060501 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 5, 2001
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA-
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONSENT BUSINESS
4. PUBLIC HEARING
* 4.1 Case 01-08 Request for a 3' Variance from the 10' Side Yard Setback Requirement to
Allow Construction of a House Expansion 7' From the Property Line, 5841
Cavell Avenue North, Tim Preimesberger, Petitioner
* 4.2 Case 01-05 Request for Site Plan Review of a New 5,400 Square Foot Retail Building,
3601 Winnetka Avenue North, AutoZone, Inc., Petitioner
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1 Report of Design & Review Committee - Meeting June 14, 8 a.m. (if needed)
5.2 Report of Codes & Standards Committee
6. OLD BUSINESS
6.1 Miscellaneous Issues
6.2 Livable Communities Grant Update
7. NEW BUSINESS
7.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 1,2001
7.2 Review of City Council Minutes of April 23 and May 14, 2001
7.3 Follow-up to Council/Commissions Meeting - Discuss Distribution of Council Minutes, Miscellaneous
Issues, Etc.
7.4 July Meeting Date (if necessary)
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
8.1 Community Development/Park & Rec Tour - June 18, 5 p.m.
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 iqvited 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 REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: June 5, 2001
Report Date: June 1, 2001
Planning Case: 01-08
Petitioner: Tim Preimesberger
Address: 5841 Cavell Avenue North
Request: Side Yard Variance
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting a three-foot variance from the ten-foot side yard setback requirement to
allow construction of a 620 square foot house expansion seven feet from the property line, pursuant to
Sections 4.056(4) and 4.36 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
I1. Zoning Code References
Section 4.056 Lot Requirements, Building Heights, and Setbacks
Section 4.36 Variance
II1. Property Specifications
Zoning: R-l, Single Family Residential
Location: On the west side of Cavell Avenue north of Bass Lake Road
Adjacent Land Uses: All R-1 single family properties surrounding the site
Site Area: 11,811 square feet (.27 acres), pie-shaped with 113' of frontage by 128' deep
(narrowing to 73' at rear)
Building Area: Existing house = 864 square feet + Proposed Addition = 850 square feet =
1,514 square feet (main floor)
Existing garage = 528 square feet
Lot Area Ratios: Building = 17 percent Green Area = 72 percent Driveway = 11 percent
Planning District: No. 1; The Comprehensive Plan indicates the Iow density single family
neighborhoods in this district are in good to excellent condition. The City will
continue to strongly promote private reinvestment in this housing stock to
maintain and enhance the residential land uses.
Specific Information: No as-built survey has been provided. Site Plan is estimated.
IV. Background
The applicant is requesting a three-foot side yard setback variance to allow the construction of a 620
square foot expansion to his existing single family home. The subject property is located at 5841 Cavell
Avenue and is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential.
According to the Zoning Ordinance, principal structures in the R-1 District are required to provide a 10-
foot side yard setback along interior property lines. As planned, the applicant's proposed addition would
encroach three feet into the required side yard setback.
Planning Case Report 01-08 Page 1 6/1/01
The lot, home, detached garage and neighborhood are all typical 1960 construction and in good
condition. The pie-shaped lot creates one problem for the rear expansion floor plan that the homeowner
is determined to build. No apparent drainage problem exists, or would be created by the expansion.
V. Petitioner's Comments
The petitioner submitted an initial narrative with the application, which included information on his family
background and reasons for remaining in New Hope and remodeling his home. He stated in the
narrative that his home is quite small at 916 square feet. The addition would bring that to about 1,500
square feet, which would be more comfortable for four people. The variance request is to allow me to
add on to my house and cross over the 10-foot setback line by no more than three feet at the northwest
corner of the foundation of the new addition. This would make the measurement between the property
line to the north and the setback line seven feet. Because the house sits diagonally perpendicular to the
property line, only the corner of the house would be seven feet from the property line. I have talked to
Craig and Mary Jo Purkat (neighbors to the north) about my plans and they have not objected. I get
along with my neighbors very well and we treat each other with great respect. Please consider this
variance in my favor.
The applicant also submitted an additional narrative by email subsequent to the Design & Review
Committee meeting detailing the hardships applicable to the request and these are discussed further
under the Zoning Code Criteria section of this report.
VI. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified. One neighboring property owner (on the
south side) came to City Hall to review the plans and was all right with the proposal since the expansion
was on the north side of the home.
VII. Development Analysis
A. Zoning Code Criteria - Variance
The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code to
prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific
parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under consideration,
and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Code.
The Code states that 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. The Zoning Code outlines
seven criteria for the Planning Commission and City Council to weigh when considering a variance
request. These criteria and staff's findings for each are outlined below:
· A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property that 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.
Finding: According to the applicant's site plan, they have an irregularly shaped lot. Because of the
layout of the street, the subject property does not have right angles. This irregular shape, along
with existing building condition, limits the amount of the property available for expansion of the
existing home. This may be considered a hardship for variance.
2. The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not
generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district.
Planning Case Report 01-08 Page 2 6/1/01
Finding: While this lot does have an irregular shape, this condition is not unique to this property.
Other lots within the R-1 Distdct have similar configurations. If similar requests occur in the future,
the City will treat them in a similar fashion.
3. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner
or any previous owner.
Finding: The irregular shaped lot hardship was created by the original developer of this subdivision.
In an effort to minimize the effect of the irregularly shaped lot, the house was oriented to the
adjacent street rather than the property lines. His positioning of the house made sense during the
platting process but limits the amount of land for future expansion.
4. It will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Findinq: Permitting this expansion will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. In fact,
it may encourage similar reinvestment in the surrounding properties and will be consistent with the
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
5. 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.
Findinq: Granting this variance will not limit the supply of light or air to surrounding properties. In
addition, it will not significantly increase traffic congestion or endanger public safety.
6. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship.
Findinq: While there are other design alternatives that could allow the applicant to expand their
property, the Design & Review Committee found that this design most closely met the applicant's
needs with the minimum required variance.
7. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district.
Findinq: Granting this variance will allow the expansion of the existing single family use. Single
family homes are a permitted use within the R-1 District.
The applicant states that the hardship is the original placement of the home on the lot, which does not
set parallel with the property line, restricting an addition on the northwest side of the house. Other
options for an addition were considered by the applicant, but were determined not to be adequate to
meet the needs of the homeowner.
Staff is in agreement that the shape of the property and placement of the house on the lot could be
considered as hardships and similar variances of this nature have been-approved in the past (refer to
"past variances granted" log). This plan also supports the reinvestment goals included in the
Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has estimated that the addition and improvements will total
approximately $80,000.
Comprehensive Plan. According to the Development Framework and Policy Plan section of the
Comprehensive Plan, the City wishes to encourage private reinvestment in single family residential
units. Approving this variance request would be consistent with this policy.
B. Development Review Team
The Development Review Team discussed this project on May 16. The Team asked for three
considerations: 1) Clarify if the entire home will have new roof trusses, including the existing. 2)
Consider a wall shift or location shift of the addition that can be built on this lot without a variance or
such a prominent roofline (created by a squarish building). 3) Relocate basement bedroom "escape
windows" away from driving/walking surface or show the required 36-inch guardrail on front and one
side of each.
C. Design & Review Committee
On May 17, the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner to consider his request. In
addition to the staff recommendations noted above, the Committee and the Planning Consultant
Planning Case Report 01-08 Page 3 6/1/01
asked Mr. Preimesberger for a fourth consideration: Submit a narrative that clearly details what he
feels is the "non-economic" hardship to justify the variance. Considerable time was spent discussing
the lack of an as-built survey, with mixed feelings.
D. Plan Description
No revised plans were submitted, but a narrative was emailed on item #4. The applicant verbally
confirmed that the answers to items #1 and 3 (new roof trusses and escape windows) are "Yes."
The applicant stated that he considered item #2 (wall shift) and rejected the idea of changing the
shape or location to avoid a variance.
· The plans show that the rear addition will be located seven feet (at the closest point) from the
north side yard property line, so a three-foot variance from the 10-foot setback requirement is
necessary.
· There would be a six-foot building separation between the house addition and garage.
· There is a utility and drainage easement on the rear lot line, not the side lot line, so the
proposed house addition would not encroach on a drainage and utility easement.
· The neighboring property to the north, which will be most impacted by the addition, has a
detached garage located on the south side of the property. Current surveys are not available for
either property so the distances between the structures on either property are not known.
· The entire house will be re-roofed with asphalt shingles and new vinyl siding, so the addition will
match the house and garage.
E. Planning ConsideratiOns
Excerpts from the Planner's report have been incorporated into this report.
F. Buildin.q Considerations
Detailed construction plans must be submitted at time of building permit application demonstrating
compliance with the MN State Building Code. The new home will need to meet most of the 2000
Energy Code standards.
G. Engineering Considerations
The City Engineer reviewed the plans and provided the following comments:
· The plan shows the addition will be seven feet from the north property line. The neighbor's
garage is also close to the same property line (according to the topo map). We should verify
adequate setbacks/distance between the structures.
· Runoff from the property drains to Cavell and the rear lot line. The property is higher than the
properties to the west along Decatur. This addition will increase runoff. We need to verify that
the increased runoff will not adversely affect the properties to the west. I will review the situation.
VIII. Summary
In reviewing this application, staff finds that there is evidence in favor of granting a three-foot side yard
setback variance to allow the construction of a 650 square foot expansion to the single family home
located at 5841 Cavell Avenue. Findings that support granting this variance include:
1. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's policy to encourage private re-investment in single
family homes.
2. The application meets most of the variance criteria outlined in Section 4.363 of the Zoning Code.
3. It ensures continued reasonable use of the property.
Planning Case Report 01-08 Page 4 6/1/01
4. It improves both the individual home and the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposal to make a major investment on a residential lot is good news from a community
standpoint, if two things happen: Technical details must be worked out and a legal basis must exist for
an exception to the normal side yard setback. The petitioner has agreed to solve the technical details
and has offered his thoughts on a "hardship," which hint at the irregular lot shape. Interestingly enough,
irregular lot shape is a classic example of a possible justification for a variance. Staff and the petitioner
have considered a different shape and location for the expansion without a variance, because of actions
by the original homebuilder to place the home oblique to the north lot line and at the minimum setback.
The location of his existing garage complicates such a site plan change.
Given, the pro-investment tenor of the 2000 Comprehensive Plan and the 2001 Zoning Code rewrite,
reducing setbacks and performance standards of many kinds, this proposal is "in the ball park" and has
generated no concern of neighbors, to date. Clearly, city staff is glad to have long-term residents who
want to stay here and reinvest. The estimated setbacks are 10 feet today, and seven feet after
expansion, which can be viewed as a "minor" deviation from the code.
IX. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the side yard setback to no less than seven feet from the lot line, subject
to two conditions:
1. Submit an as-built survey of the lot within 14 days of building permit application.
2. Submit detailed construction plans at time of building permit application, before commencing any
work.
Attachments: AddresslZoninglTopolLocationlAerial Maps
5/31 Petitioner's Correspondence
5/11 Petitioner's Correspondence
Site Plan
Plan Details:
First Floor Plan
Basement Plan
Elevations
City Engineer Comments
5/30 Planner's Report
Previous Variances Granted Log
Application Log
Planning Case Report 01-08 Page 5 6/1/01
$OTH AVE N
5964 5965 5956 5957
5956 5957 594,8 5949
5948 5949 5940 5941
5940 5941
; ' 5932 5933
: 5924- 5925
5924 5925
5916 5917
5908 5909 5908 5909
5900 5901 5900 5901
5848 5857 5856 5857
5840 5849
58~2
~ 5824 ~5825
8901 8801
8701
5700
I 5632
g 5600
RY ,"-'
BROOKLYN P,~
......... , I~N D AVTr.. N ~ .....
...... ~ ................ . · ...... . _.. --,-
.. '~
HOSTERMAN
JR HIGH
SCHOOL
City of
New Hope
ATTACHMENT A
Page 1 of 3 -
Kirk Mcdonald - RE: 5841 Cavell Remodel
From: "Preimesberger, Tim" <tpreimesberger~Carlson.com>
To: Doug Sandstad <Dsandstad~ci.new-hope.nm.us>
Date: 5/31/01 9:29 AM
Subject: RE: 5841 Cavell Remodel
CC: "Preimesberger, Tim" <tpreimesberger@Carlson. com>, '"Kirk Mcdonald'" <Kmcdonald@ci.new-hope.mn.us>
Doug, per our phone conversation this morning I am sending you another
source of agreement as follows:
1). Entire roof of dwelling will be replaced with truss rafters.
2). The house and garage will be shingled and new siding will be applied.
3). The existing and proposed egress windows will have the required 3'
railing around two sides and an escape ladder will exist.
4). I am reluctant to redoing the floor plan to stay within the setback
line because of the living space I will lose.
Let me know if there is more needed.
Thanks
Tim Preimesberger
Sr. Technical Analyst
CSS Messaging Group
Office 763.212.2826
Fax 763.212.1125
tpreimesberger@carlson.com
..... Original Message .....
From: Kirk Mcdonald
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 1:23 PM
To: tpreimesberger~Carlson.com
Cc: Doug Sandstad
Subject: RE: 5841 Cavell Remodel
Thanks for the info., we will include in our reports.
>>> "Preimesberger, Tim" <tpmimesberger~Carlson.com> 05/30/01 01:04PM >>>
Hello Kirk, thanks for getting back to me. In the back of my mind I thought
that I would bring the narrative with me to the meeting. I guess I would
have been scrambling. The highlighted text below is my narrative. Please
let me know if it is acceptable.
My claim of undue hardship.
Section 4.221 explains 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 o£ a
specific parcel of'property and where circumstances are unique to the
individual property under consideration, and the granting of a variance is
demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Code.
It is in this Code that I make my claim of operating under Undue Hardship.
Undue Hardship, as explained in section 4.221 (1), as used in connection
with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put
to a reasonable use If used under conditions allowed by the official
controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his
property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will
not alter the essential character of the locality.
My property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls. Also, because my house was
constructed on the setback line, and my house runs diagonally perpendicular
to the property line, I am restricted from adding on to the northwest side
of my home. If the original landowner would have had my home constructed
parallel to the property line, I would not be asking for a variance.
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW} 00001 .HTM 5/31/01
Page 2 of 3
I am reluctant to change the proposed addition for a few reasons. 1). I
originally provided plans to add on to the west side of my home the full
width of the house. That was narrowed down by six feet because of
restrictions connecting to my garage. 2). The expense to either move the
garage or have frost footings put in, is beyond my budget. 3). To
eliminate 3 feet on the northwest comer would mean I have had to reduce the
original plan by 9 feet and accept an unwanted floor plan.
I ask that you consider my request for a variance in this case as
acceptable.
Tim Preimesberger 5/30/01
Tim Preimesberger
Sr. Technical Analyst
CSS Messaging Group
Office 763.212.2826
Fax 763.212.1125
tpreimesberger~carlson.com
..... Original Message .....
From: Kirk Mcdonald [_m_a_ilto_;__Kjn~ Og_n_al_d@_~i..,n.~:ho~g.mn.u_s3
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 11:07 AM
To: tpreimesberger@Carlson.com
Cc: Doug Sandstad; Pam Sylvester
Subject: RE: 5841 Cavell Remodel
Tim:
It was my understanding from the Design & Review Committee mtg. that you
were going to provide an additional narrative further describing the
hardships for your variance, as they pertain to the Zoning Code. If you were
going to submit additional information, it should have been turned in last
Friday. We are currently in the process of preparing the final reports to go
to the Planning Commission and City Council and they have to be completed by
this Friday. If you plan on submitting any additional information, please
get it to us ASAP.
Thanks,
Kirk McDonald
>>> "Preimesberger, Tim" <tpreimesberger@Carlson.com> 05/24/01 09:25AM >>>
You have the site plan and the floor plan. I'll stop by tomorrow and drop
offthe detailed section view. I could fax it as well if you wouldn't mind
looking it over. Do you think it would be better to fill out the building
permit once the variance is approved? How about mechanical and electrical
permits? Are those part of the building permit, or do I need to fill those
out separate and turn in with building permit?
