Loading...
071100 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 11,2000 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 2. 3. 4. 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6. 6.1 7. 7.1 7.2 7.3 8. 9. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Case 00-11 Case 00-12 Request for a Variance to the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow a Building Addition and Site/Building Plan Review, 9101 Science Center Drive, Avtec Finishing Systems, Inc., Petitioners Request for Site/Building Plan Review for North Building Expansion, 3440 Winpark Drive, WinPark Associates/Simon Delivers, Petitioners COMMITTEE REPORTS Report of Design & Review Committee - No meeting needed in July Report of Codes & Standards Committee Report of Comprehensive Plan Update Committee Report of Zoning Code Update Committee OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 6, 2000 Review of City Council Minutes of May 22 and June 12, 2000 Review of EDA Minutes of May 22, 2000 ANNOUNCEMENTS 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. Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon t, Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish t° speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. A. If the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. Planning Case: Petitioner: Address: Request: PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: July 11, 2000 Report Date: July 7, 2000 00-11 Avtec Finishing Systems, Inc. 9101 Science Center Drive Variance to the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow a Building Addition and Site/Building Plan Review I. Request The petitioner is requesting a variance to the side yard setback requirement to allow a building addition and site/building plan review, pursuant to Sections 4.034(3), 4.22, and 4.039A. II. Zoning Code References Setback Variance Site/Building Plan Review Section 4.034(3) Section 4.22 Section 4.039A II1. Property Specifications Zoning: Location: Adjacent Land Uses: Site Area: Building Area: Lot Area Ratios: Planning District: Specific Information: I-1, Limited Industrial Zoning District The site is located on the south side of Science Center Drive, ¼ mile west of Boone Avenue The site is surrounded by I-1, Limited Industrial uses. Irregular = 355 feet (frontage) x 480 fee = 236,200 square feet/5.4 acres Existing = 35,860 square feet Addition = 18,048 square feet (50 percent) Total = 53,908 square feet Green Area = 59 percent Building Area = 21 percent Paved Area = 20 percent No. 3; The primary goal for this district as identified in the Comprehensive Plan is the preservation and enhancement of its industrial land uses by encouraging business retention and in-place expansion. This property is irregularly shaped and wrapped on the east side by a ¼ circle railroad spur, which splits the land and complicates full use. Marginal/poor soils on portions of the lot dictated the placement of the original building in 198!. The expansion to the north will require a deeper excavation to remove poor soils and allow placement of compacted fill. The isolated eastern triangle of land is well suited and proposed for the necessary ponding. IV. Background The applicant, Avtec Properties, is requesting site plan approval for an 18,048 square foot expansior, ..~ its existing industrial building located 9101 Science Center Drive. The new space will be used for production, office, and storage uses. To accommodate the proposed expansion, the applicant is also requesting a 1 O-foot side yard setback variance from 20 to 10 feet. This building is a special purpose facility built by Avtec to meet or exceed all standards for its metal finishing business in 1981. The City Council approved the west side yard setback variance in 1981 (10 feet instead of 20 feet) as a component of a "combined development" with a partner building to the west that included shared driveways and green space (see Exhibit "T"). The requested variance is to match the existing west setback with the addition at 10 feet from the property line. A 7,000 square foot warehouse addition was built on the back (south side) to avoid poor soils in 1993. The property and building have been well maintained. This application represents a long-time New Hope business owned by a long-time New Hope resident, Bob Yunker, who has expanded several times and seeks to stay in the City with one more expansion. Petitioner's Comments The petitioner submitted a narrative highlighting the following details: · 22 year old metal finishing company. · Expansion would provide square footage necessary to meet increased customer work pressure, to meet changing emission standards and storage requirements set by EPA. Avtec employs 120 employees over three shifts. Expansion would add 5 to 25 additional employees. 100 parking stalls provided. First shift is the busiest (7 a.m. to 3 p.m.) and employs 60 office/production workers. Proposed addition would be 16,730 square feet of production, office and storage space. Will relocate existing office space. Update locker room and restroom facilities. Provide parking lot lighting for night shifts. Monument sign at east street entrance will remain the same. No additional signage. Proposing one new, larger, more efficient production line to replace existing line. Additional lines to be rebuilt and updated at a later date. · · · · · · · · · · · · VI. Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments VII, Development Analysis A. Zoning Code Criteria Variance 1. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from strict application of the Zoning Code where undue hardships prevent reasonable use of property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 2. "Undue hardship" 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 Planning Case Report 00-11 Page 2 7/6/00 Bo 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. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 3. Additional criteria to be used in considering requests for a vadance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: A. Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. B. Li.qht and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. C. Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. D. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. E. Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. 4. To facilitate the proposed expansion, the applicant is requesting a 10-foot side yard setback variance. Staff finds two reasons to support this variance request. First, the City recently approved a similar variance for the Public Works building. This approval essentially set a precedent for this type of request. Second, the Comprehensive Plan sets the goal of re-evaluating the land use requirements placed upon industrial properties. To this end, the City is currently considering reducing the required side yard setback in the I-1 District from 20 feet to 10 feet to promote in- place expansion of existing industries. While these two findings do not meet the strict interpretation of a hardship, they do create legitimate support for the variance request. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the 10-foot side yard setback variance from 20 to 10 feet. Development Review Team The Development Review Team met with the petitioner on June 14 and supported the concept, in general. Comments/suggestions included: · Setback variance is justified to match existing building. · Pond provided to meet Watershed requirements. · Meets Comprehensive Plan goals. · Add concrete curbing at rear. · Re-label site plan to clarify parking, verify/recalculate parking needs consistent with past staff practices for industrial uses. · Verify adequate truck turning space at rear (existing) with plan illustration. If necessary, expand asphalt with permission of railroad. · Verify painting - to match for rooftop equipment or screening. · Illustrate snow storage - ample room. · Submit illumination contours and sign plan, if any proposed. · Provide more landscaping - clarify existing and new. · Provide drainage, utility and trail easement over isolated triangle with future trail potential. ° Obtain Shingle Creek Watershed Commission approval. · Consider [pond shift to north for future "maximum development" multi-cell pond scenario. ° Architect to meet with Building Official to clarify "H" (Hazardous) Occupancy basics. Desi.qn & Review Committee The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on June 15, supported the concept and the recommendations above, and added: · Obtain railroad consent for work within spur easement. · Improve east side and rear area of building with B612 curbing. · Clearly show building setbacks to lot lines. Planning Case Report 00-11 Page 3 7~6~00 · Identify erosion control methods. · Show refuse storage. · Identify Fire Department connection. · Clarify lot coverage ratios for one lot. · Clean up ditch at rear. · Label trucking area as "One-Way," with striping and signs on plan. · Add storm sewer at rear. · Add three or four more crabapple trees in front. · City goal for regional pond can be considered with bond or escrow submitted by petitioner to defer pond for one year and shift location for regional function, considering more properties. Entire isolated triangle needs drainage, utility and trail easement designation on plan and survey. D. Plan Description 1. Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is found to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is zoned I-1, Limited Industrial District. According to the Existing Land Use Map, the site is surrounded by other industrial uses. In addition, the City's Proposed Land Use Map guides this site for industrial development. 2. Lot and Buildinq Performance Standards. The subject property meets the minimum lot area, lot width, and building height requirements for properties in the I-1 District. These standards are illustrated in the chart below: Lot and Building Performance Standards for the I-1, Limited Industrial District Performance Standards Required Proposed Lot Area 1 Acre 5.55 Acres Lot Width 150 Feet 410 Feet Building Height 3 Stories 1 Story (20'-8") Both the existing building and planned expansion are in compliance with the performance standards for the I-1 District, with the exception of the west side yard setback. The existing building has a 10-foot west side yard setback. The applicant proposes that the new addition match this setback. As a result, the applicant is seeking a 10-foot west side yard setback variance. The chart below compares both the existing and proposed setbacks. Setbacks for the I-1, Limited Industrial District Yard Existing Proposed Required Status Front 270' 206' 50' Compliant Side (West) 10' 10' 20' Noncompliant Side (East) 240' 240' 20' Compliant Rear 60' 60' 10' Compliant Parking. According to the parking requirements for office and warehouse uses, this site is required to provide 100 off-street parking stalls. Currently, this site has 89 stalls, but will lose 43 of them to the new expansion. The plans call for the construction of 54 new off-street stalls for a total of 100 on-site parking spaces; therefore, this site is consistent with the City's off-street parking requirement. The new parking will be located north and east of the existing parking. Planning Case Report 00-11 Page 4 7~6~00 Parking Standards for Office, Warehouse, & Manufacturing Uses Use Parking Standard Total Sq. Footage Total Required Parkin~l Office 1/300 square feet 6,565 21.9 Warehouse 1/1,500 square feet 20,880 13.9 Manufacturing 1/350 square feet 26,374 75.4 Subtotal N/A 53,908 111.2 Less 10% Reduction N/A 5,390.8 -11.1 Total N/A 48,517.2 100.1 The applicant's plans show four (4) disability stalls at the northeast corner of the new addition. According to the Minnesota Council on Disabilities, sites with 76 to 100 stalls are required to provide four (4) regular disability stalls and one (1) van accessible stall. Therefore, staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to designate one additional van accessible disability stall. All disability stalls must be located as close as possible to an accessible entrance. 4. Loadinq Area. The loading berths for this site are located on the building's south side. These angled loading bays conform to the standards of the zoning ordinance. The initial plans illustrated an inadequate turning radius around this side of the building along with a nonconforming bituminous curb. The applicant revised the Site Plan to provide adequate turning radius around the building for a semi-truck and trailer and changed the curbing to B612 concrete curbing. However, these changes have not carried over throughout the plans. Therefore, staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to carry over these changes in both the Landscape and Grading plans. Adequate truck turning areas are demonstrated on the plans. 5. Snow Storage. Snow storage areas have been designated on the Site Plan north of the existing and new parking lot, east of the new parking lot and on the south side of the building. 6. Siana~e. This application does not call for any changes to Avtec's signage. Should the applicant wish to change its sign, it must submit a detailed sign plan for review and approval by the City. 7. Trash Enclosure. The applicant's revised Site Plan designates an area along the south side of the building for a trash enclosure; however, the plan does not include architectural details for the trash enclosure. Staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to submit architectural details for the proposed trash enclosure demonstrating that it will be made of the same materials as the principal building or meet code requirements. 8. Lighting. Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area or other structure, shall be arranged to deflect direct light away from adjoining residential zones or from the public street. The source of light shall be hooded or controlled in a manner so as to not light adjacent property. The applicant did revise their plans to show the exterior lighting. The plans show two new 20-foot light poles on the east and north sides of the new parking lot expansion and the plans show two "new shoebox style wall mounted light fixtures" on the front wall of the new addition. 8. Landscaping. The applicant's Landscape Plan calls for both the installation of new plantings around the proposed addition and the preservation of existing trees. The front of the building will be accented with a combination of deciduous and coniferous trees. The applicant complied with staff recommendation to install additional crab trees along the eastern 2/3rds of the proposed expansion to soften its appearance. The plan also calls for the preservation of existing trees between the proposed parking area and Science Center Drive. All grass and planting areas will have underground irrigation. Planning Case Report 00-11 Page 5 7/6/00 The plant schedule is as follows: Qty. Common Name Size Root Conditior, 1 "Autumn Blaze" Hybrid Maple 2.5" cal. B&B 9 Thunderchild Crab 2" cal. B&B 7 Techny Arborvitae #7 Cont. 13 Compact Burning bush 24" ht. Cont. · One maple and four arborvitae will be located on the east side of the east drive. · Two crabs will be planted on the east side of the parking area. · Seven crabs will be planted in front of the new addition, along with 13 burning bush · Three arborvitae will be planted in front of the new parking area. A total of 30 new trees and shrubs will be added to the site. 10. Architectural Appearance. The proposed expansion will have a painted rock-face block exterior. The western 1/3 of the fa(;ade will have a canopy over the main entrance and be accented with two levels of windows. The eastern 2/3rds of the building's face will be plain, painted rock-face block with two metal doom. All rooftop equipment will be painted to match the building. 11. Grading. The Grading and Drainage Plan indicates that the site will need little grading to match the finished floor elevation of the proposed addition to that of the existing building. The building addition and site improvements will create the need for additional impervious surface area, triggering the need for storm water quality and storage improvements. The applicant plans to construct a new storm water drainage pond in the site's southwest corner. This pond is consistent with recommendation of the City Engineer. The majority of the parking area and driveway drain toward the catch basin at the southeast corner of the building. To facilitate this drainage pattern, both staff and the Design & Review Committee recommend upgrading the bituminous curb south and east of the existing building to concrete curbing. The applicant changed the Site Plan to reflect this recommendation, but failed to change any of the other drawings. As a result, staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to show concrete B612 curbing along the south and east sides of the building on both the landscape and grading plans. 12. Trails. The City's Trail Plan calls for a pedestrian trail to pass through this site. Staff recommends that the City consider negotiating on the acquisition of an easement from the developer for a pedestrian trail. E. Planning Considerations Excerpts from the Planner's Report are included throughout this report. F. Buildin.q Considerations Architect has met with Building Official and agreed in principal to meet all State Building Code and MN Disability Code criteria. G. Leqal Considerations Staff will be recommending that a condition of approval include a Development Agreement with the City and providing a financial guarantee. H. Engineering Considerations The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and provided the following comments: Planning Case Report 00-11 Page 6 7/6/00 Gradin.q and Drainage All site drainage from existing hard surface and proposed hard surface is directed to the southeast portion of the property. It is collected via storm sewers and culverts and will be treated in a proposed storm water pond east of the railroad spur. Drainage calculations were submitted previously. The proposed storm water collection and treatment prior to leaving the site appears to be consistent with Shingle Creek Watershed and City requirements. 2. It is recommended that the proposed improvements be reviewed Shingle Creek Watershed. 3. B612 curb and gutter will be constructed along the east and south sides of the property. This will improve storm water collection and control. 4. The proposed curb on the south side of the property has been configured to maximize space for truck maneuvering near the loading dock. The configuration also appears to account for the slope of the railroad spur embankment. 5. The existing 18" RCP storm pipe on the south side of the property will be extended to the west lot line. The improvements account for drainage from adjacent properties. This storm sewer could be extended to the west by others in the future. 6. An existing 12" culvert below the railroad spur will remain, although the drainage area served will be reduced. The swale upstream of the 12" culvert must be bermed to maximize the water directed to the proposed pond. Other Items 7. All permits required to construct a culvert below the railroad spur must be obtained by the property owner. A copy of the permit should be provided to the City prior to construction. 8. A bond in the amount of 150 percent of the site improvements should be issued prior to construction. 9. A new drainage easement is shown over the proposed pond. The north easement line should be moved 15 feet further north. The proposed HWL is 895.5+. The easement must include all areas within the HWL plus an additional buffer strip. Moving the north easement line 15 feet will include the proposed 896 contour. Future Improvements 10. City staff has discussed the potential of future improvements including: · Additional storm water ponding for water quality treatment for other properties within the subwatershed. · A regional pedestrian/biking trail including a crossing of the railroad. A sketch of existing easements and possible future improvements has been provided. The sketches include four figures: · Figure 1 depicts the property line between Avtec, the property to the east, and the railroad. · Figure 2 includes all easement in the area based on information submitted by the applicant and other information in the City Engineer's office. · Figure 3 represents the area if Avtec would construct the improvements as proposed in the submittal. · Figure 4 represents the area if regional ponding and trail improvements are constructed. These future improvements would require coordination between the City and adjacent property owners. The City may consider delaying the proposed Avtec ponding improvements to allow time for the evaluation of other regional improvements. Pending the results of the evaluation, Planning Case Report 00-11 Page 7 7/6/00 Avtec and/or the City could construct the selected improvements. It is recommended that the bond for the proposed ponding improvements be maintained during the evaluation. It is recommended that staff and Council discuss the feasibility of future improvements. I. Police Considerations The Police Department was involved in the staff review of the plans. J. Fire Considerations West Metro Fire was involved in the staff review of the plans. The entire building is fire sprinkled. VIII. Summary Staff finds that the expansion request with side yard setback variance to match existing building wall is routine. Deferment of ponding may be considered desired by the City so that a regional focus can be included. Avtec and the City win with this proposal including: major expansion of business, an aesthetic improvement, adequate parking, improvement of Site lighting and minor defects at the rear of the building, potential for regional ponding and a trail connection along a wetland. Staff commend the applicant on the revised plans and cooperative effort with the City. IX. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the applicant's site plan and a 10-foot side yard setback variance from 20 to 10 feet. This recommendation is based on the findings cited in this report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant submits a revised set of plans illustrating the upgrading of the bituminous curb south and east of the building to B612 concrete curbing consistent with the site plan. 2. The applicant install one (1) additional van accessible disability stall. 3. Submit plans detailing the type of exterior light to be used. 4. Submit plans demonstrating the trash enclosure will be made of the same materials as the principal building. 5. Compliance with State Building Code. 6. Compliance with all City Engineer recommendations, including Watershed approval and possible deferment of pond improvements with escrow submitted so City can consider regional pond/trail issues. 7. Enter into Development Agreement with City, to include landscaping maintenance, and provide performance bond (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). Zoning/Address/Topo Maps Petitioner's Correspondence Title Sheet Building Area Parking Requirements Site Survey/Notes Site Plan Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Detail Landscape Plan Schedule Grading/Drainage Plan Details Floor PJan Attachments: Exterior Elevations Lighting Data Building Official Exhibit Planner's Report 6/29 City Engineer Comments 6/15 City Engineer Easement and Regional Storm Water Pond Concepts Application Log Planning Case Report 00-11 Page 8 7/6/00 RESEARCH CENTER I-1 SCIEI~CE CENTER DR B-3 49TH AVE N jAY N 0~ ...... C~ ST ~ Z~A.-AND AVE PA,.=VI EW AVE N 4e%~ 5v~ HOUSE OF HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH HIGHVIEW ~-.-mSCA~)NOL SOENC~ ~N~R 904,~ X x 8~7.1 ~e5.4 x ./ ~ AVENUE 894.1 FINiSHIN(~ SYSTEMS, INC. AVTEC FINISHING SYSTEMS, INC 9101 Science Center Ddve· Minneapolis, MN 554[ Phone (763) 533-4822 · Fax (763) 533-8576 Artec Fi~,ishing Systems, Inc. is a 22-year-old Metal Finishing Company. Our primary customers include Machine Shops, Stamping Houses and Die casters for whom we process a wide variety of diffexent metals, as well as high tech industries including telecommunications, automotive, aerospace and medical. Avtec requires expansion to provide us with the additional square footage necessary to meet increased customer work pressure and to continue to meet constantly changing emission standards and storage requirements set by the EPA. Although we currently meet or exceed ali EPA standards, the EPA requires us to constantly work towards reducing emissions. Every year we look for new chemistry and technology that will help us use less water and reduce emissions above and beyond the requirements set forth by the EPA. We have received an award fi-om the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for our waste management efforts. At this time Avtec is the only Plater to achieve a two-year audit status in Minnesota. Artec employs 120 employees over three shifts. We are anticipating the expansion to require from 5 to in excess of 25 additional employees as we grow. We are proposing to provide 100 parking stalls. Our busiest shift, the first shift, (from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM) will employ 60 office and production employees. The additional parking will provide parking for shift changeover. We propose adding 16,730 square feet of Production, Office and Storage space to our existing 36,000 square feet. We will be relocating our existing office space as well as updating locker mom and restroom facilities, and providing parking lot lighting for night shiils. The existing monument sign at cast street entrance will remain. There will be no additional signs added to building. Wc are proposing one new production line initially that will replace our existing line only on a larger more efficient scale. The expansion will also allow us to rebuild and update other existing lines to meet constantly changing production and waste treatment requirements. We hope this provides some insight into our business and facility. Any help the City of New Hope can provide would be greatly appreciated, ff any additional information is needed, please contact me. Peter C. Waldo VP of Operations 9101 SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA REGI, JI..ATORY INFORMATION GENERAL NOTES SH~T SCHEDULE ARCI-ITECTIJRAL -C.'l RUC ltj~lAi REGULATORY INFORMATION GENEI r~-l~F~ TO OV'ER. ALL ~L.z:S,N ]/A2z~ FOR ~,UILZ~ING CO~E AP~LIC:ATION I3:,I.A~RA1M OCCUt=ANC:;'I'' CONSTRUCTION ENTIP'~, ~LDG IG FIRE ALLOLU~I~LE ~LIILiZ:)IN~ NEI~.bIT ~TUAL t~UILD[N~ SITE f=Et~/iOUG ]PIPER',/IOU~ Af~.EA E~LIILo 11'4~ OTMEF~ ALLO~It~LE I~WILDIN~ AiWA FIf~E SF=f~II'~-.LE~ INCF=..EAGE X 3 TOTAL "[2,.¢~ SJ=. N-q: (hlET,zM_ FINIGNINd~) NAZAt~J:::)OLJG . PI,a, NDFA~TUt~INQ INN ].lq' ACRES 2L1% i]2 AC~E5 202% 12,~¢O G.F. AREA OF E>(ISTIN~ 1SUlLYINg: AI~E~ OF NELU CONST~LICTION: .2 PROPOSED TOTAL BDILDINE~ AR. EA.- ,,: ©C::¢UPANT LOAD' SI-41f=f=lN~ UJA~EMOUGE HANUFACTUF~INC~/ P~OE:::'IJd;T ION OC:~UPANC:'T' 5EI==AI~ATION: 18,,.