introduced for discussion Item 4, Resolution calling for public hearing to approve sale of city owned property at 7500-7528 42na Avenue North to JCS Development Inc. and Frey Development Inc. (improvement project no. 665). Mr. Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, stated adoption of the resolution will establish a public hearing to be held November 24 for the sale of the city-owned property. He stated purchase agreements have been obtained from both Culver's Restaurant and Frey Development for the office condominiums. Commissioner Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE SALE OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY AT 7500-7528 42Nn AVENUE NORTH TO JCS DEVELOPMENT INC. AND FREY DEVELOPMENT INC. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 665)." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner 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 president which was attested to by the executive director. President Enck introduced for discussion Item 5, Update on potential redevelopment of Frank's Nursery site at 5620 Winnetka Avenue North and motion authorizing tax increment financing analysis (improvement project no. 733). Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the developer has submitted the appropriate fees to the city to cover the cost of the tax increment financing (TIF) analysis of the proposed project. Staff recommends that the study be completed by Krass Monroe, the city's redevelopment financial consultant. The EDA expressed support for the TIF analysis. Mr. McDonald also updated the EDA on other matters relating to the site. He stated Frank's Nursery is interested in relocating to the vacant Lyndale Garden site, and staff has provided a letter authorizing Frank's to utilize the same outdoor storage areas that were previously approved for Lyndale without securing additional planning approvals by the city. He also reported that staff has been notified that the pre-development grant submitted to the Metropolitan Council for this project is November 10, 2003 MOTION Item 5 ADJOURNMENT recommended for partial funding. The intent is that the funds would be utilized by both the city and developer to help "write down" some of the up front development costs on this project. Mr. Doug Hoskin, Armory Development II, was recognized. He stated the unit prices will range from $170,000 to $195,000. He stated a similar development was built in Richfield and was well received. Mr. McDonald indicated the special legislation created a project area and this parcel is included in it. The city can also create separate tax increment districts. He stated the proposed number of townhomes ranges from 45 to 56. Mr. Hoskin noted in order to construct an attractive development, the project requires adequate green space and this may impact the final number of units. He stated a closing is tentatively planned for late January with ground breaking to occur in the spring. Motion was made by Conii~fissioner Sommer, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, authorizing the tax increment financing analysis. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Cassen, seconded by Commissioner Collier, to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope EDA adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Leone City Clerk New Hope EDA Page 2 November 10, 2003