Thanks
Tim Preimesberger
Sr. Technical Analyst
CSS Messaging Group
Office 763.212.2826
Fax 763.212.1125
tpreimesberger@carlson.com
..... Original Message .....
From: Doug Sandstad [~j~!~.o.;.~a_rcd~s.~j~new-hope.mn,us]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 8:52 AM
To: tpreimesberger~Carlson.com
Cc: Kirk Mcdonald
Subject: Re: 5841 Cavell Remodel
Good Moming! All 1 need, after Council approval, is 3 sets of
complete construction plans [ including a survey or site plan, floor plans
and a detailed section view ], a building permit application and fee. Any
City Council decision could include a condition or two.
DOUG
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW} 00001 .HTM 5/31/01
Page 3 of 3
>>> "Preimesberger, Tim" <tpreimesberger~Carlson.com> 05/23/01 12:38PM >>>
Doug, as you know I am scheduled to have a final hearing for approval of my
variance on June 1 lth. Assuming that it is ok'd, I would like to know what
steps I need to take today to line up for the actual start of construction.
Ideally, I'd like to be prepared to start construction the day after the
variance is approved. Is this expectation out of scope?
Thanks
Tim Preimesberger
Sr. Technical Analyst
CSS Messaging Group
Office 763.212.2826
Fax 763.212.1125
tpreimesberger~carlson.com <~ma~ jJ._tg_~e_i ro_e...s_.b_er~:~.c_arl_s_Q_n_.,._c_o_.m_ >
file://C:\WlNDOWS\TEMP\GW} 00001.HTM 5/31/01
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Tim Preimesberger and I am applying for a variance for an
addition that I am planning this summer. I have lived in this 3
bedroom rambler at 5841 Cavell Ave. No. since 1984 with my wife and two
children. My son lives at home, is working and has signed up for
classes at Hennepin Tech College to finish his degree this fall. My
daughter will be going to Cooper this fall to start 9th grade. My wife
passed away on June 4th 1999 after a long battle with breast cancer.
Recently, I proposed to Jean Stout to be my wife. She said yes to me
and when we discussed about where we would live, I mentioned to her
that it was very important to me for my children to maintain some
stability in their life as they had experienced too much tragic change
in the recent past. The illness and death of my wife Jackie and within
4 months, an illness and death of my younger sister had caused much
disruption in our lives. I talked to her about how the neighborhood
where I live is a very good one. The school system here is good as
well. My children have developed close friends in the neighborhood and
at school. They would be devastated if we were to move. My fianc~ has
never been married nor does she have children but she is willing to
move in with us. One of the things we talked about was remodeling my
home to make it feel more like home for her. I am, and so are my
children, in favor of remodeling.
Currently, my house is quite small at 916 square feet. The addition
would bring that to about 1500 square feet, which would be more
comfortable for four people.
The variance request I am applying for is to allow me to add on to my
house and cross over the 10 foot setback line by no more than 3 feet at
the Northwest corner of the foundation of the new addition. This would
make the measurement between the property line to the North and the
setback line 7 feet. Because the house sits diagonally perpendicular
to the property line, only the corner of the house would be 7 feet from
the property line. The rest of the house would be further away from
the property line. I have talked to Craig and MaryJo Purkat (neighbors
to the North) about my plans and they have not objected. I get along
with my neighbors very well and we treat each other with great
respect. Please consider this variance in my favor.
Sincerely,
Tim Preimesberger
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Jason Lindahl/Alan Brixius
DATE: May 30, 2001
RE: New Hope - Tim Preimesberger Side Yard Setback Variance
FILE: '131.01 - 01.06
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Mr. Preimesberger, is requesting a three-foot side yard setback variance
to allow the construction of a 1,500 square foot expansion to his existing signal family
home. The subject property is located at 5841 Cavell Avenue North and is zoned R-l,
Single Family Residential.
According to Section 4.056 (4) of the Zoning Ordinance, principal structures in the R-1
District are required to provide a ten (10) foot side yard setback along interior property
lines. As planned, the applicant's proposed addition would encroach three (3) feet into the
required side yard setback.
Attached of reference:
Attachment A: Site Location Map
Attachment B: Site Plan dated May 11, 2001
Attachment C: Front and Site Elevation dated May 11, 2001
Attachment D: Rear and Side Elevation dated May 11, 2001
Attachment E: Main Floor Plan dated May 11, 2001
Attachment F: Basement Floor Plan dated May 11, 2001
Attachment G: Narrative from Applicant dated May 11,2001
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan. According to the Development Framework and Policy Plan section
of the Comprehensive Plan, the City wishes to encourage private reinvestment in single
family residential units. Approving this variance request would be consistent with this
policy.
Zoning. According to Section 4.361 of the Zoning Code, the purpose for a variance is to
permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code to prevent undue
hardship or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the ~easonable use of a specific
parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under
consideration, and granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in the spirit and intent of
this Code.
Section 4.363 of the Zoning Code outlines seven criteria for the Planning Commission and
City Council to weigh when considering a variance request. These criteria and staff's
findings for each are outlined below.
1. There is a physical condition unique to the property that results in exceptional
difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of
this Code.
Finding: According to the applicant's site plan, they have an irregularly shaped lot.
Because of the layout of the street, the subject property does not have right angles.
This irregular shape, along with existing building condition, limits the amount of the
property available for expansion of the existing home. This may be considered a
hardship for variance.
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.
Finding: While this lot does have an irregular shape, this condition is not unique to
this property. Other lots within the R-1 District have similar configurations. If
similar requests occur in the future, the City will treat them in a similar fashion.
3. The hardship or circumstance unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by
the landowner or any previous owner.
Finding: The irregular shaped lot hardship was created by the original property
owner. In an effort to minimize the effect of the irregularly shaped lot, the house
was oriented to the adjacent street rather than the property lines. This positioning
of the house made sense during the platting process but limits the amount of land
for future expansion.
2
4. It will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: Permitting this expansion will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. In fact, it may encourage similar reinvestment in the surrounding
properties and will be consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
5. 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.
Finding: Granting this variance will not limit the supply of light or air to surrounding
properties. In addition, it will not significantly increase traffic congestion or
endanger public safety.
6. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship.
Finding: While there are other design alternatives that could allow the applicant to
expand their property, the Design Review Committee found that this design most
closely met the applicant's needs with the minimum required variance.
7. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district.
Finding: Granting this variance will allow the expansion of the an existing single
family use. Single family homes are a permitted use within the R-1 District.
RECOMMENDATION
In reviewing this application, staff finds that there is evidence both in favor and against
granting a three foot side yard setback variance to allowthe construction of a 1,500 square
foot expansion to the single family home located at 5841 Cavell Avenue. Findings that
support granting this variance include:
1. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's policy to encourage private
investment in single family home.
2. The application meets most of the variance criteria outlined in Section 4.363 of the
Zoning Code.
3. It ensures continued reasonable use of the property.
4. It improves both the individual home and the surrounding neighborhood.
Should the Planning Commission agree with these findings, then they should approve this
request. Should they disagree with these findings, they should support their
recommendation with findings of fact during the meeting.
pc: Doug Sandstad
Steve Sondrall
Vince Vandertop
Tim Preimesberger
4
Page 1 of 2
Kirk Mcdonald - FW: Design Review Meetings
From: "Vander Top, Vince T" <wandertop~bonestroo.com>
To: "Kirk McDonald (E-mail)" <kmcdonald~ci.new-hope.mn.us>
Date: 5/30/01 4:09 PM
Subject: FW: Design Review Meetings
Kirk,
We sent the following comments on May 14 regarding AutoZone and 5841 Cavell.
All of the comments are still applicable with the following updates:
AutoZone
* We still need a pond maintenance agreement. Steve is typing up the
agreement. It will be emailed to CEI for the applicant's approval. This
will hopefully occur this week.
* I still need to see storm water calculations.
Please let me know if you have questions regarding this information.
Vince
> .....Ori
> From: Top, Vince T
> Sent: May 14, 2001 8:20 AM
> To: Kirk Mc; (E-mail); Doug Sandstad
> Cc: Hanson
> Subject: Design
>
> Kirk & Doug,
>
> We received the info Auto Zone and Cavell - residential addition.
>
> It appears that to be at the meeting
> Wednesday morning. ; meeting. We can
> discuss attendance further meeting tomorrow morning.
>
> Auto Zone comments - Dou I have worked through most of the comments
> previously. It appears ~,omments have been addressed.
> In addition, please see the ]
>
> * They will still need ~ tits from Hennepin County for access
> and utilit' of these permits prior to
> construction, approve the access permit to
> Winnetka as we ; from two innetka access to one. The one closest
> to the being removed, e scenario is occurring on 36th
> Ave.
> * We should calcs. Pleasenote
> that the pon( smaller than before. It to be adequate,
> however.
> * It appears mat 1 parking lot wm t>e~oncrete. It also
> appears ~/iat the typical concrete section include~nly 4 inches of
> compaCed aggregate subgrade. This seems "light'~for New Hope's heavy
> soils. ,/Their detail references a soils report. They n~y want to review
> thisjafid increase the aggregate thickness to protect th~ life of the
> congrete.
> * Their typical detail shows surmountable or roll over curb and
> gutter. We would prefer B612 curb and gutter.
5841 Cavell
> * The plan shows the addition will be 7 feet from the north property
> line. The neighbors garage is also close to the same property line ,..
> (according to the topo map). We should verify adequate setbacks/distance
> between the structures.
> * Runoff from the property drains to Cavell and the rear lot line.
> The property is higher than the properties to the west along Decatur. ./
> This addition will increase runoff. We need to verify that the increased //
> runoff w/ll affect the I will
not
adversely
the
properties
to
west.
',,,~ > review the situation this morning. I have a meeting at Sunny Hollowat ~.~
file://C :\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW} 00001 .HTM 6/1/01
ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS -- 1980 - 2000 1
00-15 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: Unanimous Remove existing garage. Abide by grading and drainage
Timothy & Arnetta Glum Request: 2' variance Cc: Unanimous issues. Install gutters & downspout. Exterior materials to
5307 Pennsylvania Avenue Request to allow construction of an attached 2-car garage match house. Taper driveway to street.
extending 2' into the side yard setback.
99-13 ~/ Frontyard setback (30') Approved PC: Unanimous
Bob & Janet White ~ Request: 6' variance Cc: Unanimous
8948 Northwood Parkway ! ~ Request to allow construction of a house expansion extending
6' into the front yard setback.
98-22 Request: A/C in side yard Approved PC: Unanimous Adequate screening to be provided
Duane & Mary Jo Russ Request to move new NC unit from rear yard to side yard cc: 4 for
9209 40 ¼ Avenue 1 against
98-20 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: Unanimous Building materials to match existing.
Richard & Liane Shive Request: 2' variance cc: Unanimous Work out drainage issues with neighbor.
8489 N. Meadow Lake Road Request to allow construction of an attached garage
extending 2' into side yard.
97-21 Code allows 1 curb cut per residential property Approved PC: Unanimous Comply with boulevard standards.
Patrick & Carol Benolkin Request: to allow 2"d driveway/curb cut cc: Unanimous Materials for driveway extension to match existing.
2865 Quebec Avenue Request to allow a 2"~ driveway on a corner lot (1 curb cut
each street)
97-17 Request: AJC in side yard Approved PC: Unanimous
Todd & Joan Lewis Request to allow NC to remain in side yard after it was cc: Unanimous
4617 Del Drive installed by contractor, at petitioner's request.
97-09 Code allows I garage and 1 accessory building PC Denied PC: 1 for
Elmer Geislinger Request: 2 garages on one property CC Approved 6 against
5933 Boone Avenue In 1981 owners built a detached garage with the intent to cc: Unanimous
convert attached garage into living space, which was never
done. Now want a variance for 2 garages.
96-34 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: Unanimous Building materials to match existing.
Michael & Pamela Terres Request: 24' variance cc: Unanimous Better roof design.
3809 Xylon Avenue Request expand a non-conforming structure (existing
screened to 4-season porch) into the rear yard, which would
extend 24' into the rear yard.
96-30 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: Unanimous Building materials to match existing.
Richard & Patricia Bruins Request: 10' variance cc: Unanimous
7251 40~h Avenue Request to construct a garage addition extending 10' into rear
yard.
96-29 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: Unanimous 10' x 16' Building materials to match existing.
Jon Arnoldy Request: 7' variance CC: Unanimous 12' x 16' (Council granted larger variance than PC recommended)
3532 Ensign Avenue Request to construct a 12'x 13' addition onto the garage along
with living space above the garage, extending 7' into the side
yard.
ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 - 2000 2
96-28 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: 6 for Building materials & roof pitch to match existing. Per CC
Doug Norwick Request: 1' variance I against dimensions to be 26' x 30'.
4057 Boone Avenue Request to demolish detached 1-car garage and construct an 2 absent
attached 2-car garage, extending 1' into the side yard. CC: unanimous
96-18 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Building materials to match existing.
Leona Bigelow Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous
3840 Gettysburg Avenue Request to construct an addition onto existing garage,
extending 2' into side yard setback.
96-16 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC:unanimous Consideration given to roof pitch matching house.
Clifford Miller Request: 9' variance CC: unanimous
4076 Ensign Avenue Request to construct sun room at rear of house, extending 9'
into rear yard setback.
94-28 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Robert Funk Request: 6' variance CC: 4 for Additional shrubs to be planted along addition and shutter
4052 Cavell Avenue Request to construct garage addition onto existing, extending I against to be installed on south windows to match house.
6' into the rear yard setback.
94-12 Variance to allow NC unit in side yard. Approved PC: unanimous
Donald Ruch & Harold Teigen CC: unanimous
3352 Boone Circle
94-07 Variance to allow A/C unit in side yard. PC -approved PC: unanimous Acoustical barrier to be installed. Fence to be extended to
Michael Stiegler CC - tabled & then CC: accept withdrawal front of garage and additional plantings.
3432 Ensign Avenue withdrawn
93-34 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous
Richard Kleinbaum Request: 7' variance CC: unanimous
8309 Nodhwood Parkway Request to construct porch on rear of home, extending 7' into
the rear yard setback.
93-29 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Submit revised plans showing gable roof & asphalt
Kuo Moy Request: 10, variance CC: unanimous shingles rather than shed-type fiberglass roof as
7608 48~h Circle Request to construct a porch on rear of house, extending 10' previously submitted.
into rear yard setback.
93-24 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: 5 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Bill Kranz/David Pomije Request: 16' variance I abstain Neighbor's properly be restored after construction
3233 Gettysburg Ct. Request to construct a bedroom/bath at rear of house, CC: unanimous completed (trucks driving over property).
extending 16' into rear yard setback.
93-21 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Porch design & materials to blend/match with existing
Michael Banker Request: 5' variance CC: unanimous structure.
3501 Xylon Avenue Request to construct a porch on the rear of the house, which
extends 5' into the rear yard setback.
93-20 Variance from the driveway parking area setback Approved PC: unanimous
James & Verie Fackler requirement and widen driveway 2' into the 3' driveway CC: unanimous
4301 Nevada Avenue setback.
ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 - 2000
93-18 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Virginia McDurmott Request: 7' variance CC: unanimous
4058 Ensign Avenue Request to construct a 3-season porch, which extends 7' into
the rear yard setback.
92-36 Variance for non-conforming structure, Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Ellen Jordano Request to construct porch at rear of house, leaving 19' to 1 not voting
3501 Virginia Avenue property line. CC: unanimous
92-33 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: 7 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Michael & Arlene Reich Request: 10.5' variance 1 abstain
2724 Aquila Avenue Request to construct 4-season porch on rear of house, which CC: unanimous
extends 10.5' into rear yard setback.
92-32 Variance to add onto non-conforming structure and rear Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Jack & Annette Nabedrick yard setback variance of 20'. CC: unanimous
9009 42"d Avenue
92-31 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Roger Griggs Request: 1.8' variance 1 excused
5313 Pennsylvania Avenue Request to construct garage on side of house, which extends CC: unanimous
1.8' into side yard setback.