¢4E, G J:::. (INCLUlDE5 2,~4'l SJ=. MEZZANINE) 5~,~O8 SJ=. &565 S.F. / l~ = 2~D~ / 5¢¢ = 265q4 / 2~ : ~,~, OCCUPANTS : 2 EXITG ~,6 X ,2 : 14 EXIT INCHES 42 OCCUPANTS = 2' EXITS .42 X .2 = ~ EXIT INCtqES 1232 OCCUPANT5 = 2 EXITG 1.32 X .4 = 53 EXIT INCHES ONE HOUf~ N/C LEG5 THAN 20 FEET ONE HOUR N/C LEGS THAN 2¢ ~ET P~OTECTED LE~ THAN I¢ FEET ONE MOU~ L5~ TMON 2~ FEET ONE NO~ LE~ THAN 2~ FEET P~OTECTED LES~ TN~N 2~ ~ET ONE HOUt~ E~ETIDEEN I~ AND N--I OCC. ONE HOUR E~ETUJEEN 5-I ~ N-q Od;C. NONE BETLUEEN E~ t S-I 20~8O SF. / 150O = I112 11.1 10O.I EXHIBIT A S 89'02'00' E '4 ECAN 0 50 100 150 250 ~,i'r_,,~..,--~_..._J ......... J fIELD & NOWAK .SURVEYORS S 89'02'00" E 672.84 / 1 - STORY s~w~ rom AVTEC F!HISHiNG PROPERTY ADDRESS: 9101 Sc;ence Cente, Drive. New Hope, Minne~o[*3 LEGAL DE SCRIPTICN: lhot pot: of LO[ 1, Block '. SCIENCE INOUST~IAL CENTER. accord;rig Io the NOTS: _.t R=498.34 ~= 10'20'01" Ll 0 5O 1 O0 15O SCAI F IN BO~( 2578-27 EGAN FIELD &: NOWAK I~i~.~ SURVEYORS Tr,, O! NOTES: The orientation of this bearing system is based on the North line Block 1, SCIENCE INDUSTRIAL CENTER which is assumed to have a bearing of South 89 degrees 02 minutes O0 seconds East. -15 FT. SANITARY SEWER ASEMENT PER DOC, 3226470 According to the City of New Hope the property is zoned 1-1 Limited Industrial lies' in flood zone C (area of minimal flooding) per Community Panel map no. 270177 O01B dated June 2, 1981. ~00. 9~ Area of [he property described hereon is 847,055 square feet or 19.4457 acres. 4. Existing utilities and services shown hereon, were located either physically, from existing records made available to us or by resident testimony. Other utilities and services may be present. Verification and location of all utilities and services should be obtained from the owners of the respective utilities prior to any design, planning or excavation. 5. No title work was furnished for the preparation of this survey to verify the Legal description or easement informatlon. 6. Setbacks for buildings are as follows: Front= 50 feet Side= 20 feet Rear= 35 feet Parking = no closer than 3 feet. (~ CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER ~-~/2' = r-0' EXP~N~ION 4~-~# O.C. M~X ~ JOIN~ (~,-,/2-C---O-NC--RETE-- ,.-o. CURB & GUTTER @ SIDEWALK S501-1 !-1/2" · I°-.~'' ~ [IV ¢!1'1' S501-1 LEGEND 0 MANHOLE PLANT SCHE-DLF. E I ,N=e~ X F~'eemanll I 2.5" CAL. 'Autl.~m E~taze' DECIDUOUS TREES WTE!~JD MAPLE Of;L=N,4MENT,,~L Tf~EES C~IFEROU5 T~E5 ~IT~ DECIDUOU~ ~~5 I~T I ' CC~11'lENT5 (:::C~ID. I(E:,EE N~TES) I T Pu,.la OC4=l~ntalle IEu. _omjau~ alat. ue l-IT. 'Com~a~ta ' I 24" NOTES: GENER,&L NOTES.- L 2. 4. "i i ,~OTES' 1 Grates to be mode in (2) PIECES 2. Ali metal shall be hol--dippeO-golvonized Hote--~ ''' //--- Hole #5 SMOOTH BAR @ 4" o.c. EACH WAY ,--- See Deto;I A-A r-- 57"¢ O.D ~FLAT 5TL. llI~llX I II III II III ttllllIIIII ~1 I~1 I t I I _,~ I ! I I tl Itl IJ I I I I I ~kI Id I I I I// I I I I III1~t %%1~1 I I I I I I I~11~ ~ex ~eod Stoi~tess Stee~ ~otts With Nuts Structure Requires (2) Piece Grote Per Drowing/.t OUTLET PIPE N.W.L. 1/4" STEEL PLATE DETAIL A-A INLET PIPE NOTES: Monolit hicolly Poured Concrete 1. Standard pipe bedding required on both inlet & outlet pipes. TOP VIEW II 4' O' mx. to ~' 20-1/2' min.[! inlet O penlng I Construct Iow ~ection o! !1 solid masonry or cast-in-place ! .concr~U as w Std. Pi. 4000. i 8" A.-I T%csst Base 6" x 4 ' x 5' 4 ' o~ cast-iff-place reinforced as per Section AA,. FRONT VIEW Weight1 in, cast Base 1600 lbs, Ptecast Top 2900 lbs. Not~: Contractor's option - Std. Pl. 4026 CONSTRUGTiOfl NOTES: Units to M pmcast e~iy on the m'oJect u~er ~ct I~Ction · For ~lers loner ~n 4 ifiL, use multiple units. Top a~ side Joln~ Mt~en ~le~ wl~ mk~ a~ ~" hot po~ suier Only o~ ~fl~ moul~d ~r lfls~llatlon lo~d Bt ~r of ~lt o~r Place pl~ o~nln9 as ~,uJred. Sio~ flo~ 5/8" ~r toot ~ When ~uRIple units a~ ~S~J~d; ~ ~M and ~er wall s~ll ~ coflsv~Md ns Co~ mix s~ll ~ 3Y4J Ring Casting No. 790=2 (Std. PLate 4108) modlfbd by a~ltlo, of lu~s at .ua~er ml~s or aphid e,~l. ~ Std. Ph~ 4014 for ~11 of Co~r Casting No. 712 {S~. Pla~'4210} = - [ -Top'of curb elev. , I N , i,N~I _ !l I // ! both ways / SECTION A-A /- Use 1"deep J~ 3"x 2' Keyw'av 'Designation: Design 4022 Y-X ~-T'" [ L-- Depth In feet Total teflgth of Units Stanchrd pia~ llaJl-.-c~ Example: I~. 5 feet deep Two 4-foot units Construct as per Std. Pl. 402] PRECAST'CURB OPENING CATCH BASIN ~':::; r'., .... ~;Ai~D~:RD"~:-,~"f'~E~ NO. 402 lC m ] ill Ill {lil - - - ..l_~:TM I I ~ i i Av'rE_c FLN1SI-~NG SYSTEM. S bNC. '% l© i l® '1 C,?T '~J : 7¢' ) · ~kl DE$(~RIPTION SPEGIFIDATION FEATURE~ The paralux ~ Series features recessed aesthetics and 1he iat- e,~ iJ~ enarW ~ieff; technolo- gy. The luminalre Inc~rpomms a v~ into a nominal 5-1/2" deed para-r~ntoured fixture hearing. Thf~ enn'~inafinn ra~mtP~ A trd~d high ~rformanee I~rabolic opt~ cai a~embly for optimum par- fon~an~e. The aefie~ is oompa~ bin with all of today's papular Gaffing sy.~me and is available with a number of options and s~tilitv. The high performance luminaim is de,igned to offer max~um ef~eney ann ~erformanoe ~or today'~ unique interior speelflea- tlons. The Paralux m .erie. i. an excellent r,h~iGe f~r COiTlme~pi office r~aees, sehooir=, heepltais or re, ail mamhandising area~. MOUNTING DATA A r ?'~" [~rnml ILO. 14~ Il IOaa~m] O A,..Conetruetlen Nominal ~-1/2" deep, para-eon- toured housing, die formed of code gauge, pdme cold rOl~KI full length die formed ~t;rrunem for added ~rength. Contoured removal wi~ou~ loeb. Die f~rmed ~al~Ve lampholder breck- et fuli~ encloses lampholder wfring permitl~g easy lamphold- er replaoemer~ Heavy end ere ~ecumN a~ached wi~ ir~r- ioc~dng mi~ an~ ~orew~. Four auxiliar~ fixtu~ end ~spension points provided. KOs for .... ~;~ ~-,, labor .eying integral Grfd~Lock feature for aafe~f and converr fixture to be oonven~d from Grid to T-option or vice ve~a in ~e field.' BatIMlS am CEM/ETL Cia~s "P" a.n.d am pos__it_ive!¥ -_ _,eg_.,_,red ~ mau~ng baits. Preaaura lock lampholdem, UL listed, Add 'CAN" prefix to catalog number for CSA certification. B C I I \ / ~ t V V [aoamml GELLING DOM PATIBILITY (; T GdcL, ldly-ln Concealed T Standard 0adonal rrK~ ~m KI; COOPER LIGHTI~JG T F Slot Srtd Flange Tltm C...Finiah ug~ttng grade, bakeel wi, tn enamel t~Ai$1n. Mu[tia-'tage, phosphate pretraarnem mst ]nhibi~on. g...HinginglLelehi ag Ion~, self I~. I~. ~ ~ T-hing~ aii~ hinging and ia~cilir~g · elthar s~de. J 2EP3GAX340 E.,.~ouvor 332 Die farmed of Im~v iridescent, Vertioal grain anodized alu- minum. Fbbm i. Anedic ~xlde 18 Cell coating. A~uram pre~i~ion par- abollE ~ellaete held in pla~e J ~' x ~' PA~AaOLI¢ with Interiooklng feature, True- a LAMP reveal with integral mechanical ePEOULAR LOUVER light ~eal around entire perime- ~r ef leuver, L~uvar m'etae~t Pa ra Iux III by polyethylene cover. Ri r S apply Troffer i - . - ~( ~ , i I Input / I EB BBII~ & STD 340 3a2 '(91) LAMP (,'ONFIGURATiON; 2~ DgllN~ & J [17Btam) [17,gmmJ J Lun~lflai~a Efficacy R~ng l, ,~3-1~4" [~lL~mml ...... J y~ ~ d ~0 I~, "b~W ~dulnr ~ ~1 ~n PI40?OME?RIGG Goefhcient~ of UtflizBtJan Condole Ele~-tronN Ballast Lamps 2600 Lumens Spacing G~erlon: ill) 1-~ x mou~tlng I~aight, (~J %6 x moun~ng helg~ ~ole~y T~t Report ~0P125 L~R ~ lumen, ~ h~ m n~ ~alu _ ~a nA ZoniI Lumen Summary TyPical VCP Paroantagt$ 22.7 33.B 2a,r~ ORDERING JNFORMATION SAMPLe_ NUMBER: I-I 2--IEPI 3-1 . I ~ffit Ix I X-l~mk r~d~lo.dnll ~v'~--' Nen-~P SUpldy (oak Al I AVX~dr Supply Iqem~,g Lm,~r with DlmcUo.ml Air 36-3 R~ offS, lB Cell -- (TO ~mp r r Gl~nlo L emI~ ~mp ~ ~T~2 I ~p~ula~m {GeLd One) ~lq N~ ] PN"-Poimml ~lnm~ ~gle gemgm F~l~g ~-Dual EJgme~ Fuglng ael~n~ S~pD~r ~~ ~guge R~ e~dpM~ entomb{lee moil Grid Clip Il ~aommen~ SHIPPINO INFORMATION c,,~o, w~ Vldt our web alto ~t www. eeel~rlklhflng.mam Cuetome. r I:l,'~t ~:enTe~ 1123 Highway 74 South Pea~,~-~,~.~.-_~ ~.~,_'no 49iL4~nfl G~y Wi).4M.4801 ADFeB1681 DE5ORIPTION The Steeler combines ~id-ml~ ~el and a ~1~ adjudge ~e~or to p~de unm~che~ in o~er indum~iala. U.L. li~d and ~ ce~fiad. The S~ler 15 perfect for assembly ames, h~ga~, manu~dng and automat;ye se~ice am~. B :~PEOIFICATION FEATURES A--,R~ountlng Easy Glide-on ~;;a~.aG[ aluminum mounting box w~ ~pp~ opening ~r ~4" B..,Houslng Heevy-cluty, formed ~el housing with an open air ballast for cooler operation is finLshed in a white polyester powder coat. C,,,Ballast pleas H in~ula~ion. U.L. Eslsd for 85'C (14~F) ambient temDetature oDer,Trion. Minimum starting temperature is -40~C (-40~ F) for HPS and -30'C (-20~ P) for MH. CSA certltled. i D-.U niv.rwal Breakers L/nivemai iad0er brackets allow for the flexibility to change out with other or glass. E.,.eoeket Mogukbaae porcelain soc~et. F.-,Reflecter Computer~lesigne~. fleld-ddJub'table reflector mount~ easily and allows preoise control. .... 16" [3glmm] Bee urderlna Infermeflon for ~;~ COOPER LIGHTING I,, t,/IVl/d~l~i~ SS15" STEELER 70-4.00W Metal Militia HIGH-BAY INDUSTRIAL LUMINAIRE ENERGY DATA 1~ H~ ~PF I~ W~) Z~W H~ HPF (~ wa~J 2mw MN H~ ~ ~ ~ MH HFF {~6 ~A l~ ~ ~ 1~ MN HPF ~O ~ MH HPF {~; W~) ' pHOTOMETRIG9 IIPS~-SASB.~.IGO 150-~gtt HFS, Mel:lkJm Dlla'li~th~ l~,o0Q,~mmt CIger Letup ORDERING INFORMATION 3 O0 75 70 67 79 73 09 66 7~ OB ~ ~ 60 63 86 64 62 61 6B ~ C SAMPLE NUMBER: HPSS-SAIB.3.tB0.MT.G HP~Hlgll INad~l NMIdo MP=PuI~e ~ MH IMm. ~ MH IU~r Glen I Iilfi' ] 7G~7fl%V" Alumlnu ,__ I IOO.1IXIW' 1~ GIeae ] JOll,'lflblllMi I l'J~ml?b-WI ;a47V Tr-~ipla- ,1,op ~ ! I (omar Fl'f-lolqx~re Hook ~L~,p faHl~l..kmk ~ e-iiv ~emw ! ~ Co~d Mr I ~ Plup ~ 2D~1~ ~15R ~16R ~7-16R (1~~ ~ no~ ~ug, ~1 ~ulmd~ W ~ ~0~ VMmBm ~ fle~lm &-I and ~ ~1~ ~~ lumlng ~x ~1~m GUaM (nm ~mp~w~ 'SGBtS~ or ~uge) ~m~ ~nleh ~p~ Lamp 4QO DE$C#J~TJDN 6PEGIFICATION FEATURES The Lumark WaI-Pak provides a durabie and effiaiem exterior light aQUrCe for any applleat]on requiring maximum maintenance. The rugged, die- cast aluminum housing, stainless steel hardware and coaled and 9eaketad optlce c~m~rtment combine to A,.,Hou,ing Die-east aluminum I~ousing is finished in dark bmn;e polyester powder B...Optleal Impa~ ~i~nt D,,,Ballaat High power factor baJiaat ~n~J~ olass H insulation. Minimum starting temperature i~ -~'C (-~"F) ~r MH. E...Lens Assembly Len~ ~aem~ty ia ~inge~ ~ b~om for easy in~lla~on make the Wal-Pak virtually C...Gaskatlng Impenetrable to contaminants. Foam-in-place high-temperature ia, pact-ma.la, ant 00,roaiJ?ate U.L listed and CSA eer6fied, silicone gasketing seals out pnsrnatic glass or powcamonate~ A P p L ~ AT! ON external contaminants. Easy to install, the Wal-Pak oomolemene; any environment'and is ideal for .... loading desks, underpasses, . ~ .. tunnels, ~talrways, building entraneos, vemcle ramps an~l ' sehoob. ] . + · J ~l~ / 14 A .............. fi , ............ /./.1 ......................... ::: ........ o ........... ...... I DIMBN61ON6 WLWAL-PAK High Pressure &eaium Metal Halide WALL MOUNT ENERGY DATA I~ H~ NP~ (1 ~SW~) ~ R~ ~ I~ W~ MW MH H~ {~ W~) l~W HPSH~ I19o W~ ~ H~ HPF ~ W~ 1?~ MH HP~ (aID W~l ~o~ MN ~ (~O ~) 4~ MH HFF (4M W~) ADHg71012 I)HO'rOMETRIC~ I I I- Ir -'1 I I 3 I I0 .... I I I\.N~ll I I ~ HPWk-2$O 250.W-4K HPS ORDERING INFORMATION MH-Maml Halide Gkmn L~n~PF 4gO,,~DW Pq~rb~na~e ~TO~;K 8AMFE. E NUMBER: P~16 · Pak I Sodium [ J M,,,blo~i Halide PM!7 PMdO r~'l"g: $kx~rfloodar, o nmi Dinmamm~i ~ub~u m ~M'4O wldl~t nMIIm, F--./.) · A ~ ) · rill C~mer FIMI Can[or 1121 Hlghwoy, ?~ ~n.+h r~,,.~-m= cbs., GA 30~m '?']n Ann 480p =Av ~n ,f.,~ ,lnnq ·. I..U iVl/4rt DEgCRIPTION SPI~¢IFICATION FEATUREE The Lumark Hammer's one-pi~e die-ease houaing providee ~moo~h, ~eenalne aaathetiog while gnsur[ng aomp~r~esigned 0~o81 e~embly delivem m~ble ph~o~t~ iff ~ basra ~Brn~ ~r m~imum design A..,Latohas spdng.loadoct, die-east Jalehee provide entry wit~o~ tools. We~hgPr~a~ on~pi~e dle-oa~ Mumlnum houeJng fin;~h.d in da~ bronx. polar po~er e~. Removable one.piece die-east aluminum door with clear fiat tempered gleee len~ F...aoeKat Mogul-base porcelain ~octcet ~.~ met-_! h-_!i_"e er high pre, ute sodium lamps, flexibility. U.L 1572 IZsted for C.-.Refle=tor G...Ballast wet locations. GSA oertified. Hydroformed epeuuler Removable swlng-ciowfl aluminum reflector deAd/ers ballast aasembiy with quick- APPLICATION repeatable Type I1,111 and Area disconnect plug simplifies ~ui~ die[Hbi~Tohe, maimenanca. Superior beam utilization and smaotfl distribution make the I~..,Gsaket Hemmer rdeal for_aerkin~ Di~,Jt, d_~cror! pe_lye_~__a_~ ereae, aooees roadway8 and gasket seals out external other general offsuea~ ¢ontamjnart~, ama/site lightfng applie.~Jon$. D ................ 2a a/4' mi .... [ ml I HRHAMMER 7O.400W High PressUre ~odium Metal Halide AREA/SITE LIGHT ENERGY DATA Hl-i~aee ~il, a~ ~ wmt.~ 7OW HFS HPI~ (aB W~ttel llg0W HF~ HPP (1~ W~ ~WNPS H~ ~w~ 17~ MH H~ (21o ~) ~ MH HPF I~ ~) 4~ MH HPF {~ ~) ADH970~/ PHOTOMETRIOG 2 HR-3 HPHR-A¢-4OO-MT HR,G MHHR.R3.4OO.MT g(]D-Wmz Mi,I, Type ill, 34,OOD, Lumon FuotcundlB TBbJe lint valua ~Fa~ t~le ~lu~ ~r ~ ~dle V~ G 'O E F ,, , A ' ~ ·. .... D.~ b 4 a ~, I O 1 ;] 3 4 6 HR.6 MHHR-AGdQI-MT ORDERiHG INFORMATION OA'lOl~Photo~l~m, lu Control, I06-.?.B6¥ OAlO~O-F'leld.4netaJled Phr,locona"el Re,,epmcte, NEM,gr 'Typo QAIOI~,D~m;t Mount ~ ;Dr iouM Arm ~r Rolmd Fob, .$~ EPA , .~ .~,~'~ -t ? o,~.ler, a, lc Cml, 347V 9OO ×~ COMMUNITY'PLANNIN(~ - DESIGN MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Jason lindahl/Alan brixius DATE: June 28, 2000 RE: New Hope: 9101 Science Center Drive (Avtec Properties) FILE NO: 131.01 - 00.09 BACKGROUND The applicant, avtec Properties, is requesting site plan approval for a 18,048 square foot expansion to their existing industrial building located at 9101 Science Center Drive. The new space will be used for production, office, and storage uses. To accommodate the proposed expansion, the applicant is also requesting a 10-foot side yard setback variance from 20 to 10 feet. The development review staff evaluated this application on June 14th and the Planning Commission Design and Review Committee reviewed it on June 15, 2000. These reviews produced several requests for revisions. The applicant complied with many of these recommendations. Any outstanding issues are cited in the recommendation section of this report. Attached for Reference: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: Title Sheet Survey Site Plan Landscape Plan Grading Plan Overall Floor Plan Elevations RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the applicant's site plan and a 10-foot side yard setback variance from 20 to 10 feet. This recommendation is based on the findings cited in this report and subject to the conditions outlined below. 