92-28 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Duane Hoff Request: 8' variance CC: unanimous Submit "as built" survey.
4164 Ensign Avenue Request to construct a 3-season porch onto rear of house,
which extends 8' into rear yard setback.
92-21 Front yard setback (50' on Boone Avenue) Tabled to look at PC: unanimous
Harry Wong Request: 20' variance other plans ....
2800 Boone Avenue Request to convert existing garage to living area and build Withdrawn
new garage, extending 20' into front yard setback.
92-14 Variance to allow A/C unit in side yard. Approved PC: unanimous Fence or screening remain in place as long as A/C in
John Leigh CC: unanimous yard.
8401 Hopewood Lane
92-07 Variance to expand non-conforming structure (add more Withdraw until PC: unanimous
Craig Hall garage space) and a 28' variance from rear yard setback of survey can be
3910 Boone Avenue 35'. (corner lot) completed
92-02 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Submit revised elevation drawings
Michael & Theresa Gray Request: 13' variance CC: unanimous Submit "as built" survey
3433 Gettysburg Request to construct 3-season porch to rear of house, which
extends 13' into rear yard setback.
91-36 Variance to allow utility shed to remain in drainage/utility Tabled Petitioner will move shed
LD Kramer easement. Withdrawn
4764 Erickson Drive
ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS--- 1980- 2000 4
91-35 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Robed Lindell Request: 19' variance CC: unanimous
4741 Boone Avenue Request to add a 3-season porch to rear of house, which
extends 19' into rear yard setback.
91-27 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Robed Natzel Request: 13' variance CC: unanimous
7621 48th Circle Request to construct addition to rear of house, which extends
13' into rear yard setback.
91-19 Off-street parking in side yard setback 3' Approved PC: unanimous Any drainage problems that arise to be solved by
Gary & Carol Johnson Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous petitioner.
3948 Oregon Avenue Request to pave driveway within 1' from properly line.
91-18 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Steven & Kathleen Anderson Request: 15' variance CC: unanimous
3820 Boone Avenue Request to construct 4-season porch, which extends 15' into
the rear yard setback.
91-16 Variance to place A/C unit in side yard. Approved PC: unanimous Additional landscaping
Lyle Sandstrom CC: unanimous
2748 Ensign Avenue
90-21 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
John Degnan Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous
5206 Quebec Avenue Request to add onto the existing home a family room and.
attached double garage (existing detached garage to be
removed), which would extend 4' into rear yard setback.
90-19 Variance to allow expansion of non-conforming structure Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Charles Kyllonon for 3-season porch & deck, which extends 9' into the rear yard CC: unanimous
4825 Aquila Avenue setback.
90-18 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
James & Marlene Bukstein Request: $' variance CC: unanimous
3224 Ensign Ct. Request to construct a family room at the back of the house,
which extends 5' into the rear yard setback.
90-14 Variance to add garage addition onto non-conforming Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Daniel Riser structure & 14' variance from front yard setback (50' on CC: unanimous
3421 Yukon Avenue Boone)
90-13 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Sandra Wieland Request: 7' variance CC: unanimous
3541 Virginia Avenue Request to enclose a podion of the deck to make a 3-season
porch, which encroaches 7' into the rear yard setback.
90-06 Variance to allow A/C unit in side yard Approved PC: 4 for Screening to remain in place .
John Hansen 2 against
8009 40th Avenue CC: unanimous
89-14 Variance Io expand non-conforming structure and 5' side Approved PC: no minutes in file House is stucco
Donald Lee yard (35') variance CC: unanimous Porch will be prefabricated
7901 60th Avenue Request to construct screened porch.
89-13 Variance to allow A/C unit in side yard. Approved PC: unanimous Provide adequate screening
James Swedberg CC: unanimous
9317 Northwood parkway
89-01 Front yard setback (30') Denied PC: 5 for
Jerome Rath Request: 3' variance 2 against
3464 Ensign Avenue Request to add additional garage space extending 3' into front CC: 2 for
yard setback and add a family room to the back side of the 1 against
garage.
88-29 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Mary Lee Rich Request: 11' variance CC: unanimous
9117 34Ih Avenue Request to construct a deck off the rear of the house,
extending 11' into the rear yard setback.
88-25 Front yard setback (30') PC - Denied PC: unanimous Changed plans so no variance needed
Marlys & Glenn Joly Request: 4' variance Withdrawn before CC: unanimous - accepted
4417 Decatur Avenue Request to convert existing garage to family room and build a CC meeting withdrawal
new garage to the front, which would extend 4' into front yard
setback,
88-22 Rear yard setback (35') PC - Denied PC: unanimous deny Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Kenneth Kline Request: 5' variance CC - Approved CC: unanimous approve PC - denied because felt petitioner could build smaller
3551 Wisconsin Avenue Request to construct a screened porch, which would extend 5' not need a variance.
into the rear yard setback.
88-18 Variance to expand a non-conforming structure, which Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
John & Louise Young would be 16' from the side/rear property line. CC: unanimous
3341 Flag Avenue
88-13 Side yard (20' corner lot) & front yard (35') setback Approved PC: 5 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Daniel & Barbara Nordberg Request: 5' side & 12' front variances 1 abstain
3243 Flag Avenue Request to expand garage on non-conforming structure. CC: unanimous
88-11 Side yard setback (5') PC - Approved 1' pC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
James & Sandra Larson Request: 2' variance CC - Approved 2' CC: 3 for
5908 Boone Avenue Request to add onto garage, which would extend 2' into side 1 against
yard setback,
88-02 ~/ Side yard setback (35' across from industrial, along 49'n Approved PC: unanimous
New Community Builders ~ 'Avenue) CC: unanimous
4884 Erickson Drive ~ Request: 1' variance
Request to build new home 1' into side yard setback.
87-38 Variance to add onto non-conforming structure. Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Ronald & Billie Potter CC: unanimous Submit lot survey
3930 Boone Avenue New structure cannot encroach into 10' side yard.
ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 - 2000 6
87-36 Variance to allow 2 garages on I property. Present garage Approved PC: unanimous
Gordon Schwichtenberg to be turned into carport (considered garage). CC: unanimous
5406 Utah Avenue
87-27 Variance to allow 2"d driveway on corner lot. PC - Denied PC: unanimous
Bruce & Marsha Pinney CC - Approved CC: unanimous
5436 Rhode Island Avenue
87-21 Variance to allow A/C unit to remain in side yard. PC - Denial PC'. 4 for denial Plant additional shrubs around unit
James & Roberta Casey No permit obtained when installed - discovered 2 years later CC - Approved 1 against
4617 Nevada Avenue that a permit was needed. CC: unanimous approved
87-18 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: 6 for Shingles to match house.
William Asplund Request: 4' variance I against
4948 Wisconsin Avenue Request to construct an open porch (no walls) on the front of CC: unanimous
the home, with overhang extending 4' into front yard setback.
87-17 Rear yard setback (35') Withdrew - PC did
James & Barbara Crandall Request: 17' variance not like large
9120 61st Circle Request to construct an addition to back of house, which variance.
would extend into the rear yard leaving 18' to rear property
line. House was built 28' from rear property line.
87-15 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
James & Judy Larson Request: 5' variance CC: unanimous
5833 Meadow Lk. Rd. Request to construct entryway at front of house, extending 5'
into front yard setback. Front of house was built 30' front
street.
87-14 Variance to allow NC unit in side yard. Approved PC: 7 for Unit to be screened from view.
Sally Kolian I against
3231 Flag Ct. CC: unanimous
86-32 Rear yard setback (35') Approved in 1975 Not on agendas
Clifford Popp Request: 11' variance and no action
8300 33rd Avenue Request to add onto garage, needed now
86-30 Front yard (30') & side yard (5') setback PC approved 1' PC: 1 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
James & Susan Carlson Request: 6' front & 1' side variance side & 4' front. 3 against
4673 Ensign Avenue Request to add 6' to front of garage and onto the side of CC approved 1' 2 abstain
garage, which would extend 1' into side yard setback, side and denied CC: unanimous
any front.
86-15 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
David Hanson Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous
8119 59th Avenue Request to add onto garage (non-conforming corner lot),
which extends 4' into front yard setback.
86~14 Variance to construct a carport in rear yard on corner lot Approved PC: unanimous PC said to enclose by end of year.
Delmar Lindberg leaving only 7'3" to property line. CC: unanimous CC said no outside storage if not enclosed. If home sold,
5904 Aquila Avenue structure to be removed.
ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS--- 1980- 2000
86-11 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
William Lyman Request: 10' variance CC: unanimous
3332 Ensign Avenue Request to construct a 3-season porch at back of house,
which will extend 10' into rear yard setback.
86-10 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Jeffrey & Jane Rudy Request: 20' variance CC: unanimous
8260 Del Drive Request to add onto garage in rear yard (this is another non-
conforming corner lot), which would extend to within 15' of the
rear lot line.
86-09 Variance for 2"" driveway Approved PC: 2 for
Robed Busch 1 against
5605 Wisconsin Avenue 4 abstain
CC: unanimous
85-28 Variance to place A/C unit in side yard. Approved PC: unanimous
Jerome Unger There are several shrubs around it. CC: unanimous
3018 Ind, el)endence Circle
85-24 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: 4 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
John Haight, Jr. Request: 15' variance 2 against
9016 44t~ Circle Request to replace deck with screened porch at rear of CC: unanimous
house. House already infringes 3' into rear yard.
85-20 V.~ Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: 4 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Richard & Donna Kranz Request: 5' variance 1 against Drainage not adversely impact neighbors.
3240 Ensign Ct. ~ Request to add a family room to existing home with CC: unanimous Lot survey be consistent.
basement, which would extend 5' into the side yard setback.
85~15 Variance to place AJC unit in side yard. Neighbor's garage Approved PC: 3 for Additional shrubs to screen unit.
Donald & Kathryn Moorehead abuts property. 2 against
9232 40 ¼ Avenue CC: unanimous
85-10 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Patrick O'Meara Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous Extend chain link fence between houses.
8200 39th Avenue Request to add bedroom above garage, which would extend
2' into the side yard.
85-04 Variance to put AJC unit in side yard as house is on a hill Approved PC: unanimous Provide additional buffer between houses
Edward Dooley and there is no rear yard to install it. CC: unanimous
5910 Xylon Avenue
85-02 ~./_.. Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Gregory Davis ' Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous
7308 39th Avenue~ Request to add onto existing home
84-29 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure,
Soren & Gale Shamblott Request: 7' variance I abstain
8701 32nd Avenue Request to construct a vestibule to rear of existing house. CC: unanimous
ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 - 2000 8
84-24 Side yard setback (20' corner lot) Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Alvie Carey Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous
4052 Decatur Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 3'
into side yard (corner lot) setback.
84-13 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof gabled & building materials to match existing
Harlan Sandberg Request: 27 %' variance CC: unanimous structure.
9008 40 % Avenue Request to no less than 7 1/2' from property line as house
already encroaches into setback. Request is for an enclosed
porch
84-11 Side yard setback (5') PC - approved 1' PC: 1' unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
James Wiczek Request: 2' variance CC - approved 2' CC: 2' unanimous
4104 Oregon Avenue Request to add a 2-story addition, including tuck-under
garage and living area above.
84-08 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Richard & Patricia Bruins Request: 4' variance 6/5/84 - PC CC: unanimous
7251 40th Avenue Request to construct a screened porch at rear of house which 6/11/84 - CC
~s technically the side yard and would extend 4' into side yard.
84-05 Rear yard setback (35') Approved variance PC: 7 for Family room roof & building materials to match existing
~)avid & Linda Jones Request: 3'2" variance for family room 8, variance for 3- for family room. 1 abstain structure.
4410 Independence Avenue season porch to enclose pool. Denied variance CC: unanimous Withdrew part of request to enclose swimming pool.
for 3-season porch
84-03 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: 5 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Terry Hebig Request: 15' variance 1 against
7750 47 % Place Request to add a 2-story addition to the rear of the house, CC: unanimous
which would extend 15' into the rear yard.
83-60 Rear yard (35') setback Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Michael & JoEIlen Ostrow Request: 9' variance CC: unanimous
3233 Gettysburg Ct. Request to construct family room to rear of house, which
extends 9' into setback:
83-59 Rear yard {35') setback Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Ole & Karen Johnson Request: 7' variance CC: unanimous Approval of fence by Inspections Dept.
8108 28th Avenue Request to construct 3-season porch on rear of house, which Lot survey
extends 7' into setback.
83-55 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
P.O. Dotson Request: I t/2' variance CC: unanimous
2701 Quebec Avenue Request to add onto garage, which would extend 1 W into
setback.
83-54 Front yard (30') & rear yard (35') setbacks Approved PC: unanimous Will be installing new siding and roof will match existing.
Randy Elam Request: 5 %' front yard & 4' rear yard variance CC: unanimous
3227 Flag Ct. Request to add onto front of garage in front yard, which would
extend 5 %' into setback & add an addition to rear of house
which would extend 4' into the rear yard setback
83-52 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Roger Fechner Request: 14' variance CC: unanimous
4700 Independence Avenue Request to add onto existing house, which would extend 21'
into the rear yard.
83-51 Variance for A/C unit in side yard Denied PC: unanimous Petitioner & contractor knew when getting permit not
Thomas Engelke CC: unanimous place in side yard.
5832 W. Meadow Lake Rd
83-50 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Leroy & colleen Lilly Request: 20' variance CC: unanimous
9140 34 '~ Avenue Request to construct a 3-season porch to the rear of the
house, which would extend 20' into the setback.
83-48 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Joseph Forrer Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous Structure should be only 20' so overhang is 2' from lot
4633 Rhode Island Avenue Request to add onto garage, which would extend 3' into line.
setback.
83-44 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Donald & Judy Hoseth Request: 21' variance CC: unanimous
3641 Boone Circle Request to construct an enclosed porch 14' from the rear yard
property line. Back of property abuts an outlot.
83-41 Variance to keep A/C unit in side yard PC motion failed PC: 3 for
Steven & Julie Van Viler CC approved 4 against
4048 Jordan Avenue CC: unanimous
83-35 Side yard (10') & rear yard (35) setback Approved PC no minutes in files Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Charles & Phyllis Horton Request: 2' side & 3' rear yard variance CC: unanimous Remove existing shed.
3204 Gettysburg Request to add 3-season porch to rear of house, which
extends 2' into the side yard and 3' to rear yard.
83-30 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: unanimous 2'3" variance, move shed at back of property, take out
Joseph Buslovich Request: 2,9,, variance CC: unanimous 1'1 . of sidewalk, take care of water problem, work to be
3530 Yukon Avenue Variance was granted 3' variance in 1980, after survey by done in 30 days.
neighbor, he should have requested 2'3" variance as the
sidewalk and a shed are located on neighbor's properly.
83-26 Side yard variance (10') and front yard variance (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Larry & Carol Adams Request: 5' side & 5' front CC: unanimous
5200 Oregon Avenue Request to construct double garage.
83-24 Variance for 2"d driveway on corner lot PC - denied. PC: 5 for denial
Richard VanHeel CC - withdrawn 2 abstain
6020 Ensign Avenue CC: 3 for
1 against
"'83-23 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Raymond Dionne Request: 5' variance CC: unanimous
8412 58th Avenue Request to construct an addition to rear of house, which
extends 5' into setback.
ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --~ 1980 - 2000 10
83-22 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Roland Engtund Request: 5' variance CC: unanimous
8408 E. Meadow Lake Road Request to add onto existing dining room by extending out 4'
to the front and add a bay window which adds 18" more.
83-18 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Roy Beaverlander Request: 8' variance CC: unanimous
6132 Gettysburg Avenue Request Io add a dining room to existing house, which would
extend 8' into the rear yard.
83-09 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Thomas Gagnon '~j Request: 4.25' variance with overhang 2.25' from CC: unanimous
6025 Sumter Place~ propertyline.
Request to construct and addition onto existing home. Council
recommended that addition be flush along rear of house so
that the variance be less than original plan.
83-06 Variance for 2'''~ accessory building in rear yard, Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Harold Johnson Size of building was reduced after much discussion. I abstain
4073 Gettysburg Avenue CC: 4 for
1 against
83-04 Side yard setback variances for stairway and wing walls Approved PC: 4 for
Vernon Stuhr already constructed. 3 against
5635 Wisconsin Avenue CC: 4 for
1 against
83-01 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Abe Pasno Request: 1'4" variance CC: unanimous
8641 33'd Avenue Request to construct a vestibule at front entrance, which
extends 1 '4" into front setback.
82-44 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Robert Wynne Request: 14' variance CC: unanimous
9017 44th Circle Request to construct 3-season porch on existing deck, which
would extend into the rear yard 14', leaving a 21' setback.
82-43 Rear yard setback (35') & side yard on corner (20') Planning Co. PC: unanimous Petitioner would now construct a detached garage in the'
Naomi Nygaard Request: 6' variance in rear/10' variance on side approved with CC: unanimous rear set back 20' from property line.
6000 Ensign Avenue Request to convert existing garage to family room and condition of no
construct a new garage and porch to the rear. Garage would parking in
encroach 6' into the rear setback and the side yard driveway driveway.
would leave only 10' to the street. Council denied
side yard &
approved rear.
82-41 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Ralph Lichliter Request: 10' variance CC: unanimous
4075 Ensign Avenue Request to build 3-season porch onto existing house, which
would extend 10' into rear yard setback.
ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS o-- 1980 - 2000 11
82-38 Side yard setback (20' on corner lot) Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
William & Jacqueline Sheperd Request: 8.4' variance CC: unanimous
8501 28t~' Avenue Request to build 3-season porch onto existing house 8.4' into
20' setback required for corner lots, leaving 11.8'.
82-30 Opinion requested on requests for variances in setback, lot CC - Refer back to Duplex built before garage was required. City allowed it to
Mart Omtvedt under 7,000 sf, no garage and zero lot line. Plan. Co. for zero be built on undersize lot. Rezone to R-2 from R-0 when
5614 & 5618 Rhode Island lot line platting, platting.
82-29 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: unanimous
Robert Yunker, 4606 Boone Request: Both parties requesting 5' variance to construct a CC: unanimous
Martin Kvasnik, 4612 Boone concrete apron up to the property line at both residences
& 4606 Boone requesting variance to park recreational
vehicle on cement pad to within 3' of property line.
82-25 Variance for enclosed 3-season porch & rear yard variance, Approved ~ PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Donald Krekelberg which extends 7' into the 35' setback. CC: unanimous
9111 614 Avenue Request: 7' variance
82-24 Variance for 2"" accessory building/garage Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Vernon & Helen Youngquist CC: unanimous Remove existing shed.
8710 Bass Lake Road
82-21 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Frederick Starke Request: 3' variance 1 abstain
4042 Oregon Avenue Request to construct a 2-car detached garage to within 2' of CC: unanimous
side yard property line.
82-20 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: 4 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Joel Olson Request: 5' variance 3 against Overhang cannot extend over property line.
8833 st
31 Avenue Request to add onto existing garage right up to the lot line at CC: unanimous
the rear corner of new addition.
82-15 Variance for 2 garages on 1 property and 2 curb cuts Approved PC: 5 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure,
Jack Hill needed (1 allowed by ordinance), t against
5804 Boone Avenue There is a 1-car attached garage, new garage would be 720 CC: unanimous
sf with curb cut on Boone Place. Both curb cuts would meet
corner setbacks.
81-62 Variance request to allow steps to remain on entire side Approved PC: unanimous Signed agreement with neighbor presented to Council
Duane Rehnke yard setback (between garage & neighboring fence) owner CC: unanimous regarding disposition of space between steps and fence.
8810 60th Avenue will need to add gravel in the 2" area between steps and fence
81-58 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Sukhender Nath Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous
8717 30Ih Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 2'
from property line.
81-53 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous Exterior treatment of the total addition to match existing
Jay & Cara Cline Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous structure.
3801 Xylon Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 26'
from front property line.
ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 ~ 2000 12
81-52 Side yard setback (20' on corner) No minutes in file.
Roger & Janice Fechner Request: 4'11"' variance
4700 Independence Request to add onto existing garage leaving a 15'1" setback
along 47~h Avenue, which requires 20'.
81-41 Variance to allow 2"'~ garage at rear of lot PC approved PC: 5 for Withdrew after hearing how many neighbors objected to
Cliff Helling CC withdrew at 1 against 2n~ garage and/or garage addition.
4649 Gettysburg Ave meeting CC accepted withdrawal
81-34 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Beverly Cooper Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous
3433 Hillsboro Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 1'
from properly line.
81-28 Variance to allow A/C unit to be placed in side yard rather Approved PC: unanimous
Robert Middlemist than rear yard. CC: unanimous
4601-4609 Xylon Avenue
81-27 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: Unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Harold Lund Request: 1' variance CC: unanimous
4617 Hillsboro Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 4'
from property line.
81-11' Side yard setback (35' along 36~n Avenue) Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Kenneth Kline Request: 10' variance CC: unanimous
3551 Wisconsin Avenue Request to convert existing garage into living space and build
new 2-car garage, which would extend 10' into the 35' side
yard setback along 36~h Avenue.
81-02 ~ / Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimoUs Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Frank Dahlen~ Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous
7301 40th Avenue Request to add family room on to existing home, which would
extend 3' into the 10' setback.
80-62 Owner requested to convert garage into bedroom and go Denied Owner to construct new garage with no need for a
Charles & Marie Downs without a garage until spring (code requires a garage for variance.
2865 Valle Vista each residence).
80-61 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Robert Yunker Request: 2.23' variance & variance for oversize garage. CC: unanimous
4606 Boone Avenue Request to add on large addition to garage, which will extend
2.23' into the rear yard setback. Variance also needed for
oversize garage.
80-60 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Robert Laurel Request: 12' variance CC: unanimous
4069 Flag Avenue Request to add on to the existing house, which would extend
12' into the rear yard
80-59 Side (20') & rear yard variance (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing structure.
Myron & Betty Kjos Request: 2' side yard & $.5' rear yard variance CC: unanimous
3837 Hiltsboro Avenue Lot line is somewhat at an angle to new garage and half the
garage is over the side setback by 2' and the rear extends
into the rear setback by 5.5 feet
80-53 Request to leave A/C units in side yard PC approved PC: 3 for Units to be moved
Steven Kauffman CC case dropped 2 against
4167-69 Jordan Ay. (duplex)
80-52 Request to leave AJC units in side yard Denied Petitioner needs to have contractor correct mistake and
Richard Kauffman
4124/4126 Jordan (duplex) put A/C in rear yard.
80-51 Front yard variance (30') Approved PC: unanimous
Arnie Carlson Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous
7930 59 % Avenue Request to add on a greenhouse/solarium to the front of the
existing house, which would extend 2' into the front yard
setback.
80-50 Rear yard variance (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing structure.
Donnavan Lysdahl Request: 9.5' variance CC: unanimous
7649 48th Avenue Request to add a family room on the rear, which would be
25.5 feet from property line. Rear of lot abuts a park.
80-48 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing structure.
Joseph Buslovich Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous
3530 Yukon Avenue Request to add on to make a 2-car garage, which would be 3'
from the property line with the overhang right on the property
line. Neighbors house is 10' from line with no windows on that
side.
80-47 Side yard variance (5' garage) Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing structure.
Daniel Hanka Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous
3625 Gettysburg Avenue Request to add on large addition, garage and living area,
which leaves only 3' from property line at one corner of home.
80-40 Side yard variance (5'garage) Approved PC: 6 for Curb cut moved by City so driveway does not encroach!'
Elroy Meyer Request: 5' variance 1 against on neighboring land when paved.
5832 Cavell Avenue Request to keep driveway right up to the property line as it CC: unanimous
was for past 19 years. Want to pave driveway and at the
boulevard it encroaches onto the neighbors land,
80-37 Request was for variance to permit expansion of use. Want to Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing structure.
William & Louise Kranz remove carport and construct a separate garage on property. CC: unanimous
3043 Louisiana Avenue This is a non.conforming structure in a light industrial
district.
ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 - 2000 14
80-34 ,.. --' Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing structure
~\ .~.-.-, Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous
Linne
Johnson
3022 Boone Avenue~./~ Add a 2' x 5' alcove to dining room, which would extend out 2'
into the 10' side yard setback
80-32 Front yard setback (50' on major aderial street - Boone Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing structure
Ron & Jane Kalin Avenue) CC: unanimous
4311 Boone Avenue Request: 4' variance
Want to extend garage to the front by 4' and convert porch at
rear of garage to a dining room, which leaves 46' setback on
Boone
80-28 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous
John Resch Request: 13' variance CC: unanimous
8408 49th Avenue Existing house already 1' into the setback. Request to add a
)orch to rear of house which would leave 22' in rear yard
80-27 Side yard setback (35' for major arterial street - 36~" Avenue) Approved PC: unanimous Remove existing fence, building materials to match
Roy Lindgren Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous
3600 Jordan Avenue Want to add onto the garage into the 35' side yard setback by
4', which would leave 31'
80-25 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous
DeMatts Inc. Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous
8140 46 h Avenue This house was constructed before street was put in and
ended up 27.8' from property line. Garage was to have been
detached and set back from house. With a change of owners,
etc. the garage was lined up with the house when finally
constructed. Problem was discovered when code compliance
done for sale of home.
80-14 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof line, siding and texture to match existing house.
William & Judith Stewart Request: 10' variance CC: unanimous
3500 Virginia Avenue Want to extend the garage 10' to the front into the 30' setback
so they could add onto the kitchen at the rear of the garage
80-13 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous A removable gateway section be installed in fence to
Cooper/Herman Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous allow for fire protection.
4200 Flag Avenue Houses were built too close together in cul-de-sac & one
corner of each house does not meet requirement
80-12 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous A removable gateway section be installed in fence to
Cooper/Herman Request: 5' variance CC: unanimous allow for fire protection.
4208 Flag Avenue Houses were built too close together in cul-de-sac & one
corner of each house does not meet requirement
CITY OF NEW HOPE
SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG
A B C D E F G H I J
Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City
cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response
number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant
Address by City that required expires expires of under application
Phone information extension extension
was missing or waiver
01-08 Tim Preimesberger 5/11/01 7/10/01 9/8/01
5841 Cavell Avenue N
New Hope 55428
763-535-3332
Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application.
A. Assign each application a number.
B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
C. List the date the City received the application.
D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the
date in Box C, If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line.
E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
I. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.)
J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before
the time limit expires.
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: June 5, 2001
Report Date: June 1, 2001
Planning Case: 01-05
Petitioner: AutoZone, Inc.
Address: 3601 Winnetka Avenue North
Request: Site Plan Review
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting site plan review of a new 5,400 square foot retail building for AutoZone, an
auto parts store, with 30 parking spaces, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and extension of all necessary
utilities at the northwest corner of Winnetka and 36th Avenues, pursuant to Section 4.35 of the New
Hope Code of Ordinances.
II. Zoning Code References
Section 4,35 Administration - Site Plan Review
III. Property Specifications
Zoning: CB, Community Business
Location: Northwest quadrant of 36th and Winnetka Avenues
Adjacent Land Uses: Community Business lot to the west; Bassett Creek flood plain and park
property to the north; Community Business uses across the streets at all three
quadrants, shopping center, gas station/car wash and gas-convenience on
Crystal lot at northeast corner.
Site Area: 193' x 193' = 37,249 square feet (.85 acres) - after granting 7' of additional
right-of-way
Building Area: Vacant gas station and canopies to be demolished
New auto parts store: 90' x 60' = 5,400 square feet
Lot Area Ratios: Building = 14 percent; Green = 35 percent; Paved = 51 percent
Planning District: No. 12; The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address this site,
however, the City promotes scattered site renovation, redevelopment and
reinvestment, especially on blighted property like this abandoned gas station.
Specific Information: The proposed concept will include on-site ponding with positive effects on the
adjacent flood plain, due to slowing of runoff and discharged water quality
improvements.
IV. Background
The applicant, AutoZone, Inc., is requesting site plan approval to allow the construction of a 5,400
square foot retail building on the property located at 3601 Winnetka Avenue. Currently, this site
contains an abandoned gas station. The applicant plans to demolish the existing gas station and
replace it with the proposed retail building.
Planning Case Report 01-05 Page 1 6/1/01
The original gas station was built in 1963 with few improvements over the years and several nuisance
problems including a lack of maintenance, storage of vehicles, unauthorized U-Haul truck storage and
rental (later given a CUP), etc.
V. Petitioner's Comments
AutoZone, Inc. is proposing an AutoZ°ne auto parts store in New Hope. This proposed site is located at
3601 Winnetka Avenue. The proposed project is the construction of a 5,400 square foot retail building
with associated 30 parking spaces, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and extension of all necessary
utilities. The typical operating hours are 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 8 a.m. to 8
p.m. on Sunday. There will not be any outdoor sales or display for this store. As shown on the submitted
plans, there will be two driveway entrances, one on the southwest of the site and another on the east
side of the site. The eastern entrance will be utilized as delivery truck access from Winnetka Avenue.
VI. Notification
City Code does not require notification for site/building plan review.
VII. Development Analysis
A. Zoninq Code Criteria
The purpose of the site plan review is to insure that the purposes of this Code are adhered to, it is
hereby determined that a comprehensive review of site, building and development plans shall be made
by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council prior to the issuance of any building
permits by the Building Official pursuant to the procedure established by this section.
In making recommendations and decisions upon site and building plan review applications, the staff,
Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the compliance of such plans with the following
standards:
1. Consistency with the various elements and objectives of the City's long range plans, including but
not limited to the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Consistency with the purposes of this Code.
3. Preservation of the site in its natural state, insofar as practicable, by minimizing tree and soil
removal, and designing any grade changes so as to be in keeping with the general appearance of
neighboring developed or developing areas.
4. Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces with the terrain and with
existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the proposed development.
5. Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features including:
a) Creation of an internal sense of order for the various functions and building on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community.
b) Appropriateness of the amount and arrangement of open space and landscaping to the design
and function of the development.
c) Appropriateness of the materials, textures, colors, and details of construction as an expression
of the design concept of the project and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and
neighboring structures and functions.
d) Adequacy of vehicular, cycling and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking, in terms of location and number of access points, general interior circulation,
separation of pedestrian, cycling and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking
so as to be safe, convenient and, insofar as practicable, compatible with the design of
proposed buildings, structures and neighboring properties.
Planning Case Report 01-05 Page 2 6/1/01
6. Creation of an energy-conserving design through design, location, orientation and elevation of
structures, the use and location of glass in structures, and the use of landscape materials and site
grading.
7. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for such matters
as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and those
aspects of design, not adequately covered by other regulations, which may have substantial
effects on neighboring land uses.
B. Development Review Team
The Development Review Team met on May 16 to discuss this request. Changes were
recommended including light levels, building exterior, upgrades, landscaping, snow storage,
signage, pond maintenance agreement, Fire Department concerns, county permits and city
sewer/water permits.
C. Desiqn & Review Committee
The Design & Review Committee met with Jeremy Yee of CEI Engineering Company on May 17
and shared the following 14 suggestions: 1. Reduce exterior light levels to approximately .5 foot
candle at the lot lines, per code. 2. Improve building architecture similar to previous plan submittal.
3. Agree to sign a pond maintenance agreement with City, yet to be drafted. 4. Obtain Hennepin
County permits before any excavation or curb work along Winnetka Avenue. 5. Obtain sewer and
water permits from the City and properly cut and "cap" utilities before demolition of buildings. 6.
Provide additional landscaping along southwest corner and consider more along street frontages
with "northwood red maple" or "autumn blaze maple" trees to replace the illustrated trees, not
suitable to this growing zone. "Winterberry" shrubs are probably desirable instead of inkberry. 7.
Provide details about tires - quality/location - method of storage for Fire Department. 8. Provide a
yellow-striped curb along south side of building and "No Parking Fire Lane" signs. 9. Realign the
radius of north curb where excess pavement was shown. 10. Remove all vehicle bumpers from plan
- not permitted by code. 11. Illustrate two hose faucets on exterior wall for landscape maintenance,
if lawn sprinklers are not included. 12. Clarify that 100 percent of green area will be sodded, with
erosion fabric in the pond contours. 13. Provide roof "ships ladder" per code, if any rooftop
equipment is planned at time of building permit application. 14. Identify snow storage on the lot.