1. the applicant submits a revised set of plans illustrating the upgrading of the 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 6 '1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-.595-9837 E-MAIL NAG@ WINTERNET.COM 3. 4. 5. bituminous curb south and east of the building to B612 concrete curbing consistent with Site Plan. The applicant install one (1) additional van accessible disability stall. Designate the drive lane around the south side of the building as one way traffic. Submit plans detailing the type of exterior light to be used. Submit plans demonstrating the trash enclosure will be made of the same materials as the principal building. ANALYSIS Direction of Comprehensive Plan The subject property is found to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is zoned I-1, Limited Industrial District. surrounded by other industrial uses. In addition, the City's guides this site for industrial development. Lot & Building Performance Standards The subject property meets the minimum lot area, lot width, requirements for properties in the I-1, Limited Industrial District. Illustrated in the chart below. According to the Existing Land Use Map, the site is Proposed Land Use Map and building height These standards are Lot & Building Performance Standards for the I-l, Limited Industrial District Performance Standard Required Proposed Lot Area 1 Acre 5.55 Acres Lot Width 150 Feet 410 Feet Building Height 3 Stodes 1 Story (20' 8") Both the existing building and planned expansion are in compliance with the performance standards for the I-1, Limited Industrial District, with the exception of the west side yard setback. The existing building has a 10-foot west side yard setback. The applicant proposes that the new addition match this setback. As a result, the applicant is seeking a 10-foot west side yard setback variance. The chart below compares both the existing and proposed setbacks. Setbacks for the I-1, Limited Industrial District Yard Existing Proposed Required Status Front 270' 206' 50' Compliant Side 0Nest) 10' 10' 20' Noncompliant Side (East) 240' 240' 20' Compliant Rear 60' 60' 10' Compliant Variance To facilitate the proposed expansion, the applicant is requesting a 10-foot side yard setback variance. Staff finds two reasons to support this variance request. First, the City recently approved a similar variance for the Public Works building. This approval essentially set a precedent for this type of request. Second, the Comprehensive Plan sets the goal of reevaluating the land use requirements placed upon industrial properties (p.47). To this end, the City is currently considering reducing the required side yard setback in the I-1 District from 20 to 10 feet to promote in-place expansion of existing industries While these two findings do not meet the strict interpretation of a hardship, they do create legitimate support for the variance request. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the 10-foot side yard setback variance from 20 to 10 feet. Grading The Grading and Drainage Plan indicates that the site will need little grading to match the Finished Floor Elevation of the proposed addition to that of the existing building. The building addition and site improvements will create the need for addition impervious surface area, triggering the need for storm water quality and storage improvements. The applicant plans to construct a new stormwater drainage pond in the site's southwest comer. This pond is consistent with recommendation of the City Engineer. The majority of the parking area and driveway drain toward the catch basin at the southeast corner of the building. To facilitate this drainage pattern, both staff and the Design Review Committee recommend upgrading the bituminous curb south and east of the existing building to concrete curbing. The applicant changed the Site Plan to reflect this recommendation but failed to change any of the other drawings. As a result, staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to show concrete B612 curbing along the south and east sides of the building on both the Landscape and Grading plans. Parking ~--~ The parking requirements for office and warehouses uses are found in Section 4.036(10)(cc). According to these standards, this site is required to provide 100 off-street parking stalls. Currently, this site has 89 stalls but will lose 43 of them to the new expansion. The plans call for the construction of 54 new off-street stalls for a total of 100 on site parking spaces. Therefore, this site is consistent with the City's off-street parking requirement. Parking Standards for Office, Warehouse, & Manufacturing Uses Total Use Parking Total Square Required Standard Footage Parking Office 1/300 Sq. Ft. 6,565 21.9 Warehouse 1/1,500 Sq. Ft. 20,880 13.9 Manufacturing 1/350 Sq. Ft. 26,374 75.4 Subtotal N/A 53,908 111.2 Less 10% Reduction N/A 5390.8 -11.1 Total N/A 48,517.2 100.1 At present, the applicant's plans show four (4) disability stalls. According to the Minnesota Council on Disabilities, sites with 76 to 100 stalls are required to provide four (4) regular disabiliiy stalls and one (1) van accessible stall. Therefore, staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to designate one additional van accessible disability stall. All disability stalls must be located as close as possible to an accessible entrance. The applicant has complied with staffs recommendation to designate area for snow storage on the plans. Loading Area The loading berths for this site are located on the building's south side. These angled loading bays conform to the standards of the zoning ordinance. However, the initial plans illustrated an inadequate turning radius around this side of the building along with a nonconforming bituminous curb. The applicant revised the Site Plan to provide adequate turning radius around the building for a semi-truck and trailer and changed the curbing to B612 concrete curbing. However, these changes have not carried over throughout the plans. Therefore, staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to carry over these changes in both the Landscape and Grading plans. Architectural Appearance The proposed expansion will have a painted rock-face block exterior. The westem 1/3 of the facade will have a canopy over the main entrance and be accented with two levels of windows. The eastern 2/3 of the building's face will be plain, painted rock-face block with two man doors. All roof top equipment will be painted to match the building. Landscaping The applicant's Landscape Plan calls for both the installation of new plantings around the proposed addition and the preservation of existing trees. The front of the building will be accented with a combination of deciduous and coniferous trees. The applicant complied with staff recommendation to install addition crab trees along the eastern 2/3 of the proposed expansion to soften its appearance. The plan also calls for the preservation of existing trees between the proposed parking area and Science Center Drive. All grass and planting areas will have underground irrigation. Signage This application does not call for any changes to Avteds signage. Should the applicant wish to change their sign, they must submit a detailed sign plan for review and approval by the City. Lighting According to Section 4.033(5), any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area or other structures, shall be arranged to deflect direct light away from adjoining residential zones or from the public street. The source of light shall be hooded or controlled in a manner so as to not light adjacent property. The applicant did revise their plans to show the exterior lighting. These lights will be screened from adjacent public street by the mature trees along Science Center Drive. Nevertheless, the applicant must still provide plans detailing the type of exterior light to be used. Trash Enclosure The applicant's revised Site Plan designated an area along the south side of the building for a trash enclosure. However, the plan does not include architectural details for the trash enclosure. Staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to submit architectural details for the proposed trash enclosure demonstrating that it will be made of the same materials as the principal building. Tra//s The City's Trail Plan calls for a pedestrian trail to pass through this site. Staff recommends that the City consider acquiring an easement from the developer for a pedestrian trail. pc: Doug Sandstad Mark Hanson Bonestroo Rosene Ander. lik& H Associates Engineers & Architects To: Kirk McDonald From: Boneetn)o Relefle, AnderllK ind Ase~Cl~ei, ~G, ie ~ Afflr~tve ~tI~/EMI em~o~r ~ ~plo~e Owned Prlnl~lls: ~ G, ~une~oo, RE, ~ M~vln L, So~l~ ~, · GI~ R. CooK, ~E, Robes ~ Scflunicht, P~ ' Senior ConsUlter AssoctNte PrlncIpal~ I~d A, S~far~ ~E, - Kol~ ~ Qor~, P~ · RoDert R~ ~ MicMel · R~, Subject: Vince Vander Top, Mark Hanson Avtec Finishing SYstems Our File No, 34-C-]5N t/98-26 Date: June 29, 2000 plan set received June 26, as well as previous Thc following comments are b~ed on the submittals. Grading and Drainage All sim drainage from existing hard surfac~ and proposed hard surface is'directed to the SE portion of thc prol~rty. It is collected vi~t storm sewerS and culverts and will be treated in a proposed storm water pond east of the RR spur. Drainage calculations were submitted previously. Thc proposed storm water collection and treatment prior w leaving the site appears to be consistent with Shingle Creek Watershed' and City requirements. It is recommended that thc proposed improvements be reviewed by Shingle Crc~k Watershed. B612 curb and 8utter ,,~ill be constructed along th6 'east and SOuth sides of the property. This will improve stonu water collection and control. The proposed curb on the ',south side of the pwperty has been configured to maximize space for track maneuvering ne. ar the loading docti. The configuration also appears to account for the slope of the RR spur embankment. The existing 1 It-inch R~IP storm pipe on the south side of The property will be extended to thc west lot line. The improvements account for dralna~e from adjacent properties. This storm sewer could be eitended to the west by others in the future. Anexisting 12" culvert below the RR spur will mmai{~; altho~.'gh the drainage ar~a served will be reduced. The swale upstream of the 12' culvert must be bermed to maximize the water directed to tho proposed pond. :: 2335 V/est HighWay 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 65~-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311 06/29/00 10:'19 [~ '02/02 Other Items All permits required to construct a culvert below thc RR spur must bo obtained by the property owner. A c'opy of the permit Should be provided to the City prior to construction. A bond in thc amount of 150% of thc site improvements should be issued prior to construction. A new drainage easement is shown over thc proposed pond. The north casement line should be moved 15 feet further north. The proposed HWL is 895.:5+. Thc easement must incluctc all areas within the HW]., plus an additional buffer strip. Moving the north casement line 1 $ feet will include thc proposed 896 contour. Future Improvements 10. City staff has discussed the potential of future improvements including: Additional storm w~er pending for water quality tre~,tem~nt for other propertics within the subwat~rshed. · A regional pedestrian/biking trail including a crossing of the RR, A sketch of existing e~semcnts and possible furore improvements has been pwvided previously. These future improvements would require coordinaQon between the City and adjacent property owners. The City may consider delaying the proposed Artec pending improvements to allow time for the evaluation of other regional iml~vements. Pending thc results of thc evaluation, Artec and/or the City could construct the selected improvements. It is recommende~ that the bond for the proposed pending improvements be maintained during the evaluation.. It is recommended that staff, Planning Commission, and Council discuss the feasibility of future improvements. l~nd of Comments 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 00-11 Avtec Finishing Systems 6/9/00 8/8/00 10/7/00 9101 Science Center Drive New Hope 55428 Kirk Lindgren 533 B. C. D. Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. Assign each application a number. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). List the date the City received the application. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) List the deadline under any extension or waiver. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo, Rosene. Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal C~pp~tunity Employer and Employee Owned I / / Princip.::s: Otto G. eonestroo PC · Mrarwn L Sorvala, RE, - Gi~':~'~ ~ Cook, RE · /~/ Rober~ ~', Schunicht, RE · Jerry A. B~urdon. Senior Consultants: Robert `W. Rosette, RE · Joseph C. Ander!,: ;'; · R~chard E Turner P~ - Susan M Eberlin, C PA Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford, RE Richard `W. Foster, RE. · David O. Loskota, RE. · Robert C. Russek. A IA · Mark A Hanson. RE · Michael T. Rautmann, PE. · Ted K Fie~d, PE · Kenneth R Anderson. ZE · Mark R Rolls. RE · David A. Bonestroo, M.13 A. · Sidney P 'Williamson, RE., L.S · A~nes M. Ring. M.B A · Allan Rick Schmlc~t, RE Offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and 'A/illmar, MN · Milwaukee. 