D. Plan Description
Revised plans were submitted by the applicant that illustrates compliance with items 1, 2, 6, 9, 10,
12 and 14. Verbal agreement was stated with items 3, 4, 5, and 13. No response is evident to items
7, $ and 11. The plans are described as follows:
1. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. Redevelopment of a retail business on this site is consistent
with both the Compressive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed land use plan guides
this site for commercial use. Similarly, this site is zoned CB, Community Business District. Retail
businesses are a permitted use within this district.
2. Setbacks. This proposal meets the required setbacks for properties in the CB District. The
following table compares both the required and proposed setback for the proposed building.
Setbacks for Properties in the CB District
Setback Required Proposed Status
Front 30 feet 93 feet Compliant
Side (corner) 20 feet 64 feet Compliant
Side 10 feet 44 feet Compliant
Rear 30 feet 46 feet Compliant
Planning Case Report 01-05 Page 3 6/1/01
3. Parkinq. Per the Planner's report, this site meets the off-street parking requirements for retail
uses in the CB District. The Zoning Code requires retail uses to provide one stall for each 200
square feet of floor area. This standard requires this use to provide 25 stalls. The site plan
shows 30 stalls. In addition, state law requires this site to include two disability stalls. These
stalls are shown on the applicant's site plan. Two ADA accessible parking stalls are provided in
front of the building at the northeast corner and appropriate ADA signage and concrete
accessible ramp is shown on the plans.
AutoZone Parkin~,
Retail Sq. Ft. Requirement Required Parking Provided Parking
'Retail Area 3,440 1/150 Sq. Ft. 23 ---
Storage Area 1,860 1/500 Sq. Ft. 4 ---
Total 5,400 --- 27 30
4. Access. The redevelopment of this site will close the two existing curb cuts closest to the 36th
Avenue and Winnetka intersection. The new design will leave one access on 36th and one
access along Winnetka. The Zoning Code limits the width of curb cuts for commercial uses to 26
feet. The access from Winnetka is 35 feet wide and should remain at this width to allow truck
access. The Planner has suggested that the access along 36th be narrowed to the 26-foot
requirement unless the applicant can demonstrate a need for it to remain at 30 feet, however,
the City Engineer has not noted this as an issue.
5. Loadinq. The site plan shows a loading area along the north side of the building and a "No
Parking Loading Zone" sign is located near the north loading area. The applicant maintains that
most of their deliveries will be made by small trucks. Staff has some concerns with the turning
radius to access this location. Large trucks may have a difficult time maneuvering into the
designated loading area.
6. Landscaping. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan with the following schedule:
Plant List
Key Qty' Common Name Root Size' Remarks
AR 4 Red Maple Autumn Blaze B&B 2.5 cal. As per plan
EA 10 Dwarf Winged Euonymus Cont. 2 ga!. As per plan
JH 15 Creeping Juniper Cont. 2 9al. As per plan
· Two red maples are located on the west side of the property south of the pond, one is
located west of the 36th Avenue curb cut and one is located north of the Winnetka curb cut.
· The 10 dwarf winged euonymus are located at the southeast corner of the site.
· The 15 creeping juniper are also located at the southeast corner of the site.
The site's landscaping plan appears to meet the requirements of the city code. However, the
applicant must demonstrate how the landscaping will be maintained. The landscape plan should
show either an irrigation system or an outside spigot for watering and maintenance.
7. Lighting.
A. Contours. The applicant's photometric plan appears to meet the lighting standards outlined
in Section 4.034(5). These standards state that the amount of light from any commercial use
may not exceed one foot candle as measured from the center line of the street.
B. Parking Lot Light Standards. Double light standards are located on the east side of the
parking lot near Winnetka and on the south side of the parking lot near 36th Avenue.
Planning Case Report 01-05 Page 4 6/1/01
Single light standards are located at the northeast and southwest corners of the property.
Light standards are 25 feet in height with 3-foot base, 5" square steel pole with bronze finish.
Fixtures are 400 watt metal halide shoebox light fixture with forward throw.
C. Building Lights.
· Three wall mounted lights on north (side)
· Three wall mounted lights on south (side)
8. Trash Enclosure. The design and location of the applicant's trash enclosure appear to meet the
City's requirement. Their plan shows the enclosure will be located 20 feet from the northern
property line and will have masonry walls on three sides and a front cedar gate. This masonry
material must match that used for the exterior of the principal building. The plans state that the
18' x 12' enclosure will be painted to match the building.
9. Snow Storage Areas. Designated snow storage areas are shown on the site plan on the north
side of the property north of the paved area and on the southwest portion of the property north
of the parking area and south of the pond. The site plan demonstrates that this site has
adequate area for snow storage.
10. Rooftop Units. Plans show HVAC units to be screened behind mansard.
11. Sidewalk. Eight feet wide in front of building (east side) and five feet wide on south side.
12. Buildinq Materials. The applicant has revised the exterior appearance of the proposed building
to conform to the recommendations of the Design & Review Committee. These plans show a
single story 5,400 square foot building. The sales floor area is 3,437 square feet. The exterior of
the building will be a mix of aluminum, glass, and concrete block. The building will be painted
either light or medium grey with an orange accent stripe around the top (see detailed description
of building elevations below). In addition, the building plans show two windows along the south
elevation. These windows appear to conflict with the internal layout of the building. The applicant
should demonstrate that these windows would not conflict with the internal design of the store.
Front Elevation (Winnetka):
· Black metal coping
· Single score concrete block painted medium grey (upper)
· Two accent stripes 4" smooth face concrete block painted dark grey
· Split face block painted light grey (middle)
· Split face concrete block painted dark grey (lower)
· Aluminum storefront full length windows
Street Side Elevation (36th):
· Same as Winnetka elevation materials
· Two glazed windows
Side Elevation (north side)
· Same as Winnetka and 36th materials
· 6' by 8' roll-up delivery door
· 3' by 7' emergency exit door
Rear Elevation (west side)
· Same materials as other three sides
· Scupper and downspout painted to match wall
13. Si.qns. Building signage for this site may not exceed two signs having a total area of 250 square
feet. The applicant's building elevations illustrate two wall signs totaling 133 square feet. In
Planning Case Report 01-05 Page 5 6/1/01
addition, the applicant's plans show a 98 square foot pylon sign. Both the building and
freestanding pylon signs meet the sign standards for properties in the commercial district.
A. Wall Siqns
Front (Winnetka elevation) - 42" tall by 18' long orange stripe with black shadow and
"AutoZone": 42" tall red letters with black shadow.
Right (36th elevation) - 42" tall by 18' long orange stripe and "AutoZone" in 42" tall red
letters.
B. Pylon Si,qn
Located at southeast corner of site and set back 13.5 feet from east property line and 15.44
feet from south property line. Text will state "AutoZone" with orange stripes and red letters
and "The Best Parts in Auto Parts" in black letters. The sign will be 28 feet in height and
suspended on a white pole.
C. Traffic Directional Signs · "Right Turn Only" sign on Winnetka curb cut
· Traffic flow arrows at Winnetka and 36th curb cuts
· Stop bar at 36th curb cut
· Right turn only pavement marker on Winnetka curb cut
· "Stop" signs at Winnetka and 36th curb cuts
14. Gradinq and Drainaqe. Considerable grading will be necessary to redevelop this site and
construct an on-site storm water retention pond. The site plan illustrates that the on-site pond
will be located behind the building in the northwestern corner of the site. See City Engineer's
comments on this plan.
E. Planning Considerations
Excerpts from the Planner's report have been incorporated into this report.
F. Buildinq Considerations
All construction must comply with the Minnesota Building Code.
G. Legal Considerations
The City Attorney will prepare the Site Development Agreement for this redevelopment project.
H. Engineering Considerations
The City Engineer has been reviewing plans and communicating with the applicant over the past
several months and March 29, May 14 and 30 comments are below:
We have received the plans for the redevelopment of the AutoZone site. We have also received
storm water calculations and documentation from CEI Engineers. The following comments relate to
information received.
1. All site runoff is routed through an on-site storm water pond. This is required per the City's
Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The degree of ponding must further be defined.
The SWMP shows sediment traps for area runoff currently flowing directly into the Northwood
wetland. It appears that the pond shown could be smaller. The pond must be designed based on
the following criteria.
· The pond must have a "wet volume." The volume must be equal to the total volume of runoff
from 1.5" of rain in 24 hours. The current configuration does not include a wet volume.
However, it does appear that the size of the pond may be reduced even with the inclusion of
a wet volume.
Planning Case Report 01-05 Page 6 6/1/01
· Typically, the minimum wet volume depth is three feet.
· The pond must include an outlet skimmer structure. We have attached a copy of a skimmer
structure detail from a recent city pond project. Other configurations can be considered.
· "Flat" benches are typically required around water ponds. Bench widths are typically 10 feet
and slopes are 10 to 1. The limited space on the site makes this difficult. It would be
preferred to include some kind of bench configuration, particularly abutting the building. Even
a 5 to I bench would facilitate mowing and maintenance directly behind the building.
· The invert of the pond flared end inlet should be set at the NWL.
· The pond outlet capacity is typically designed based on a 10-year event. Velocity and energy
must be dissipated with rip rap at the pond outlet into the wetland as shown.
· A 100-year overflow must be shown for the pond. This should be protected with rip rap such
that the pond embankment does not erode during a 100-year event.
· It is recommended that a maintenance agreement be established for the pond.
2. It is our understanding that this redevelopment application does not have to be reviewed by
Bassett Creek Watershed. We are in the process of verifying this position with the Watershed
Engineer.
3. The runoff from the north side of the property and the building flows to the east and then south
across the Winnetka Avenue driveway. The spot elevation of 89.72 on the south side of the
driveway appears to conflict with the rim elevation of 90.10 at the catch basin. This drainage
pattern should be reviewed. The storm sewer may have to be extended to the north side of the
driveway and a catch basin added.
4. The proposed plan shows the elimination of the two driveways closest to the intersection.
Hennepin County will likely prefer this proposed configuration over the existing. A
driveway/access permit must be obtained from the County.
The driveway aprons and curb and gutter must be removed. The sidewalk and curb and gutter
must be replaced to match the adjacent materials and configuration.
5. In 1996, the City graded a pedestrian trail on the property immediately north of AutoZone. This
trail is part of the Northwood Park System. The trail was only graded. It may be improved,
including pavement, at some time in the future.
The configuration of the trail required access to the Winnetka sidewalk at the northeast corner of
the AutoZone property. We have attached a sketch of the trail location as it relates to the
sidewalk and AutoZone property. The City and applicant should consider a trail access
easement in the northeast corner of the property.
6. ROW dedication must be reviewed along 36th Avenue and Winnetka Avenues. The submitted
survey indicates a 33' ¼ ROW along 36th Avenue. The City ½ section maps and previous
construction plans indicate that a 40' ¼ ROW exists. We have attached these documents. If 40'
¼ ROW does not exist, an additional 7 feet should be dedicated.
A 33' ¼ ROW is shown along Winnetka Avenue. Typically, we require a minimum of a 40' ~
ROW along Winnetka and other County Roads. It is recommended that Dave Zetterstrom from
Hennepin County provide comment on this issue.
7. The utility plan shows gas and sanitary sewer service coming from Winnetka Avenue. An ROW
construction permit must be obtained from Hennepin County.
8. The utility plan also shows a new water service tapped into the main in 36th Avenue. This is not
acceptable. Instead, it is proposed that a new curb stop be constructed on the existing 1" copper
Planning Case Report 01-05 Page 7 6/1/01
line at the ROW. A new 1" copper service can continue from the new stop box into the property
as shown.
May 14
Doug and I have worked through most of the comments previously. It appears that our previous
comments have been addressed. In addition, please see the following:
· They will still need to get permits from Hennepin County for access and utility connections.
We need copies of these permits prior to construction. Hennepin County should approve the
access permit to Winnetka as we are going from two Winnetka accesses to one. The one
closest to the intersection is being removed. The scenario is occurring on 36th Avenue.
· We should receive a copy of their pond design calcs. Please note that the pond is smaller
than before. It does appear to be adequate, however.
· It appears that the whole parking lot will be concrete. It also appears that the typical concrete
section includes only four inches of compacted aggregate subgrade. This seems "light" for
New Hope's heavy soils. Their detail references a soils report. They may want to review this
and increase the aggregate thickness to protect the life of the concrete.
· Their typical detail shows surmountable or roll over curb and gutter. We would prefer B612
curb and gutter.
May 30
· We still need a pond maintenance agreement. The City Attorney is typing up the agreement.
It will be emailed to CEI for the applicant's approval. This will hopefully occur this week.
· Storm water calculations are still needed.
Hennepin County
The plans were also submitted to Hennepin County for review and comments are provided
below:
Thanks you for the submittal regarding the above-noted proposal. All of the actions proposed by
the City (7-foot additional highway easement and access revisions to CSAH 156) are strongly
supported by Hennepin County. The only additional comment is that a sight triangle (20'-25'
along both 36th and Winnetka) might be appropriate to enhance visibility and create a pedestrian
refuge area.
Please remind the developer to obtain appropriate access and utility permits prior to
construction.
A. Police Considerations
The Police Department reviewed these plans and made recommendations along with other
Departments.
B. Fire Considerations
The Fire Department reviewed the plans and the applicant still needs to:
1. Provide information on quantities of each type of flammable and combustible liquids and tires
that will be stored in the building.
2. Provide a fire lane on south side of building.
A fire sprinkling system in the building was also requested, but is not mandatory.
Planning Case Report 01-05 Page 8 6/1/01
VIII. Summary
The proposal requesting approval of the site plan for AutoZone, Inc. located at 3601 Winnetka Avenue
to allow the construction of a 5,400 square foot retail building is routine because it complies with city
performance standards with some minor changes. The public safety improvements alone are major:
widening the right-of-way for future needs and reducing four driveways at a busy intersection to two that
are 130 feet from the actual corner. Big aesthetic and environmental improvements will also result from
a new, accessible building with windows on both public streets, a storm water NURP pond to protect the
adjacent wetland-flood plain and new landscaping. The applicant has upgraded building materials
consistent with requests from city representatives. The retail sales of auto parts tend to be a quiet,
compatible land use, with no history of nuisance problems. This private redevelopment accomplishes
many of the Comprehensive Plan goals.
IX. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the AutoZone site plan at 3601 Winnetka, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Submit revised plans and a narrative to confirm, in writing, all 14 stipulations from the Design &
Review Committee.
2. Enter into Site Improvement Agreement with City and submit bond to secure the development
agreement covering site improvements (other than building) prior to building permit application
(amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official).
3. Submit soils data and three sets of detailed construction plans with a building permit application
before any demolition or work begins on the site.
4. Comply with City Engineer recommendations.
5. Submit information to Fire Department regarding interior storage and Fire Lane.
6. Demonstrate how the landscaping will be maintained. The landscape plan must show either an
irrigation system or outside spigots for watering and maintenance.
Attachments: Address/Zoning/Topo Maps
5/9/01 Petitioner's Correspondence
Revised Plans:
Title Sheet/General Notes
Survey
Site Plan
Parking Data
Demolition Plans/Notes
Grading Plan
Utility Plan
Landscaping Plan/Schedule
Lighting Plan
Sign Detail
Dumpster Detail
Detail Sheets
Building Elevations
Floor Plan
Drainage Report
Planner's Report
City Engineer Comments
Hennepin County Comments
Application Log
Planning Case Report 01-05 Page 9 6/1/01
- ADATH CHESED
EMES' CEME?~
8208 5601 ~ ~
8100 8O0O
ii~lli~lll~lll~lll~lll~lt!
3551 8015 3520-."35~
8005
3511
3511 3509
35-" ~o
3500
;STH N -
C I~ ETE RY ~ .....
._b.t
^yE ~ ~' BETH EL
CEMETERY
AVE k .
3~T~ AVE-}, ..
--~ ~/ CEI Engineering Associates, Inc.