'WI ~,/elosit e: www. bonestroo.com To: Kirk McDonald cc: Doug Sandstad, Guy Johnson, Shari French, Alan Brixius From: Vince Vander Top, Mark Hanson Subject: Avtec Finishing Systems Our File No. 34-GEN E98-26 Date: June 15, 2000 We have completed the attached sketches relating to the ponding area on the Avtec property. This is the southeast portion of the Avtec property. The sketches are based on review comments from staff during recent meetings and include the concept of regional storm water ponds and a future trail. The sketches include four Figures: Figure 1 depicts the property line between Avtec, the property to the east, and the RR. Figure 2 includes all easements in the area based on information submitted by the applicant and other info in our office. Figure 3 represents the area if Avtec would construct the improvements as proposed in the submittal. Figure 4 represents the area if regional ponding and trail improvements are constructed. As we discussed, the construction of regional ponds and the dedication of trail easements would require coordination with the property owners an'd the City. City staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council should discuss the potential of these improvements further. 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311 "o Z or~ ~ou') 1 00'4' '15" E ' CO,NC. CURB o~ - >7__ nl o? o~ 000· -~0 0 0 ?' Planning Case: Petitioner: Address: Request: PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: July 11, 2000 Report Date: July 7, 2000 00-12 WinPark Associates/Simple Simon 3440 Winpark Drive Site/Building Plan Review Approval for North Building Expansion I. Request The petitioner is requesting site/building plan review to allow construction of an addition to the north side of the existing building, pursuant to Section 4.039A of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. II. Zoning Code References Site/Building Plan Review Section 4.039A Property Specifications Zoning: Location: I-2, General Industrial Winpark Drive intersects with Winnetka approximately one block south of 36th Avenue. The property is located on the east side of Winpark Drive as the street corners to the south and parallels Winnetka Avenue, approximately 650 feet east of Winnetka Avenue. Adjacent Land Uses: North: R-4 apartments (Emerald Pointe); East: railroad tracks and I-1 Limited Industrial; South: City of Crystal partially developed industrial; West: Winpark Drive and I-1 Limited Industrial Site Area: 388,741 square feet or 8.92 acres Street Frontage(s): 500 feet on Winpark Drive Building Area: Existing = 99,000 square feet West Addition = 23,700 square feet (approved-not built 6/30/2000) Proposed Addition = 76,000 square feet Total = 199,700 square feet Lot Area Ratios: Building = 51 percent Paving = 34 percent Green = 15 percent (no code minimum in I-1 zone) Planning District: No. 17; The City's goal for this District is to promote business retention and in- place expansion, to provide better compatibility with adjacent residential neighborhoods, and pursue improved screening of outdoor storage areas. Specific Information: This property is an isolated I-2 zone consisting of one large lot. IV. Background The applicant, Robert Zakheim of WinPark Associates, LLC, is requesting site plan approval for an approximately 77,000 square foot expansion to the existing industrial building located at 3440 Winpark Drive. According to the applicant, they wish to construct this expansion in one phase. If this cannot be III. accomplished, the applicant would first construct the northwest section (35,700 square feet of office/warehouse) and then construct the northeast section (40,230 square feet of office/warehous Should the City prefer that the northeast section be constructed first, the applicant would do so ana would construct the west-facing wall out of concrete block to match the existing building. The applicant would also install attractive shrubs and trees along the west wall. This request is the second major expansion of the Simple Simon site. In March of 2000, the Planning Commission recommended, and the City Council approved, a 23,188 square foot expansion. As part of that application, the City Council also approved a 10-foot rear yard setback variance to help facilitate the current application. Construction has not yet started on that addition. Originally, the applicant thought that this second expansion would not occur until 2002. The original building was built in 1966 for Minnesota Paints (later named Valspar). An addition was built in 1974. The paint warehouse use continued until eight years ago, when Valspar vacated and the Creamettes leased it to store pasta. The applicant purchased it last year and began renovating it for Simple Simon. Petitioner's Comments The petitioner submitted a narrative dated June 9, which is attached for reference. The narrative states, in part, that "WinPark Associates, LLC, in July of 1999, purchased the Dakota Growers Pasta building located at 3440 Winpark Drive. This facility is a 100,000 square foot concrete block warehouse structure, located on 8.92 acres of land. WinPark Associates recently received approval from the City to construct a 24,100 square foot addition to the existing facility. The current facility is occupied by Simon Delivers, a home delivery internet grocery related business. Based on our discussions with Simon Delivers and their substantial growth, we anticipate the need and desire to further expand the existing facility. As a follow up to these previous approvals, WinPark Associates wishes to receive further approval for additional facility expansion on the north side of the existing property."' 3440 Winpark Drive Facility Improvement and Development Objectives Phase 1: Within 24 months of initial approval, initiate a north side facility expansion. This expansion would be one of two phases of the projected two-phase expansion process. This total expansion would entail the construction of an approximate 75,000 square foot structure on the north side of the existing facility. This first phase would be approximately 40,230 square feet, and would encompass the northwest area of the site. This Phase 1 of the north side expansion would include the construction of an attractive main entrance to the facility where the majority of all future office access to the facility would take place. This expansion would also fully encompass the entire west side and majority of the existing north side of the building, enhancing the aesthetics and curb appeal from Winpark Drive. · This addition would be approximately 27 feet in height, constructed of an attractive concrete precast panel design. An attractive new concrete pre cast panel, glass and metal northwest corner entrance would become the facility focal point and add additional curb appeal, as this Phase 1 expansion truly completes the overall look and balance of the facility as it relates to the overall site and views from the west and north side neighbors and Winpark traffic. · The interior portion would consist of an approximately 10,000 square feet of additional finished office area in the northwest section of this addition, and approximately 30,230 feet of additional warehouse in the remaining area of this addition. · Site improvements would include the installation of paved parking, curb and gutter, and the completion of any required site work and landscaping enhancements. Phase 2: This expansion would be the second and final phase and would be approximately 35,7.60 square feet, and would encompass the northeast area of the site. This Phase 2 of the north side expansion would include the construction of limited office and warehouse areas to the balance of the buildable northeast area of the site. This Phase 2 final expansion would complete the entire Planning Case Report 00-12 Page 2 7/6/00 ,~ encompassment of the north side of the building, enhancing the aesthetics and view from any ~ neighbors to the north. · This addition would be approximately 27 feet in height, constructed of an attractive concrete precast panel design. An attractive office entranCe would be located in this northeast expansion area. This entrance would be constructed of precast concrete panels, glass and metal. · The interior portion would consist of approximately 32,760 feet of additional warehouse in the remaining area of this addition. The petitioner submitted a JUne 28 narrative indicating the following items: · Floor Plan: Plans to be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. · Watershed Approval: The Watershed approved the plans in June 2000. · Landscaping: Additional landscaping has been added per recommendations of the Design & Review Committee. · Signage: Monument ground sign relocated to meet 10-foot setback. No wall sign proposed at this time. · Building Design: Proposed building would incorporate soft panel colors, matching color clad on windows and metal trim, color column covers, and a large glass entry. · Phase 1 and 2 Issues: If the north side expansion would be constructed in two parts, the northwest section would be built first. Shrub and tree plantings would be installed along the west wall. · Railroad Approval: Approval for use of the railroad property on the southeast corner of the site has been sent to the City. · No Truck Signage: "No Truck" signage will be displayed at the northwest parking lot entrance. · North Side Lighting: Downcast wall pack light fixtures will be installed on the north side of the building, with. 1 foot candle at the north lot line. · Utility Plan: West Metro Fire has approved the fire hydrant locations, which are shown on the plan. · North Property Information: Information is provided showing screening toward Emerald Pointe Apartments to the north of the site. · Rooftop Equipment: All equipment will be painted to match the building. · Traffic Flows: Simon Delivers has been informed that they are to provide the preferred truck route training for their truck drivers and vendors. · Projected Head Count/Daily Truck Traffic: Information has been provided for the number of employees working on each shift and the number of trucks to/from the site during each shift. · Construction Schedule: A construction schedule has been provided showing completion within 120 days of obtaining the building permit. VI, Notification Due to the fact that this request is for site/building plan review only, no notification was necessary. VII. Development Analysis A. Zoninq Code Criteria Site and building plan review is the most routine development that requires Planning Commission/City Council approval by Code Section 4.039A. This language is meant to assure that expansions are compatible and consistent with existing buildings, orderly site designs, land uses, traffic patterns, and current standards. B. Development ReviewTeam The Development Review Team reviewed and supported this project on June 14. Additional comments/recommendations included: · (Note: Variance was approved, subject to reasonable details on Phase 3 plans.) Planning Case Report 00-12 Page 3 7/6/00 · Architect to sign plans. .~.. · Show all setbacks to lot lines. · Identify type of curbing. · Revise parking dimensions - add spaces per MN Disability Code. · Show snow storage areas. · Note that plans are "concept level" quality, only, not detailed enough for building permit submittals. · Move the ground sign at least 10 feet from property lines. Use monument style. · Revise and correct Landscape Plan: number of plants is not specified, ornamental crab trees are not allowed on boulevard, 2.5 inch deciduous boulevard trees (approved species) are required, arborvitae shown at north are too small for effective screening (replace with six-foot spruce). · Submit evidence of railroad consent to trespass. · Provide "No Trucks" sign at northwest entry drive. · Provide illumination contours on Site Plan - maximum ¼ foot candle at lot lines; wall packs are a concern, consider downlights on poles at north parking lot. · Incorporate Bassett Creek Watershed Commission requirements on plans. · Identify project phases and schedule. · Provide continuity among all plans. All site plans should be the same scale. · Identify parking lot setbacks to lot lines. · Retaining wall at southeast corner of lot must be completed soon. · Move fire hydrant to provide access. · Simple Simon truck route in area must use arterial streets like Winnetka, 42"d and Medicine Lake Road. 36th Avenue is a local street and not suitable for trucking. Desiqn & Review Committee The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on June 15, supported it emphasizing these items: · · reviewed the concept, Provide all revisions noted above by Development Review Team. Submit grading section of building to north lot line and existing apartments to verify adequacy of buffer or transition. · Temporary parking lot has been approved to help reduce Quebec Avenue conflicts at existing Simple Simon facility. · Revise parking spaces to 8'-9" width and illustrate compliance with MN Disability Code. · Illustrate snow storage on plan. · Sign Maintenance Agreement for pond. Provide pond calculations for Phase 2. · Switch west trees to 2.5 inch ash along Winpark Drive. · Aesthetic improvements were suggested around the front entry for architect of record to consider in improving appearance of new focal point/entry to offset size of big "box" warehouse. · Rooftop equipment will be painted to match building. · Submit a truck routing plan and details. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meetings, but clarification is still needed on several items. Plan Description 1. Comprehensive Plan. According to the City's Proposed Land Use Map, the subject property is guided for industrial development. Therefore, the development and expansion of an industrial use on this site is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Planning Case Report 00-12 Page 4 7/6/00 The subject property is zoned I-2, General Industrial District. The properties to the east, west, and south are zoned and guided for industrial use. However, the property directly to the north is an existing apartment building, which is zoned and guided for high density residential use. As a result, this expansion will require additional screening to ensure the continued compatibility of these uses. Lot and Buildinq Performance Standards. The subject property meets the minimum lot area, lot width, and building height requirements for properties in the I-2 District. The chad below compares these standards. Lot and Building Performance Performance Standard Standards for the I-2, General Industrial District Building Height Required Lot Area 1 Acre Lot Width 100 Feet 620 Feet 3 Stories Proposed 8.92 Acres I Story With the expansion of the rear yard setback, both the existing building and planned expansion are in compliance with the performance standards for the I-2 District. The chart below compares the existing and proposed setbacks. The applicant has received a 10-foot rear yard setback variance. Setbacks for the I-2, General Industrial District Yard Existin~l Proposed Required Front 99 Feet 99 Feet 50 Feet Side (North 248 Feet 100 Feet 10 Feet Side (South) 131.5 Feet 131.5 Feet 10 Feet Rear* 0 0 10 Feet *Setback for property adjacent to a rail line 3. Grading. The Grading and Drainage Plan indicates that the site will be graded to match the Finished Floor Elevation existing building (906.85). The topography will drop approximately three feet from the building to the grade of the parking lot to the north. Overall, the existing topography decreases as you move north toward the existing apartment building. Staff has some concern about this change in elevation and the effect it will have on screening the expanded industrial use from the apartment building. As part of this expansion, the applicant will construct a new 113-stall parking lot on the north side of the proposed expansion. According to the plans, this entire parking area will be drained through two catch basins along the north side of the new lot. Please refer to the City Engineer's comments on grading and drainage. 4. Parkinq and Circulation. The site plan illustrates the three-stage expansion of the 3440 Winpark Drive building as follows: Total Floor Area SF Office Floor Area Warehouse Floor SF Area SF Existing Building 99,159 415 98.744 West Expansion 23,100 5,500 17,600 North Expansion 76,500 13,000 63,530 TOTAL 198,789 18,915 179,874 Based on the proposed building uses, the proposed site is required to provide 57 parking spaces for the office space and 120 spaces for the warehousing use totaling 177 parking spaces. With the proposed expansion, the applicant is proposing to provide 247 total parking stalls. Out of these 247 stalls, the applicant will designate seven disability stalls and one van accessible Planning Case Report 00-12 Page 5 7/6/00 space. Six of the ADA spaces are located on the west side of the building and two are located at the northwest corner of the property near the pond/across from the main entrance. Staff fir~-''' that this site complies with the off-street parking requirements for office/warehouse uses. Per staff's recommendation, the applicant created a back out area at the eastern end of the new northern parking lot. According to City Code, all open and off-street parking shall have a continuous perimeter concrete curb. This curb barrier shall not be located closer than five (5) feet to any lot line. Currently, the curb of the back out area is only one (1) foot from the eastern property line. Staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to redesign the parking lot to meet the standard outlined above. The curbing shown on the plan is B612. Snow Storaqe. The applicant has designated two on-site snow storage areas. One is in the southeastern corner of the site next to the van loading dock. The other is located in the eastern end of the new northern parking lot. The applicant has indicated in their narrative that snow that cannot be stored in either of these areas will be contracted to be removed from the site. Truck Traffic. As part of the first phase review, the City Council expressed concern regarding increased volumes of truck traffic and travel routes into the site. The applicant has provided the following truck traffic forecasts. Anticipated Daily Truck Traffic Vehicle Type August 2000 After Expansion (Aug. 2002) Semi Trailer Trucks 18 34 Delivery Vans 18 26 The Comprehensive Plan discourages industrial traffic through residential area. To implement this policy, the City will, as a condition of approval, require the large trucks accessing and egressing this site to follow minor arterial streets. The applicant has submitted documentation that they will comply with the following recommendations: · The applicant will establish a truck routing plan that requires large trucks (semi tractor trailers) to solely utilize minor arterials to access and egress the site. Minor arterials serving the site may include: Medicine Lake Road, Winnetka Avenue, and 42"d Avenue. · Large Trucks will not utilize 36th Avenue (a community collector street) to travel between the site and Highway 169. The petitioner has discussed this further in their narrative, as follows: "WinPark has reviewed with Simon and informed them to initiate a training program for their drivers and information campaign to their vendors regarding the following preferred truck routes to be utilized. (Please refer to these routes as outlined on the attached City of New Hope Zoning Map.) · The WinPark facility is to be accessed from Winpark Drive and Winnetka. · Access to and from the major surroUnding highways will be accomplished through the following routes: > Winnetka to 42nd Avenue to Highway 169 or Highway 100 > Winnetka to Medicine Lake Road to Highway 169 > Winnetka to Highway 55 (Simon has been advised to have their drivers and vendors avoid using 36th Avenue) Simon vans may use other routes when necessary for the purpose of making residential deliveries in the New Hope and Crystal area. An important benefit of Simon's service is the amount of traffic it eliminates from the metro area. Once fully operational, Simon can easily process and deliver in excess of 4,000 orders per day. That represents 4,000 household who are not using automobiles to go to the grocery store, reducing overall metro area traffic, gas Planning Case Report 00-12 Page 6 7/6/00 usage and pollution. Simon also delivers groceries to many elderly and disabled individuals who would otherwise not have easy access to these products." Number of Employees/Traffic. The petitioner has provided the following projected employee headcounts and daily truck traffic counts: Head Count Time October 2000 Au~lust 2002 Office Warehouse Office Warehouse Shift 1 (5 a.m. - 1 p.m.) 0 90 0 120 (8 a.m. - 6 p.m.) 35 0 60 0 Shift 2 (3 p.m. - 11 p.m.) 0 52 4 79 Shift 3 (11 p.m. - 7 a.m.) 0 36 4 59 Truck Traffic Time October 2000 Au~lust 2002 Vans Semi's Vans Semi's Midnight - 6 a.m. 0 0 0 0 6 a.m.- 9 a.m. 0 4 0 9 9 a.m. - Noon 14 4 20 9 Noon - 3 p.m. 2 5 4 8 3 p.m.- 6 p.m. 2 7 6 14 6 p.m.- 10 p.m. 2 1 4 4 10 p.m. - Midnight 0 0 0 0 8. Rooftop Equipment. The petitioner has indicated that they anticipate the following rooftop equipment on the proposed addition. Northwest Office Area: 3-4 rooftop HVAC units. Northeast Office Area: 2 rooftop HVAC units. The units will be painted to match the building. 9. Si~na(~e. According to the Ordinance, the applicant is allowed up to two wall signs that are equal to 15 percent of the front face of the principal building or 250 square feet, whichever is less. In addition, the property may have a freestanding sign not to exceed 100 square feet in area or 30 feet in height. The applicant's site plan illustrates a single monument sign totaling 200 square feet. The proposed sign will be located 10 feet from the northwest corner of the site and adjacent to the northern entrance from Winpark Drive. Should the applicant wish to install any wall signs, they should submit a detailed sign plan for review and approval by the City. The applicant states in their narrative that the monument ground sign has been relocated to meet the 10-foot setback requirement. The plan has been updated to show a scale drawing of the sign. At this time, it is not the intension of the tenant to have a wall mounted sign, except for the "3440" address numbers. 10. Lighting. According to Section 4.033(5), any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area or other structures, shall be arranged to deflect direct light away from adjoining residential zones or from the public street. The source of light shall be hooded or controlled in a manner so as to not light adjacent property. Any light or combination of lights, which cast light on residential property, shall not exceed one foot candle as measured at or on the adjoining property. The applicant's Photometric Plan indicates a light measurement of less than. 1 foot candle at the adjoining residential property line. All lighting on the north side of the building will be downcast and all other exterior lighting will be hooded to direct light away from adjacent residential uses and public rights-of-way. Planning Case Report 00-12 Page 7 7/6/00 The petitioner states in their narrative that "the plans have been updated to show the downcast wall pack light fixtures. WinPark has enclosed cut sheets and specifications on the propo,,/'''' light fixtures to be used. WinPark's lighting plan does not exceed the lot line requirement of one foot candle of light at the lot line. Our plan will allow for .1 foot candle or less at the north lot line. Downcast wall mounted lighting fixtures will be mounted to the building at a height of 18 feet above grade. The nature and type of fixture being used will again exceed the City's lighting requirements concerning light sources being cast onto adjoining properties, and will also minimize any light being cast towards the Emerald Pointe tenants." Five downcast lights are shown on the north side of the building and three on the west side of the building. 11. Railroad Riqht-of-Way. The site plan illustrates a trash compactor on railroad land adjacent to the southwest corner of the building. The site plan also indicates the building's doorways, walls, stairs, and landing also encroach on the railroad property. The applicant was asked to provide evidence permitting these encroachments and submitted a lease agreement with CP Rail. The documents submitted in response to staff's request do not appear to match the location of the subject property. In addition, the land described in the lease agreement does not appear to include access to the railroad doors on the east side of the building. The applicant must provide evidence that they have legal access to all applicable railroad land. 12. No Truck Si.qnage. The applicant has stated in their narrative that appropriate "No Trucks" signage will be displayed at the northwest parking lot entrance. 13. LandscaPing. The elevation change between the proposed expansion and the adjacent apartment building, along with the exterior lighting from this industrial site, has staff concerned about screening. The applicant has increased the plantings along the site's northern property line. The planting schedule is as follows: Quantity Common Name Size 6 White Ash 2 ¼" 29 Colorado Green Spruce 4' 34 Mugo Pine Shrubs 15 gal. 28 Goldflame Spirea 4 gal. · Three ash are located near the north property line and three are located on the west side of the property along Winpark Drive. · Seventeen Colorado spruce are located along the north property line and 12 are located on the west side of the property near the south entrance on Winpark Drive. · Seventeen mugo pine shrubs are located on the north side of the building, eight are located around the northwest entrance, and nine on the west side of the building. · Sixteen spirea are located on the north side of the building and 12 on the west side of the building. In their June 28 correspondence, the petitioner states that the following changes were made to the landscape plan: · Two trees have been added to be consistent with color cross sections of the area. · Ornamental crabs have been changed to ash trees along the boulevard. · Plant counts have been added to the plan. · Arborvitae trees will be changed to 6-foot spruce trees. While the correspondence indicates the spruce trees will be six-foot, the landscape schedule indicates four-foot and staff recommends that a condition of approval include six-foot spruce trees at the time of planting. Planning Case Report 00-12 Page 8 7/6/00 14. Cross Section. The applicant has prepared a cross section diagram, digital color photos, and related information for the City regarding screening and elevations to the north property. The applicant states that this shows current and future trees for screening purposes and provides a better perspective as to the relationship between Emerald Pointe Apartments and the proposed WinPark expansion. When reviewing the information, please note the following: · The Emerald Pointe Apartments closest point to the WinPark tree section is 120 feet, WinPark's north parking area is 140 feet and the WinPark proposed north addition is 220 feet. · The east area of the Emerald Pointe Apartments and the most westerly Emerald Pointe apartment buildings are substantially further away from the WinPark property due to the increased setback of these apartment areas. · The grade areas where the WinPark and Emerald Pointe properties meet will match. Because the WinPark parking area will slope downward from south to north, this feature will direct all automobile lights downward. The coniferous tree screen, overall distance and higher grade of the Emerald Pointe Apartments will further minimize automobile lights from disturbing the residents. 