Corporate Office: P.O. Box 1408 * 3317 SW "1" Street * Bentonville, AR 72712-1408 · (501)273-9472 * (501)2?'3-0844
I i 2 0i
May 9, 20O 1
Do~g ~ds~d BL~~ile
Ci~ of New Hope
4401 Xylon Ave. N.
New Hope, ~ 55428
Ph: 763-531-5122
RE: Proposed AutoZone Store in New Hope, MN
Mr. Sandstad,
AutoZone, Inc. is proposing an AutoZone autopart store in New Hope, MN. This
proposed site is located at 3601 Winnetka Avenue. The proposed project is the
construction of a 5,400 square foot retail building with associated 30 parking spaces,
sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and extension of all necessary utilities. The Vypical
operating hours are 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on
Sunday. There will not be any outdoor sales nor display for this store. As shown on the
submitted plans, there will be two driveway entrances, one on the southwest of the site
and another one on the east side of the site. The eastern entrance will be utilized as
delivery truck access from Winnetka Avenue.
We are submitting 10 sets of full size, 1 set 8-1/2" x 11" of reduction and 1 set 8-1/2" x
11" of transparencies of the civil plans along with the design review checklist for your
review. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or comments.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Project Manager
Bentonville, AR * Fresno, CA · St. Augustine, FL * Nashville, TN o Atlanta, GA * Dallas, TX ° Jasonville, IN
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
SITE ~
~ 36TH AVE N
SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 118,
RANGE 21
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
Vicinity Map
NOT TO SCALE
GENERAL NOTES:
A. TOPOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY SURVEY, INCLUDING PROPERTY UNES, LEGAL
DESCRIPTION, EXISTING UTILITIES, SITE TOPOGRAPHY WITH SPOT -
ELEVATIONS, OUTSTANDING PHYSICAL FEATURES AND EXISTING STRUCTURE
LOCATIONS WAS-PROVIDED BY THE FOLLOWING COMPANY. AS A CONTRACTOR
TO THE SELLER/OWNER:
RLK-KUUSlSTO, LTD
6110 BLUE CIRCLE DR.
SUITE #100
MINNETONKA, MN
PHONE: 952-953-0972
FAX: 952-95.3-1155
CEI ENGINEERING AND ITS ASSOCIATES WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE ACCURACTY OF THE SURVEY OR FOR DESIGN ERRORS OR OMISSIONS
RESULTING FROM SURVEY INACCURACIES.
B. ALL PHASES OF SITE WORK FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE
OWNER / DEVELOPER SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS.
C. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RAZING AND REMOVAL OF THE
EXISTING STRUCTURES, RELATED UTIUTIES, PAVING, UNDERGROUND STORAGE
TANKS AND ANY OTHER EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AS NOTED. SEE SITE
WORK SPECIFICATIONS.
D. CONTRACTOR IS TO REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL DEBRIS, RUBBISH AND
OTHER MATERIALS RESULTING FROM PREVIOUS AND CURRENT DEMOLITION
OPERATIONS. DISPOSAL WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE
AND/OR FEDERAL REGULATIONS GOVERNING SUCH OPERATIONS.
E. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR AND
SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE
TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS
PROJECT.
F. WARRANTY/DISCLAIMER:
THE DESIGNS REPRESENTED IN THESE PLANS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ESTABUSHED PRACTICES OF CIVIL ENGINEERING FOR THE DESIGN FUNCTIONS
AND USES INTENDED BY THE OWNER AT THIS TIME. HOWEVER, NEITHER
THE ENGINEER NOR ITS PERSONNEL CAN OR DO WARRANT THESE DESIGNS
OR PLANS AS CONSTRUCTED EXCEPT IN THE SPECIFIC CASES WHERE THE
ENGINEER INSPECTS AND CONTROLS THE PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION ON A
CONTEMPORARY BASIS AT THE SITE.
G. SAFETY NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR:
IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES,
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR
CONDITIONS OF THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND
PROPERTY DURING PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL
APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS.
ANY CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION BY THE ENGINEER OF THE CONTRACTOR'S
PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF
THE CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES. IN, ON OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION
SITE.
H. ALL CONSTRUCTION IN STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL
BE COORDINATED WITH THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RESIDENT MAINTENANCE
ENGINEER.
I. ~
ANY DEVELOPMENT, EXCAVATION, CONSTRUCTION, OR FILUNG IN A U.S.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DESIGNATED WEll. AND IS SUBJECT TO LOCAL, STATE
AND FEDERAL APPROVALS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL
PERMIT REOUIREMENTS AND/OR RESTRICTIONS AND ANY VIOLATION WILL BE
SUBJECT TO FEDERAL PENALTY. THE CONTRACTOR SHAM- HOLD THE
OWNER/DEVELOPER, THE ENGINEER AND THE LOCAL GOVERNING AGENCIES
HARMLESS AGAINST SUCH VIOLATION.
SITE PLAN
GENERAL DEMOLITION NOTES
A. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING
STRUCTURES, RELATED UTILITIES, PAVING, UNDERGROUND STORAGE
TANKS. AND ANY OTHER EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AS NOTED. SEE SITE
WORK SPECIFICATIONS.
B. CONTRACTOR IS TO REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL DEBRIS, RUBBISH
AND OTHER MATERIALS RESULTING FROM PREVIOUS AND CURRENT
DEMOLITION OPERATIONS. DISPOSAL WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL
LOCAL, STATE AND/OR FEDERAL REGULATIONS GOVERNING SUCH
OPERATIONS.
C. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY
TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE
CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE
HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO THE ADJACENT
PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS
PROJECT.
D. I~NGINI~I~R'S NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR
THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION
AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS
IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTIUTY COMPANIES, AND
WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE
INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE.
THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTIUTY COMPANY AT
LEAST 4~ HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD
LOCATION OF UTIMTIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTIMTIES WHICH CONFLICT
WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
E. NOTE: UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS MAY BE LOCATED ON THIS
PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVAL AND
PROPER DISPOSAL AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
IN THE EVENT THAT UNDERGROUND TANKS ARE FOUND, CONTRACTOR
SHOULD IMMEDIATELY CONTACT AUTOZONE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.
C)' DEMOLITION NOTES _
'ISA EXISTING BE REMOVED
19A EXISTING TO REMAIN
74A VACANT BUILDING AND IMMEDIATE FACILITIES MAY ALREADY BE
REMOVED BY PREVIOUS OWNERS~ CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE
WITH AUTOZONE CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO BID.
PLANT UST
COMMON NAME/
KEY QTY BOTANICAL NAME ROOT SIZE REMARKS
AR 4. RED MAPLE 'AUTUMN BLAZE
Acer x freemonii *Autumn Blaze' ~ 2.5" CAL AS PER PLAN
EA. 10 DWARF YANGED EUONYMUS
£UOn~A~US alatus 'Compoctus' CONT. 2 GAL AS PER PLAN
dH 15 CREEPING dUNIPER
duniperua horlzontollls CONT. 2 GAL AS PER PLAN
3601 W~NNET~A A %~NUE NO~ TI'I
..~ .~ ~ M~NNE~T~ M~ T~ 38103
~ SCALE D~L 8Hg ~ ~1) ~ F~ (~1)~
18'-0"
5'-0" 8'-0" 5'-0"
Masonry wall Trash ~ elev. See site or
,~ I I durnpster I ',= __ ~ grading plon
' 6-8CY ~i ~
enc.a..ure ~ I . I I __J So. id cap block
~ 8" double-face split
~~,~~~,~c ~ face C.M.U. Paint
:-FH- ..p'~T ,[o match building
, ,, ~/both sides)
Ga[es Vertical #5 s @ 32~,Ji~; . ~.~__.,_.~ '
required O.C._ gFout_~ 1 ~
I Finish rode varies
·
ND SCALE SEC-C17M , 9redo§ plan
· Co,nc. fogtin9
I I ~ w/ 2 #5 bars
[ Rolling overhead steel door 1 I ~ continuous
I (See plan and details) I
0 SCREEN WALL DETAIL
Line of ~
6'-0" Pipe gubrd
(Dp_. Door opening ~ (~
CENTER P~PE GUARDS
ON EDGE OF OPENING
NO SCALE SEC-C08
PIPE GUARD @ ROLL-UP DOOR 70L
400 watt metal halide
shoebox light fixture
two per pole, forward throw
1
5" sq. steel pole
bronze finish
4 anchor bolts
furnished by
light
turer
Set pole on
non-shrink
grout base
' 3/4" chamfer
:t1':'11
Finish grade or
top of paving,
See site plan
for location
24" dia. concrete
~ base W/ 4-~5's
~ :m vert. & #3 hes
~ @12" O.C.
Electric conduit
NO SCALE SEC-C13
TYPICAL LIGHT POLE
......... ProPOSED AUTOZONE~
.... -. Presented By' ~ ; -' . - ' .
':':,. (50l) 273- 9472/Fax (501)273-,0~' - .... .--- ,. ·
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR THE PROPOSED AUTOZONE .
New Hope, MN
i 360t Winnetka Avenue
i May 23, 2001
i CEI Project No. 16141.0
Text Pages
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... i
Pre-development drainage pattern ................................................................................................ i
Post-development drainage pattern ............................................................................................... i
Drainage Calculations .................................................................................................................... i
Results ............................................................................................................................................ i
Discussion/Summary ...................................................................................................................... i
Section:
Calculations report/data
Pre-development
Post-development
May 22, 2001
Storm Drainage/Runoff Calculation
AutoZone-3601 Winnetka Ave., New Hope, MN.
CEI Project No.: 16141.0
INTRODUCTION
This proposed AutoZone is located at 3601 Winnetka Avenue, New Hope,
Minnesota. This proposed site is approximately 1.25 acres. It is currently occupied by an
abandoned gas station. The proposed plan is to demolish the gas station and build a new
foot AutoZone store with associated sidewalks, curbs and
5,400
auto
parts
gutters,
parking lot and drives, and extension of all necessary utilities.
PRE-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE
PATTERN
As shown in the pre-development drainage drawing, it is approximately 40
percent of the on-site storm water is draining to the adjacent street (Winnetka Avenue)
and inlet. And the rest of the storm water is draining to the wetland on north of the
property.
POST-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE PATTERN
In the post-development storm water situation, all the on-site runoff will be
diverted to the pond at rear of the building before discharging to the wetland as
mentioned above. The pond is facilitated with skimmer device for sedimentation
purposes and overflow spillway for 100-yr storm event. In addition, the pond is designed
to have a "wet volume" per City requirements. A 12" CMP is used to carry storm water
from the pond to the wetland.
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
These drainage calculations were computed by the SCS unit hydrograph method,
using PonclPack sot~vare by Haested Methods. The design storm data, based on the
USDA-SCS and U.S. Weather Bureau for New Hope, MN. Please see attachment for
rainfall data.
i RESULTS
The post-developed rua-offresults are as follows:
Storm event Post Developed, cfs Elevation at the Outflow, els
pond, ft
1.5" rainfall-"wet 0.80 888.91 0.01
volume"
10-yr 3.28 889.85 2.14
100-yr 4.92 Overflow (890.20) 3.95
1
DISCUSSION/SUMMARY
This analysis was performed using conservative methods where no infiltration
was factored into the calculations. As mentioned above, the pond is designed to have a
"wet volume" (volume of runoff from 1.5" of rain in 24 hours) and skimmer device.
With this proposed storm water system, there will not be any additional runoff, will be
discharged to the adjacent street and inlet, in fact, all the on-site runoffs will be
discharged to the wetland on the north of property as requested by City.
This drainage report has been prepared in accordance with the current requirements of the
applicable stormwaterjurisdictions and approving agencies. In addition, storm
events/frequencies, nm-off calculations, discharge criteria, pipe hydraulics, evaluation
methods (including computer software applications), etc., have been based on the
gUidelines/requirements of these entities and, also reflect the application of
permitting
generally accepted standard of engineering practice. This design is based on and, limited
by the weather data, the analysis and their applicability is presented herein.
We anticipate that thi.q report and attached calculations will satisfy the reqUirements for
storm drainage analYsis in the City of New Hope, Minnesota.
If there are any questions or concerns, or if any additional information is require, please
feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Project Manager
i
I
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Jason Lindahl/Alan Brixius
DATE: May 30, 2001
RE: New Hope - Site Plan Review for Auto Zone
FILE: 131.01 - 01.05
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Auto Zone, Inc., is. requesting site plan approval to allow the construction
of 5,400 square foot retail building on the property located at 3601 Winnetka Avenue.
Currently, this site contains an abandon gas station. The applicant plans to demolish the
existing gas station and replace it with the proposed retail building.
Attached for reference:
Attachment A: Site Location Map
Attachment B: Site Plan
Attachment C: Topography Boundary Survey dated 2-2001
Attachment D: Demolition Plan dated 5-18-2001
Attachment E: Grading Plan dated 5-18-2001
Attachment F: Utility Plan dated 5-18-2001
Attachment G: Landscape Plan dated 5-18-2001
Attachment H: Lighting Plan dated 5-18-2001
Attachment I: Auto Zone Standard Detail Sheet dated 4-2-2001
Attachment J: Building Elevations dated received by the City on 5-25-2001
Attachment K: Building Floor Plan
Comprehensive Plan & Zoning. Redevelopment of a retail business on this site is
consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The Proposed
Land Use Plan guides this site for commercial use. Similarly, this site is zoned CB,
Community Business District. Retail businesses are a permitted use within this direct.
Setbacks. This proposal meets the required setbacks for properties in the CB District.
The following table compares both the required and proposed setback for the proposed
building.
Setbacks for Properties in the CB District
Setback Required Proposed Status
Front 30 feet 93 feet Compliant
Side(comer) 20 feet 64 feet Compliant
Side 10 feet 44 feet Compliant
Rear 30 feet 46 feet Compliant
Parking. This site meets the off-street parking requirements for retail uses in the CB
District. Section 4.035(10)(m) requires retail uses to provide I stall for each 200 square
feet of floor area. This standard requires this use to provide 25 stalls. The site plan shows
30 stalls. In addition, state law requires this site to include two disability stalls. These
stalls are shown the applicant's site plan.
Access. The redevelopment of this site will close the two existing curb cuts closest to the
36*h Avenue and Winnetka intersection. The new design will leave one access on 36"' and
one access along Winnetka. Section 4.035(4)(h)(vi) limits the width of curb cuts for
commercial uses to 26 feet. The access from Winnetka is 35 feet wide and should remain
at this width to allow truck access. However, the access along 36= should be narrowed
to the 26-foot requirement unless the applicant can demonstrate a need for it to remain at
30 feet.
Loading. The site plan appears to show a loading area along the north side of the
building. While the applicant maintains that most of their deliveries will be made by small
trucks, staff has some concern with the turning radius to access this location. Large trucks
may have a difficult time maneuvering into the designated loading area.
Landscaping. The site's landscaping plan appears to meet the requirements of the City
Code. However, the applicant must demonstrate how the landscaping will be maintain.
The landscape plan should show either an irrigation system or an outside spigot for
watering and maintenance.
Lighting. The applicant's photometric plan appears to meet the lighting standards
outlined in Section 4.034(5). These standards state that the amount of light from any
commercial use may not exceed 1 foot candle as measured from the center line of the
street.
Trash. The design and location of the applicant's trash enclosure appear to meet the
City's requirements outlined in Section 4.034(8). Their plan show the enclosure will be
located 20 feet from the northern property line and will have masonry walls on three sides
and a front gate. This masonry material must match that used for the exterior of the
principal building
Signs. Building signage for this site may not exceed two signs having a total area of 250
square feet. The applicant's building elevations illustrate two wall sign totaling 133 square
feet. In addition, the applicant's plans show a 98 square foot pylon sign. Both the building
and freestanding pylon signs meet the sign standards for properties in the commercial
districts. The applicant should submit an official sign application for approval by the City.
Snow Storage. The site plan demonstrates that this site has adequate area for snow
storage.
Grading and Drainage. Considerable grading will be necessary to redevelop this site and
construct an on-site storm water retention pond. The site plan illustrates that the on-site
pond will be located behind the building in the northwestern corner of the site. The City
Engineer should review and comment on this plan.
Building. The applicant's has revised the exterior appearance of the proposed building
to conform with the recommendation of the Design and Review Committee. These plans
show a single story 5,400 square foot building. The exterior of the building will be a mix
of aluminum, glass, and concrete block. The building will be painted either light or medium
grey with an orange accent stripe around the top. In addition, the building plans showtwo
windows along the south elevation. These windows appear to conflict with the internal
layout of the building. The applicant should demonstrate that these windows will not
conflict with the internal design of the store.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the site plan for Auto Zone, Inc. located at 3601 Winnetka
Avenue. This approval will allow the construction of a 5,400 square foot retail building.
Our recommendation is based on the findings made in this report and the following plans:
Topography Boundary Survey dated 2-2001, Demolition Plan dated 5-18-2001, Grading
Plan dated 5-18-2001, Utility Plan dated 5-18-2001, Landscape Plan dated 5-18-2001,
Lighting Plan dated 5-18-2001, Auto Zone Standard Detail Sheet dated 4-2-2001, Building
Elevations dated received by the City on 5-25-01, and the Building Floor Plan. This
recommendation is subject to the conditions outlined below.
1. The access along 36t" Avenue should be narrowed to meet the 26-foot requirement
unless the applicant can demonstrate a need for it to remain at 30 feet.
2. Demonstrate howthe landscaping will be maintain. The landscape plan must show
either an irrigation system or an outside spout for watering and maintenance.
3. All grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the
City Engineer.
pc: Doug Sandstad
Steve Sondrall
Vince Vandertop
Auto Zone (PDV Midwest Refining, LLC)
Bonestroo, Rosene, Andertik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
.,.,~neers & Architects and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto Bonestroo, P.E. · Marvin L. Sorvata, P.E. · Glenn R. Cook, P.E.
Robert G. Schunicht. P.E. · Jeff/A. Bourdon, P.E.
Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. · Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E.
Susan M. Ebedin, C.P.A.
Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford, P.E. · Keith A. Gordon, P.E.
~,~) ~)~ Richard W. Foster, P.E. · David O. Loskota, P.E. · Robert C. Russek, A.I.A. ° Mark A. Hanson, P.E. °
Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. · Ted K. Field, P.E. · Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E. · Mark R. Rolls, P.E. ·
- David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. ,~.~:Lrtey-I~.~NilliamsorJ, .P.:E., L.S. · Agnes M. Ring, M.B..A., ·
.... Office' . Paul, Rochester, Willmar and St. Cloud, MN° Milwaukee'¥~7!
MEMO / - Lr- c'-[ .3.,.tr \
.f )
TO: Doug Sandsta~x,,x ~,C3~42~,,. j ? //
FROM: Vince Vander To~_~
CC: Mark Hanson
Guy Johnson
Kirk McDonald
DATE: March 29, 2001
SUBJECT: Auto Zone, 3601 Winnetka Ave.
Our File No. 34-Gen E01-06
We have received the plans for the redevelopment of the Auto Zone site. We have also received
storm water calculations and documentation from CEI Engineers. The following comments relate to
information received.
1. All site runoff is routed through an on-site storm water pond. This is required per the City's
Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The degree ofponding must further be defined.
The SWMP shows sediment traps for area runoff currently flowing directly into the
Northwood wetland. It appears that the pond shown could be smaller. The pond must be
designed based on the following criteria.
· The pond must have a "wet volume". The volume must be equal to the total volume of
runoff from 1.5" of rain in 24hrs. The current configuration does not include a wet
volume. However, it does appear that the size of the pond may be reduced even with the
inclusion Of a wet volume.
· Typically, the minimum wet volume depth is 3 feet.
· The pond must include an outlet skimmer structure. We have attached a copy of a
skimmer structure detail from a recent City pond project. Other configurations can be
considered.
· "Flat" benches are typically required around water ponds. Bench widths are typically 10
feet and the slopes are 10 to 1. The limited space on the site makes this difficult. It
would be preferred to include some kind of bench configuration, particularly abutting the
building. Even a 5 to 1 bench would facilitate mowing and maintenance directly, behind
the building.
· The invert of the pond flared end inlet should be set at the NWL.
· The pond outlet capacity is typically designed based on a ten-year event. Velocity and
energy must be dissipated with rip rap at the pond outlet into the wetland as shown.
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636.1311
' · A 100-year overflow must be shown for the pond. ~s should be protected with rip rap
such that the pond embankment does not erode during a 100-year event.
· It is recommended that a maintenance agreement be established for the pond.
2. It is our understanding that this redevelopment application does not have to be reviewed by
Bassett Creek Watershed. We are in the process of verifying this position with the
Watershed Engineer.
3. The nmoff from the north side of the property and the building flows to the east and then
south across the Winnetka Avenue Driveway. The spot elevation of 89.72 on the south side
of the driveway appears to conflict with the rim elevation of 90.10 at the catch basin. This
drainage pattern should be reviewed. The storm sewer may have to be extended to the north
side of the driveway and a catch basin added.
4. The proposed plan shows the elimination of the two driveways closest to the intersection.
Hennepin County will likely prefer this prOposed configuration over the existing. A
driveway/access permit must be obtained from the County.
The driveway aprons and curb and gutter must be removed. The sidewalk and curb and
gutter must be replaced to match the adjacent materials and configuration.
5. In 1996 the City graded a pedestrian trail on the property immediately north of Auto Zone.
This trail is part of the Northwood Park System. The trail was only graded. It may be
improved including pavement at some time in the furore.
The configuration of the trail required access to the Winnetka sidewalk at the NE comer of
the Auto Zone property. We have attached a sketch of the Trail location as it relates to the
sidewalk and Auto Zone property. The City and applicant should consider a trail access
easement in the NE comer of the property.
6. ROW dedication must be reviewed along 36th Avenue and Winnetka Avenues. The
submitted survey indicates a 33' ½ ROW along 36th Avenue. The City ½ section maps and
previous construction plans indicate that a 40' ½ ROW exists. We have attached these
documents. If40' ½ ROW does not exist, an additional 7 feet should be dedicated.
A 33' ½ ROW is shown along Winnetka Avenue. Typically we require a minimum of a 40'
½ ROW along Winnetka and other County Roads. It is recommended that Dave Zetterstrom
from Hennepin County provide comment on this issue.
7. The utility plan shows gas and sanitary sewer service coming from Winnetka Avenue. A
ROW construction permit must be obtained from Hennepin County.
8. The utility plan also shows a new water service tapped into the main in 36th Avenue. This is
not acceptable. Instead, it is proposed that a new curb stop be constructed on the existing 1"
copper line at the ROW. A new 1" copper service can continue from the new stop box into
the property as shown.
End of memo
2335 West Highway 36 ~ St. Paul, MN 55113 [~ 651-636-4600 ~ FaX: 651-636-1311
Hennepin County Transportation Department
1600 Prairie Drive 763°745-7500, Phone
Medina, MN 55340-$421 763-478-4000, FAX
763-478-4030, TDD
www. co.hen nepin.mn.us.
May 18, 2001
City of New Hope '
4401 Xylon Ave. N.
New Hope, M2q 55428
Re: Proposed Auto Zone, Northwest Quadrant 36th Avenue
at CSAH 156 (Winnetka Avenue)
Kirk:
Thank you for the submittal regarding the above-noted proposal. All of the actions
proposed by the city (7-foot additional highway easement and access revisions to CSAH
156) are strongly supported by Hennepin County. The only additional comment is that a
sight lriangle (20'-25' along both 36th and Wiune~a) might be appropriate to enhance
visibility and create a pedestrian refuge area.
Please remind the developer to obtain appropriate access and utility permits prior to
construction.
Again, thanks and please call me at 763-745-7643 with further questions or discussion.
Sincerely,
Entrance Permit Coordinator
DICE
C: Ben Tellefson, Hennepin County Permit Office
An Equal Opportunity Employer Recycled Paper
CITY OF NEW HOPE
SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG
A B C D E F G H I J
Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City
cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response
number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant
Address by City that required expires expires of under application
Phone information extension extension
was missing or waiver
01-05 AutoZone, Inc. 5/11/01 7/10/01 9/8/01
CEI Engineering Assoc. Inc.
P.O. Box 1408
3317 SW 'T' Street
Bentonville, AR 72712-1408
Jeremy Yee, Project Mgr
501-273-9472
Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application.
A. Assign each application a number.
B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
C. List the date the City received the application.
D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the
date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line.
E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
I. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.)
J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before
the time limit expires.
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission Members
From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Date: June 1, 2001
Subject: Miscellaneous Issues
NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with
additional detail on CouncilIEDA/HRA actions on Community Development related issues or
other City projects. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your
review, at your discretion.
1. May 14 Council Meetinq - At the May 14 Council meeting, the Council took action on the
following planning/development/housing issues:
· Resolution Accepting Resignation of Steven Bot from the New Hope Plannin.q
Commission and Extending Appreciation for His Service: Approved, see attached Council
request.
· Project #699, Motion to Proceed with a Written Offer to Purchase the Property at 7901
49~ Avenue for its Appraised Value of $99,000: Deleted from agenda.
· Projects #664, 676, 670 and 696, Resolution Approvin.q Change Order #1 in the
Demolition Contract for Structures Located at 5406, 5410, 5412~ 5420 and 5532
Winnetka Avenue in the Amount of $550 for Well Abandonment at 5510 Winnetka:
Approved, see attached Council request.
· Project #678, Resolution Approving Chan.qe Order #3 for the 4864 Fla.q Avenue House
Construction Contract in the Amount of $950: Approved, see attached Council request.
· Proiect #678, MotiOn Approving First and Final Payment to Atlas Foundation Co. in the
Contract Amount of $22,100 for Piling Installation at 4864 Fla.q Avehue: Approved, see
attached Council request.
· PC01-04, Request for CUP to Allow Construction of a 70' Galvanized Steel Monopole,
Equipment Platform, and Equipment Within a 25' by 30' Lease Area, 3940 Quebec
Avenue: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission.
· Discussion Re.clardin.q Gull Dispersal Pilot Project: Council determined no further action
was necessary at this time due to the fact that the birds are nesting.
2. May 29 Council Meetinq - At the May 29 Council meeting, the Council took action on the
following planning/development/housing issues:
· Proiect #626, Motion Approvin.q the Development of Plans and Specifications for the
36th Avenue Improvements: Authorized staff to develop plans and specifications, see
attached CounCil request.
3. Codes & Standards Committee - Codes & Standards did not meet. Will meet in future on
Industrial District screening issues and several other issues.
4. Design & Review Committee - Design & Review met in May to review the AutoZone plans and
Preimesberger expansion plans. Following the July application deadline on June 8, staff will notify
Committee members whether or not a meeting is necessary on June 14.
5. Proiect Bulletins - Enclosed for your information are a project bulletins regarding Winnetka
Avenue properties, 7105 62nd Avenue, and gull dispersal pilot project.
6. Future - Now that the Zoning Code is completed, the City will be working on two additional
projects:
A) Livable Communities Grant - Staff has received a draft proposal from Northwest Consultants
on this project, which is attached and is in the process of being reviewed. Comments from
Commissions are welcome and will be discussed at the June meeting. The next step after that
will be developing a committee, timeline and workplan, and several commissioners have
volunteered to serve on the committee.
B) Visioninq - The City may initiate a visioning process later this year in conjunction with the
TwinWest Chamber of Commerce Business Council. The Comprehensive Plan identifies
areas to be redevel0ped and the Zoning Code update is intended to facilitate redevelopment
and expansion. A visioning process, which would involve all segments of the community,
would specifically identify certain uses, designs, etc. for areas to be redeveloped. Several
metro cities have used this process with some success, including St. Louis Park.
7. Other - The City is being approached by a Charter School organization that wants to locate in an
industrial building on Winnetka. Staff will update Commission members at the meeting.
Attachments: Bot Resignation
Change Order Winnetka Demos
Change Order 4864 Flag Avenue
Final Payment for Piling Installation at 4864 Flag
Gull Dispersal Pilot Project
36th Avenue Improvements
Project Bulletins
NAC Livable Communities Grant Proposal
. ~ COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved. for Agenda Agenda 'Section
Community Development T'"',,, 05-14-01 .... Consent .....
Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald , By: ? 6.6
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING RESIGNATION OF STEVEN BOT FROM THE NEW HOPE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND EXTENDING APPRECIATION FOR HIS SERVICE
REQUESTED ACTION
The attached resolution accepts Steven Bot's resignation effective May 14, 2001, from the New Hope
Planning Commission and extends appreciation for his service on the Commission.
BACKGROUND
Bot has informed the City that he is resigning from the Planning Commission due to the fact that he has
accepted a job offer with the City of Hopkins, which requires that he attend City Council meetings on the first
and third Tuesday evenings of the month. The New Hope Planning Commission meets on the first Tuesday of
each month, therefore, he would not be able to attend Planning Commission meetings in New Hope on the
first Tuesday of the month. Bot was appointed to the Planning Commission by the City Council in December
2000 and took the oath of office for the Planning Commission and was elected Third Officer at his first meeting
in February 2001.
During his tenure, Steve reviewed and made recommendations on two communication towers and the Zoning
Code update. The City is very grateful to Bot for his volunteer service and extends its sincere appreciation. Bot
has indicated that he would be willing to serve in other voluntary capacities for the City involving development
issues that do not conflict with his new job, so he may be a good person to consider for the Livable
Communities Task Force or for a'future "visioning" committee.
A'i-rACHMENTS
· Resolution
· Email Resignation
MOTION SECOND
BY BY
. "~ ..~ COUNCIL '-
~' Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development ~ Consent
Item No.
05-14-01
By: Kirk McDonald & Ken Doresk~/ B~/: 6.8
RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE fORDER NO. I IN THE DEMOLITION CONTRACT FOR
STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 5406, 5410-5412, 5420 AND 5532 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $550.00 FOR WELL ABANDONMENT AT 5510 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 664, 676, 670 AND 696)
~,CTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting a Council resolution to approve Change Order No. I for the cost to seal a well at 5410
Winnetka Avenue North. Change Order No. 1 will increase the demolition contract by $550.00 from
$24,794.00 to $25,344.00. This change order has been reviewed and approved by the City Manager, which
was necessary to keep the project on schedule.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
Change orders are a result of unforeseen project costs.
BACKGROUND
On April 23, 2001, the Council awarded a demolition contract for structures located at 5406, 5410-5412, 5420
and 5532 Winnetka Avenue North to Kevitt Excavating in the amount of $24,794.00. On May 4, 2001, Kevitt
Excavating discovered that an unsealed well existed beneath a concrete stoop. On May 7, 2001, Kevitt
Excavating provided the City with an cost estimate of $550 to seal the well. Finally, on May 7, 2001, the City
Manager reviewed and approved Change Order No. 1.
When the City was developing the demolition specifications for this contract, it was believed that a well existed
behind 5410 Winnetka Avenue North, but this could not be determined until the back stoop was excavated. It
appeared that the previous property owner had constructed a stoop over the possible well location. The
demolition specifications stated that if a well was found and a mutually agreeable estimate was provided to
seal the well, a change order could be processed to accommodate the additional work. The City purchased
the two properties at 5410 and 5412 Winnetka for a reasonable price of $136,000 and the understanding with
the property owner was that the City would be responsible for any additional costs. The City paid for the
sealing of the well at 5412 Winnetka through a separate quotation award prior to the award of the current
demolition contract.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
., · Requ~,st for Action Page 2
FUNDING
All demolition costs will be paid for with tax increment financing funds.
A'R'ACHMENTS
· Location Map
· Resolution
· Kevitt Excavating Well Sealing Estimate
· Demolition Specifications
" COUNCIL ~
\
f' Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development ~ Consent
Item No.
05-14-01
By: Kirk McDonald & Ken Doresk~/ By: 6.9
RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 FOR THE 4864 FLAG AVENUE NORTH HOUSE
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $950.00 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #678)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting a Council resolution to approve change order #3 to accommodate a matedal request.