15. Architectural Appearance, Northwest Building Elevation and Desiqn. The petitioner states in their June 28 correspondence that "Our partnership and its consultants have further addressed the issue of additional enhancements to the northwest entrance area. After careful consideration and discussion, WinPark Associates feels very strongly that the design as submitted is already very aesthetically pleasing and very substantial for an industrial building. WinPark has incorporated soft panel colors, matching color clad on the windows and metal trim, color column covers and a large glass entry. This additional effort on our part, already incorporates a very clean, aesthetically pleasing looking design that is typically not found in an industrial building. We have committed significant financial resources to this project and to the proposed northwest entrance area. Based on our entrance meeting existing City requirements, it is our desire to continue to fully cooperate with the City of New Hope and its staff in receiving approval on the proposed design." The Planner's Report states that the plan indicates that the building will be constructed out of precast concrete panels but have few architectural accents. All rooftop equipment will be painted to match the building. With the initial expansion proposal, the applicant indicated that the northern building expansion would include a significant architectural feature encompassing the building's main entrance. Review of the building expansion illustration reveals a few windows and a glass entryway under a green canopy. Both staff and the Design & Review Committee recommended that the applicant consider redesigning the building's entryway. The applicant feels that they have created an attractive industrial building and finds no need to change the design. The Planning Commission should make a finding regarding the appropriateness of the building's architectural appearance. The Building Official recommends some additional fine tuning of the front entry architecture, not clearly depicted on the small plans (1/16" = 1') and recommends that a ¼" = 1' detailed front elevation of the 45 degree wall be submitted to clarify this focal point. 16. Drainaqe. The Grading and Drainage Plans must comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer and the Bassett Creek Watershed District. Please refer to City Engineer's comments regarding storm water calculations and agreements for pond/structure maintenance. 17. Phase 1/Phase 2 Issues. The applicant states that it is WinPark's desire to build the entire north side expansion at one time. If this cannot be accomplished due to tenant requirements, we would try to construct the northwest Phase 1 first, and follow up with the northeast Phase 2 area. If the northeast Phase 2 area is required to be expanded first, WinPark would construct the west Planning Case Report 00-12 Page 9 7'/6/00 18. facing wall out of concrete block to match that of the existing building. WinPark would also propose to install attractive shrub and tree plantings along this west wall. ~'"~ Site Buildinq Schedule. The applicant states that after obtaining all necessary approvals and a building permit from the City of New Hope, WinPark anticipates the following construction schedule: Total Time Line - 120 Days Day 1 - 30 Completion of all site work to include erosion control, grading, installation of underground utilities, and footings. Day 30- 60 Completion of all footings, erection of all walls, structural steel, and roof decking. Day 60- 90 Completion of roof, installation of all exterior doors and windows, sprinkler system, start on site paving and curb installation. Pour concrete floors. Start installation of all internal utilities, electrical, gas lines, water and HVAC systems, and install dock levelers. Day 90-120 Initiate construction of all interior office areas. Complete exterior work including landscaping, curbs and paving, interior and exterior painting as required, complete all office, bathrooms and warehouse finish work, electrical system checks, project completion, apply for Certificate of Occupancy. Go 19. Outstandinq Issues. Staff request that the applicant install an erosion control silt fence and complete the southeast retaining wall immediately, as these improvements are overdue. Planning Considerations Excerpts from the Planning Consultant's report are included throughout this staff report. Building Considerations Detailed architectural plans and specifications must be submitted at the time of building permit application to illustrate compliance with the State Building Code and MN Disability Code. Legal Considerations A Development Agreement and performance bond are included in the recommendations. Engineering Considerations The City Engineer has reviewed the plans for the expansion on the north side of the property and provided the following comments: · Bassett Creek Watershed has approved the proposed improvements with certain conditions. Approval was based on revised storm water calculations. The revised drainage calculations must also be submitted to the City. Drainage calculations must account for all drainage to the pond. This includes runoff from roof drains. The calculations must demonstrate that the pond meets NURP standards. The pond outflow for a 2-, 10-, and lO0-year event must also be shown. · The Watershed also requires a maintenance agreement for the storm water pond. The agreement recently developed for the Liberty Diversified Industries/Safco property could be used as an example. · It is recommended that bond or letter of credit be established in the amount of 150% of the proposed site improvements. · Any new sewer or water services to the building must be shown. No new services are shown at this time. Planning Case Report 00-12 Page 10 7/6/00 I. Police Considerations ~ ~. The Police Department was involved in the review of these plans and has inspected the property, per the request of the owner, and provided public safety recommendations. J. Fire Considerations West Metro Fire was included in the review of the plans and has reviewed and approved the fire hydrant locations as shown on the plans. A new fire hydrant and fire lane are indicated on the north side of the new north addition. A wall hydrant and fire lane are located on the south side of the building. The existing facility has a full wet ESFR and Hi Pile rated fire protection system. The proposed and future additions would have an approved wet fire suppression system and smoke/heat vents installed. VIII. Summary Staff finds that the petitioner has addressed a number of the issues raised by staff and the Design & Review Committee, with several issues remaining to be addressed. Staff finds that this application is consistent with the policy of the City's Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of the proposed site plan, subject to the conditions outlined below. IX. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the site plan from WinPark Associates, LLC to allow an approximately 77,000 square foot expansion of their existing industrial building located at 3440 Winpark Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant to replace the four-foot tall spruce with six-foot tall spruce trees and revise Landscape Schedule to indicate change. 2. Applicant to redesign the parking lot so that no curb barrier is located closer than five (5) feet to any lot line. 3. Applicant to establish a truck routing plan that requires large trucks (semi tractor trailers) to solely utilize minor arterials to access and egress the site. Minor arterials serving the site may include: Medicine Lake Road, Winnetka Avenue, and 42nd Avenue. Large trucks will not utilize 36~h Avenue (a community collector street) to travel between the site and Highway 169. 4. Applicant to provide evidence that they have legal access to all applicable railroad land. 5. Compliance with all City Engineer recommendations, including, but not limited to, storm water calculations, written agreements for pond/structure maintenance, and Watershed approval. 6. Install erosion control fence and complete southeast retaining wall promptly. 7. Design and operation of the site must comply with the terms and conditions outlined in the applicant's graphics and narrative dated June 28, 2000. 8. Detailed architectural plans and specifications to be submitted at time of building permit application to illustrate compliance with State Building Code and MN Disability Code. 9. Applicant to provide larger scale (1/2 inch = 1 foot) detailed front elevation of 45 degree northwest wall and Planning Commission to comment on architectural details. 10. Applicant to provide all front yard (west) improvements before requesting final inspection and Certificate of Occupancy for the 23,000 square foot west addition. 11. Developer to execute Development Agreement with City and provide performance bond (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). Planning Case Report 00-12 Page 11 7/6/00 Attachments: Zoning/Address/Topo Maps June 28 Petitioner Correspondence June 9 Petitioner Correspondence Certified Survey/Notes Site and Landscape Plan Landscape Schedule Sign Plan Grading/Drainage/Erosion Control Plan and Notes Utility Plan North Elevation Conceptual Lighting Contour and Luminaire Schedule Northwest Perspective North and West Side Perspectives View of Apartments After Landscaping Distance From Apartments Cross Section Truck & Van Routes Lighting Fixture Details CP Property Lease Agreement Planner's Report City Engineer Comments June 1 Watershed Correspondence May 26 Watershed Correspondence Resolution 00-55 Approving Phase II Application Log Planning Case Report 00-12 Page 12 7/6/00 " ~__ 34T~ . kVE N z =- AVE N BETH EL CEMETERY ' ST AVE N '' < ....._ ~ ......... ~. z_ I-2 Z, VE N I-1 ' --~STH AV£ N :~-.i.i ii_ ADATHEMES CHESEDcEuETERySHEL 3510 3810 7101 X m4 DRIVE x goo.7 ..~,...-- ....... ~.~ ......................... ,.., × go7.g . / X gOO. 4 \. X m~7.1 X ?/ x 8g$.5 -- X ~0.2 X ~0§.8 ~14.7 g12,2 X g2 WinPark Associates ILC June 28, 2000 Mayor, City Council Members & Planning Commission Staff City Of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave. North New Hope, MN 55428 (612)-531-5119 Fax 531-5136 Subject Property: Property ID Number: 3440 Winpark Drive # 20-118-21 22 0010 2445 Nevada Ave North Golden Valley, MN 55427 (612)-512-1000 Fax 595-9884 As a follow up to our planning commission review meeting at 9:30 am on 6-16-00, below is a summary and status of the open issues presented at that meeting: PIan Updates: · Updated plans are now being submitted with architect sign offs where required. · The plans do show property set backs. (See site plan) · Parking dimensions have been be revised to 8' 9" and one ADA space added. · The site plan has been updated to show snow storage areas. Snow that cannot be stored in the snow storage areas will be contracted to be removed from the site. · All plans have been updated to show proper continuity where required. Floor Plan: WinPark understands that a full office floor plan approved by an architect, must be submitted to the City of New Hope for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Basset Creek Watershed/Drainage: The Memo concerning the Watershed approval dated 6-15-00 and Watershed letter dated 5-26-00, have been superceded by subsequent meetings and approval of the most recent plans that were submitted to the City of New Hope by WinPark.. (Please reference the attached Watershed letter to the City of New Hope dated 6-1-00). Landscaping: The following changes have been made. · Two trees have been added to be consistent with Color Cross sections of the area. · Ornamental Crabs have been changed to Ash trees along the Blvd. · Plant Counts will be added to the plan. · Arborvitae trees will be changes to 6 foot spruce trees. June 28, 2000 Page 2 Signage: The monument ground sign has been relocated to meet the 10 foot setback requirement. The plan will also be updated to show a scale drawing of the sign. At this time, it is not the intention of the tenant to have a wall mounted sign, except for the "3440" address numbers. Northwest Building Elevation & Design Our partnership and it's consultants have further addressed the issue of additional enhancements to the Northwest entrance area. After careful consideration and discussion, WinPark Associates feels very strongly that the design as submitted is already very aesthetically pleasing and very substantial for an industrial building. WinPark has incorporated soft panel colors, matching color clad on the Windows and metal trim. Color column covers and a large glass entry. This additional effort on our part, already incorporates a very clean, aesthetically pleasing looking design that is typically not found in an industrial building. We have commiued significant financial resources to this project and to the proposed Northwest entrance area. Based on our entrance meeting existing City requirements, it is our desire to continue