Change Order No. 3 will increase the 4864 Flag Avenue house contract by $950.00 from $156,589.00 to
$157,539.00. This change order has been reviewed and approved by the City Manager, which was necessary
to keep the project on schedule.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
Change orders are a result of unforeseen project costs.
BACKGROUND
On March 26, 2001, the Council approved a development agreement with the CHDO, as well as, contracts for
the house construction and piling installation at 4864 Flag Avenue. The Council awarded the 4864 Flag
Avenue North home construction contract to the Iow bidder, S.V.K. Development Inc. in the amount of
$155,589.00.
Previously, two change orders have been issued for this project. Change Order No. 1 was an administrative
contract language change which did not increase the contract amount. On April 23, 2001, the Council
approved Change Order No. 2 to accommodate a sanitary sewer line matedal change due to unstable soils
that resulted in an increased contract amount of $1000.00.
Change Order No. 3 is to purchase gravel to place in the excavation pit. Due to the large amount of rain that
occurred during the excavation of the site. Per attached letter, $.V.K. requested that the City approve an
additional $950.00 to place gravel in the excavation pit.
FUNDING
CDBG funds were used to pay for the land acquisition and will be used to pay for the installation of pilings and
~redevelopment work. HOME funds will be available from the five-city CHDO for a second mortgage. The
~roceeds from the sale of the home will be used to fund the new construction. Please see the detailed budget
attached.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
REQUEST FOR ACTION..
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development Consent
Item No.
05-14-01
By: Kirk McDonald & Ken Doresk¥ B~/: 6.10
MOTION APPROVING FIRST AND FINAL PAYMENT TO ATLAS FOUNDATION CO. IN THE CONTRACT
AMOUNT OF $22,100.00 FOR PILING INSTALLATION AT 4864 FLAG AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 678)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing the first and final payment to Atlas Foundation Co. in the
contract amount of $22,100.00 for the installation of pilings at 4864 Flag Avenue North.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
Before final payment is made for City contracts, the request is brought before the Council for approval.
BACKGROUND
On March 26, 2001, the Council awarded the contract for piling installation at 4864 Flag Avenue North to Atlas
Foundation Co. in the amount of $22,100.00. The first and final invoice submitted by Atlas is $22,100.00. Per
the attached memorandum, the City Engineer has overseen the installation of the pilings and recommends
approval of the first and final payment in the contract amount of $22,100.00.
The pilings were installed during the week of Apdl 23, 2001. Construction of the single-family home on the site
will continue through the summer months and should be completed by the end of August 2001.
Staff recommends approval of this motion.
FUNDING
CDBG funds will be used to pay for the installation of pilings.
ATTACHMENTS
· Location Map
· City Engineer's Correspondence
· Atlas Foundation Co. Invoice
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
COUN'CZL
REi UEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Development &
Community Development 5-14-01 ?1ann±n§
Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald By: 8.3
/
DISCUSSION REGARDING GULL DISPERSAL PILOT PROJECT
REQUESTED ACTION
City staff is requesting that the Council discuss the pilot project and provide direction to staff regarding any
future action.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
In March, the City Council initiated a gull dispersal pilot project and authorized the expenditure of up to $1,000
for the purchase of several bird dispersal mechanisms that were placed on the'roof of a neighboring industrial
property.
BACKGROUND
Residential property owners in the area north of 54~ Avenue near Begin Park complained to the City for
several years about gulls congregating and nesting on the roof of the warehouse located at 8201 54m Avenue.
The noise problem was confirmed in May 2000 when nighttime noise level monitoring was conducted. The City
Council directed staff to research this issue.
City staff inspected the rooftop of the warehouse last summer and conducted several meetings with
representatives of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the property owner, and the neighborhood to
discuss the issue. The City also conducted a neighborhood meeting at the site in September 2000 to discuss
options with residents. The DNR indicated that the keys to effective bird dispersal programs were timing,
~ersistence, organization, and diversity. City staff researched a number of dispersal alternatives and costs to
~resent to the City Council for consideration. The options considered focused on three broad areas: noise
~roducing mechanisms, light mechanisms, and visual scare products. The effect and intent of these
mechanisms is not to harm the gulls, but to deter them from the rooftop area.
(cont'd.)
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
' Request for Action Page 2 .
In an effort to address the neighborhood's concern, on March 26 the City Council authorized expenditure of up
to $1,000 for a bird dispersal pilot project. The City placed an order for a noise producing mechanism and
several visual scare products, which were placed on the roof of the warehouse. The City wants to stress that
this is only a pilot project and cannot guarantee that the products will repel the gulls. The Animal Control
Officer of the City, with assistance from other departments, will help coordinate the program and monitor the
results to determine if the test project is effective.
The City considered this as a cooperative pilot project among the residents, business, and the City:
Residents - made the City aware of the problem, coordinated with City on potential solutions, and the City
would appreciate your continued feedback on whether the pilot project is having any noticeable results.
Business - has cooperated with the residents and City on this issue by installing a new ships ladder to provide
safe access to the roof, and is allowing dispersal equipment to be placed on building roof.
City - coordinated with both residents and the property manager on this issue, purchased equipment, and will
install equipment and monitor situation.
The equipment and scare products were placed on the roof the first part of April and the Animal Control
Officer spent a great deal of time dudng April installing, monitoring and replacing the equipment. The high
winds and heavy rainfall during April hampered the use of the equipment. The mylar tape was shredded and
had to be replaced twice, the kites came loose several times and the results of the noise machine were
questionable. While the scare tactics often kept the birds off the roof during the day, they often returned in
eady morning hours. On Apdl 27, the Animal Control Officer found evidence that the birds were beginning to
nest and on April 30 five nests with eggs were found. Due to the protected status of the gulls, no further
actions have been taken.
On May 2, the enclosed correspondence was received from an adjacent property owner (5201 Winnetka)
requesting similar assistance. Due to the fact that the gulls have laid some eggs at the first building and the
City has tentatively ceased the dispersal program, staff is recommending that no further action be taken at this
time on either building.
ATTACHMENTS
· Request from Property Owner
· Animal Control Officer Report
· Proiect Bulletin
· Site Map
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Pubic Works May 28, 2001 Planning and Development_
By: Guy Johnson By: , 8.1 ,.,
MOTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 36r" AVENUE
IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT 626)
REQUESTED ACTIO,,N
Staff is recommending that Council pass a molion approving the development of plans and specifications for
improvements to 36m Avenue to the degree necessary to met requirements for Minnesota State Aid request submittals.
BACKGROUND
The City has been working with Bonestwo and Associates, and with Benschoof and Associates in the planning of
improvements to 36m Avenue. In order to procure State Aid funding for this project, any new roadway design must
meet State Aid criteria. By approving the development of plans, we can begin putting together the documents we will
need to present to State representatives in order to secure this funding.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
! .,,,~-~,, ~ PROJECT NO. 653,
· ,~,.\A_~.~_ _O?,, 664, 669, 670, 676,
PROJECT BULLETIN
5340, 5406, 5410, 5412, 5420, 5532 & 5550 Winnetka Avenue North
Overview
Over the past year, the City of New Hope has purchased 5340, 5406, 5410, 5412, 5420, 5532 and 5550
Winnetka Avenue North from willing sellers and moved or demolished the structures on the properties.
The City plans to continue acquiring properties along the east side of Winnetka between 5340 and 5550
as they become available. The City intends to utilize these lots for future single-family residential
redevelopment purposes. Within the several weeks, the City plans to evaluate the vegetation on the City-
owned properties and hire a firm to remove what is necessary to give the properties a park-like
appearance.
Recently, the City obtained a Livable Communities Grant from the Metropolitan Council to study the
roughly quarter-mile area surrounding the Bass Lake Road/Winnetka intersection. The City will be
conducting neighborhood meetings in the next several months to discuss potential opportunities in the
area. Neighboring property owners will be notified as the redevelopment process proceeds. In the
interim, the City-owned properties in the area will be land banked and remain vacant.
.Site Upkeep
The City will maintain the sites. As a neighboring property owner, if you notice any suspicious activity on
the property, please contact the New Hope Police Department at 911 anytime day or night.
Construction Hours
Construction activities may occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends and holidays. All work will take place during these hours.
City Contacts
If you have questions or comments regarding these properties, please contact Ken Doresky, Community
Development Specialist, at 763-531-5137, or Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at
763-531-5119.
The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents and businesses in the area that may be impacted by
this project. Additional bulletins will be sent to you as the project progresses. Thank you for your
cooperation.
City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428
5/15/01
· ~¥~ ' PROJECT NO. 685 ~ '
I
7105 62nd Avenue North
Overview
As you may be aware, in the fall of 2000 the City purchased 7105 62nd Avenue North from a willing
seller. The original intention was to rehabilitate the existing home. Upon further inspection, City staff
found that the foundation of the existing home was failing. The City Council directed staff to remove the
existing structure and construct an accessible twinhome on the site similar to the twinhome located
directly to the south of the lot. Staff is currently researching accessible twinhome options for the site.
During the summer months, staff will arrange for removal of the home, garage, foundation and other site
features from the lot. The home and garage will either be moved or demolished, and demolition of the
foundation will occur shortly thereafter. The site will then be restored and prepared for redevelopment.
Neighboring property owners will be notified as the redevelopment process proceeds.
Site Upkeep
The City will maintain the site. As a neighboring property owner, if you notice any suspicious activity on
the property, please contact the New Hope Police Department at 911 anytime day or night.
Construction Hours
When needed, construction activities may occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends and holidays. All work will take place during
these hours.
City Contacts
If you have questions or comments regarding this property, please contact Ken Doresky, Community
Development Specialist, at 763-531-5137, or Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at
763-531-5119.
The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents and businesses in the area that may be impacted by
this project.. Additional bulletins will be sent to you as the project progresses. Thank you for your
cooperation.
City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue NOrth, New Hope, MN 55428
5/17/01
Bulletin #2
PROJECT BULLETIN
JOINT COMMUNITY/BUSINESS/CITY GULL DISPERSAL PILOT PROJECT
8201 54
TM AVENUE
Pilot Project Suspended
In spite of the City's efforts to try and disperse the gulls from the roof of the warehouse building at 8201
54~ Avenue North, the gulls have built several nests on the roof and laid eggs. Due to the protected
status of the gulls once they have nested, the City Council has determined that no further action will be
taken at this time.
Back.qround
In an effort to address the neighborhood's concern about the noise and health issues related to gulls
congregating and nesting on the warehouse roof, on March 26 the City Council authorized
expenditure of up to $1,000 for a bird dispersal pilot project. The City placed an order for a noise
producing mechanism and several visual scare products which were placed on the roof of the
warehouse. The City stressed that this was only a pilot project and could not guarantee that the
products would repel the gulls. The Animal Control Officer of the City, with assistance from other
departments, helped coordinate the program and monitor the results to determine if the test project
was effective.
The equipment and scare products were placed on the roof the first part of April. The Animal Control
Officer spent a great deal of time during April installing, monitorir~g and replacing the equipment. The
high winds and heavy rainfall during April hampered the use of the equipment. The mylar tape was
shredded and was replaced twice, the kites came loose several times, and the results of the noise
machine were questionable. While the scare tactics generally kept the birds off the roof during the
day, they often returned in early morning hours. On April 27, the Animal Control Officer found
evidence that the birds were beginning to nest and on April 30 found five nests with eggs. Due to the
protected status of the gulls, the scare equipment was removed from the roof.
This information was discussed by the New Hope City Council at the May 14 Council meeting. Taking
all of the facts into consideration, the Council directed that no further action be taken by the City at
this time. The City Council stressed that the City had made its best effort to try and address this
neighborhood concern and that it appreciated the cooperation of the residents and property owner
during this pilot project.
City Contacts
If you have questions or comments about the pilot project, please contact Tom Mahan, New Hope
Animal Control Officer, at 763-531-5161, or Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, at
763-531-5119.
City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428
5/17/01
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners~nacplanning.com
MEMO~NDUM
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: May 15, 2001
RE: New Hope - Livable Communities Grant
FILE NO: 131.00 - 00.04
BACKGROUND
New Hope was successful in receiving a $60,000 Livable Communities Grant from the
Metropolitan Council for the Hope Village Redevelopment Area (Bass Lake Road
Corridor). the City has defined the redevelopment study area and has proposed
preliminary land and concept plans that illustrate the general intent of its redevelopment
efforts.
The City must now outline a work program that defines the planning steps and tests the
project feasibility.
WORK PROGRAM
I. Public Participation: the Livable Communities Grant Program emphasizes a high
level of public participation. This work program envisions three levels of public
participation at the beginning of the project:
A. Meeting with property owners to assess the level of interest or cooperation
in participating in the redevelopment efforts. The startup meeting with the
property owners will help geographically define our project target areas and
allow the City to focus our efforts and resources. This meeting would
include:
1. Presentation and discussion of the concept plans.
2. Outlining the subsequent planning and implementation process.
3. Identification of land acquisition opportunities versus eminent domain
areas.
4. Outlining acquisition and relocation benefits to the property owners.
5. Gaining permission for property access for future planning steps.
B. Neighborhood meetings to present City redevelopment concepts and to
solicit input on area issues and opportunities for the redevelopment plan.
The redevelopment concepts will be presented to gain neighborhood insight
on issues of land use, housing, transportation, open space and/or utilities.
C. Developers meeting. Early in the process, we would recommend a round
table meeting with select developers who may be interested in the project.
Through this meeting the City would gather information on the project
feasibility, concept design, marketability, housing types and prices. The
meeting would help to develop the scope of work for the market studies.
II. Infrastructure Planning: The City Engineer will conduct an evaluation of the in-
place infrastructure (i.e., sanitary sewer, water, storm water management, and
streets) to identify infrastructure improvements that are necessary to support the
land use density or intensity proposed within the concept plan.
The infrastructure improvements will identify needed improvements and costs to
assist in defining the redevelopment project budget and future implementation
steps.
III. Redevelopment Costs: The following costs must be defined to establish a project
budget and help to identify funding resources.
A. Property appraisals/acquisition
B. Estimates for building demolition
C. Relocation benefits
D. Utility costs
E. Street improvements
IV. Market Studies: The scope and focus of the market studies should be defined
through the meetings with perspective developers. The market studies should
define:
A. The project feasibility
B. Marketable housing types, prices/rents
C. Marketable commercial space
D. Sale price for redevelopment site
V. Public Assistance: Some level of public financial assistance will be required to
prepare the sites for redevelopment. '"
A. Redevelopment costs
B. Public financing options
C. Available non-local funding options
VI. Request for Proposal from Developers
A. Preparation of RFP based on the desired redevelopment and product
B. Selection of preferred developers
The aforementioned work program is intended to promote public participation while
narrowing the scope of the project. After the completion of each task, the City may assess
the feasibility and practicality of the various redevelopment efforts and pursue those that
have the greatest opportunity for success. In this respect, the work program may be
modified as the project progresses. The following section assigns the work tasks to
appropriate City staff.
WORK ASSIGNMENTS
I. Preparation for Public Meetings
A. Display Boards - City Staff/NAC
B. Presentation format, outline - City staff/NAC/BRA
C. Relocation Information - Relocation Specialist/City Attorney
D. Meeting attendance - City staff/NAC/BRA/R-S
E. Meeting issue summaries - NAC
F. Revisions to concept plan if needed - NAC
II. Infrastructure Planning - BRA/City Staff
II!. Redevelopment Costs
A. Property appraisals - Land Appraiser/City Attorney
B. Demolition costs - City staff
C. Relocation benefit - Relocation Specialist/City Attorney
D. Street/utility costs - BRA
E. Summary of project cost - City staff/NAC/BRA
IV. Market Studies - Krass Monroe, NAC, City staff, Market Specialist
V. Public Assistance - Krass Monroe, City staff, NAC/City Attorney
V. Request for Proposal from Developers
A. Preparation of RFP - City Staff/NAC/BRA
B. Selection of preferred developers - City Staff/NAC/BRA
C. Examination of project proposals - City staff/NAC/BRA
D. Planning Commission review and recommendation
E. Council decision on developer(s)
pc: Mark Hanson
Steve Sondrall
4