to fully cooperate with the City of New Hope and its staff in receiving approval on the proposed design. Phase gl / Phase g2 Issues: It is WinParks desire to build the entire North side expansion at one time. If this cannot be accomplished due to tenant requirements, we would try to Construct the Northwest Phase gl first, and follow up with the Northeast Phase #2 area. If The Northeast Phase #2 area is required to be expanded first, WinPark would construct the West facing wall out of concrete bio0ck, to match that of the existing building. WinPark would also propose to install attractive shrub and tree plantings along this west wall. Railroad Approval: A copy of the approval for use of the railroad property on the South East corner of the site has been faxed to Kirk McDonald on 6-16-00. No Truck Signage: Appropriate "No Trucks", signage will be displayed at the North West Parking lot entrance. North Side Lighting: The plans have been updated to show the downcast wall pack light fixtures. WinPark has enclosed cut sheets and specifications on the proposed light fixtures to be used. WinParks lighting plan does not exceed the lot line requirement of 1 foot candle of light at the lot line. Our plan will allow for. I foot candle or less at the North lot line. Downcast wall mounted lighting fixtures (See attached specification sheet) will be mounted to the building at a height of 18' above grade. The nature and type of fixture being used will again exceed the City's lighting requirements concerning light sources being cast onto adjoining properties, and will also minimize any light being cast towards the Emerald Point tenants. Utility Plan: Randy Kurtz of West Metro Fire & Rescue, has reviewed and approved the fire hydrant locations as show on the plan. WinPark will update its plans to show consistency with the location of the North Side Hydrant on both the Site Plan and Utility Plan. The existing utility shows all utilities. Please provide specifics to any other information's that the City wishes us to provide. North Property Information: WinPark has prepared a cross-section diagram and Digital color photos related information for the City. This shows current and future trees for screening purposes and provides a better perspective as to the relationship between the Emerald Point Apartments and the proposed WinPark expansion. When reviewing the attached information, please note the following: · The Emerald Point Apartments closet point to the WinPark Tree Screen is 120 feet, WinPark North parking area 140 feet and the Winpark Proposed North Addition is 220 feet. The East area of the Emerald Point Apartments and the Most Westerly Emerald Point Apartment buildings are substantially further away from the WinPark property due to the increased set back of these apartment areas.. The grade areas where the WinPark and Emerald Point properties meet will match. Because the WinPark parking area will slope downward from south to north, this feature which will direct all automobile lights downward. The coniferous tree screen, overall distance and higher grade of the Emerald point apartments will further minimize automobile lights from disturbing the residence. June 28, Page 3 20OO Roof Top Equipment: WinPark anticipates the following rooftop equipment on the proposed addition. Northwest Office Area: 3 - 4 roof top HVAC units. Northeast office area: 2 roof top HVAC units. The units will be painted to match the building. Traffic Flows: WinPark has informed with Simon and informed them to initiate a training program for their drivers and information campaign to their vendors regarding the following preferred track routes to be utilized: (Pleas refer to these routes as outlined on the attached City of New Hope Zoning Map.) The WinPark facility is to be accessed from Winpark Drive and Winnetka. Access to and From the major surrounding highways will be accomplished through the following routes. - Winnetka to 42"a Ave to Hwy 169 or Hwy 100. - Winnetka to Medicine Lake Road to Hwy 169. - Winnetka to Hwy 55 (Simon has been advised to have their drivers and vendors avoid using 36th Ave.) Simon vans may use other routes when necessary for the purpose of making residential deliveries in the New Hope and Crystal area. An important benefit of Simon's service, is the amount of traffic it eliminates from the metro area. Once fully operational, Simon can easily process and deliver in excess of 4,000 orders per day. That represents 4000 household who are not using automobiles to go to the grocery store, reducing overall metro area traffic, gas usage and pollution. Simon also delivers groceries to many elderly and disabled individuals who would other wise not have easy access to these products. Projected Employee Head counts and Daily Truck Traffic: Shift Head Count Time October 2000 Aug 2002 Office Warehouse Office Warehouse ( 5 a.m. - 1 p.m.) 0 90 0 120 ( 8 a.m. - 6 p.m.) 35 0 60 0 Shift #2 ( 3 p.m. - 11 p.m.) 0 52 4 79 Shift #3 ( 11 p.m. -7 a.m.) 0 36 4 59 October 2000 Aug 2002 Truck Traffic Vans Semi's Vans Semi's Midnight To 6 am. 0 0 0 0 6amto 9 am. 0 4 0 9 9 am to 12 noon 14 4 20 9 12 noon to 3 pm 2 5 4 8 3 pm to 6 pm 2 7 6 14 6 pm to 10 pm 2 1 4 4 10 pm to Midnight 0 0 0 0 Site Building Schedule: After obtain all necessary approvals and a building permit from the City of New Hope, WinPark anticipates the following construction schedule: Total Time Line 120 days Day 1 - 30 utilities, footings: Days 30 - 60 Completion of all site work to include erosion control, ~ading, installation of under~ound Completion of all footing, erection of all walls, structural steel, and roof decking. Days 60 - 90 Completion of roof, installation of all exterior doors and windows, sprinkler system, start of site paving and curb installation. Poring of concrete floors. Start installation of all internal utilities, electrical, Gas lines, water and HVAC systems, install dock levelers. June 28, 2000 Page 4 Days 90 -120 Initiate construction of all interior office areas. Complete exterior work including landscaping, curbs and paving, Interior and exterior painting as required, complete all office, bathrooms and warehouse finish work, electrical, system checks, project completion, apply for Certificate of Occupancy. Simon Representation: WinPark has spoken with Simon Delivers.com regarding their presence at the July 11 and July 24 Planning and City Council meetings. Simon has committed to have an executive present at these meetings to answer any questions that may arise. WinPark Associates LLC trusts the above plan updates and information is satisfactory in addressing any open issues. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 763-512-1000 or my cell phone 612- 817-4747. Robert Zakheim Partner, WinPark Assoc. LLC WinPark Associates 2445 Nevada Ave North, Golden Valley. MN 55427 ¢612)-512-1000 Fax 595-988~. June 9, 2000 Mayor, City Council Members & Planning Commission Staff City Of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave. North New Hope, MN 55428 (612)-531-5122 Fax 531-5136 Subject Property: 3440 Winpark Drive Property ID Number: # 20-118-21 22 0010 WinPark Associates LLC, in July of 1999, purchased the Dakota Growers Pasta Building located at 3440 Wiupark Drive, in New Hope, Minnesota. This facility is a 100,000 square foot concrete block warehouse structure, located on 8.92 acres of land. WinPark Aasociates recently received approval fi.om the City of New Hope, to construct a 24,100 square foot addition to the existing facility. The current facility is occupied by Simon Delivers. a home delivery interoet grocery related business. Based on our discussions with Simon Delivers and their substantial growth, we anticipate the need and desire to further expand the existing facility. As a follow up to these previous approvals, WinPark Associates wishes to receive further approval for additional facility expansion on the North side of the existing property. 3440 Winpark DriVe Facility Improvement & Development Objectives Phase #1: With the cooperation and approval of the City of New Hope, within 24 months of initial Planning Commission and City Council approval, initiate a North side facility expansion. This expansion would be one of two phases of the projected two phase expansion process. This total expansion would entail the construction of an approximate 75,000 square foot structure on the North side of the existing facility. This first phase would be approximately 40,230 square feet, and would encompass the northwest area of the site. This phase one of the north side expansion would include the construction of an attractive main entrance to the facility where the majority of all future office access to the facility would take place. This expansion would also fully encompass the entire west side and majority of the existing north side of the building, enhancing the aesthetics and curb appeal from Wiupark drive. This addition would be approximately 27 feet in height, constructed of an attractive concrete pre cast panel design. An attractive new concrete pre cast panel, glass and metal Northwest coroer entrance would become the facility focal point and add additional curb appeal, as this phase one expansion truly completes the overall look and balance of the facility as it relates to the overall site and views from the West and North side neighbors and Winpark traffic. The interior portion would consist of an approximately 10,000 square feet of additional finished office area in the Northwest section of this addition, and approximately 30,230 feet of additional warehouse in the remaining area of this addition. - Site improvements would include the installation of paved parking, curb and gutter and the completion of any required site work and landscaping enhancements. June 9, 2000 Page 2 Phase #2: With the cooperation and approval of the City of New Hope. within 2-5 months of initial Planmng Commission and City, Council approval, iniuate a North side facility expansion. This expansion would be the second and final phase and would be approximately 35.760 square feet. and would encompass the northeast area of the site. This phase two of the north side expansion would include the construcuon of lirmted office and warehouse areas to the balance of the buildabte northeast area of the site. This phase #2 final expansmn would complete the entire encompassment of the north side of the building, enhancing the aestheucs and view from any neighbors to the North. This addition would be approximately 27 feet in height, consmacted of an attractive concrete pre cast panel design. An attractive office enurance would be located in this north east expansion. area. This entrance would be constructed of pre cast concrete panels, glass and metal. - The interior portion would consist of an approximately 3,000 square feet of additional finished office area in this addition, and approximately 32,760 feet of additional warehouse in the remaining area of this addition. Facility Traffic Information: To help the Planning Commission better understand the facility traffic activities, below is a listing of, truck and van traffic projections. The tenant would direct trucks to access the facility from Winnetka by using Winpark drive. Commercial Vehicles Semi Trailer Trucks Delivery Vans Daily Vehicle Totals August 2000 After Expansion August 2002 18 18 26 The above request is materially the same as that submitted to the City of New Hope for this facilities previous approval process. The only minor changes involved are as follows: The site pond has been slightly increased in size and a larger catch basin to the southwest corner of the site at the direction of the watershed authority. The landscaping has been improved to provide for better screening on the North side and improved facility plantings. We have initiated a professional and coordinated effort to prepare all of the necessary plans, documents and other required information for this approval process. The partners of WinPark, Simon Delivers.eom and our General Contractor Bob Mikulak of DB Development are excited to work closely with the City of New Hope and it's staff. This unique opportunity will allow all parties to achieve mutual beneficial goals in transforming the tired and worn existing 3440 Winpark Facility into a rejuvenated and fresh aesthetically pleasing facility while enhancing and complimenting the surrounding neighbors and community. Partner WinPark Associates LLC. June 9, 2000 Page 3 City Of New Hope Design Check List & Review Items Below is a listing of Design & checklist review items that require additional explanation, or the necessary information is not called out in the submitted architectural drawings: Required Sets of Plans:: All required blue prints, reductions, transparencies, surveys, site plans have been delivered with document. Building Locations & Setbacks: Ail required information is contained on the provided plans. Adjacent Buildings & Locations: See attached aerial photo and location identifications. Adjacent Streets: See attached street map of surrounding streets. Existing Finished Grading & Drainage plans with erosion control: Grading plans with all required elevations and erosion control plans have been provided in the above plans. Please note, that the grade at the north edge of the property will match that of the Emerald Point Apartments. Because of the similar grade, distance to apartments, and screen provided by the coniferous tree line lights from cars parking on the northside of the 3440 Winpark site should not impact the apartment residence. Exterior Lighting Plan: A plan showing all of the proposed expansion lighting is included in the above information. The plans shows that lighting levels of .5 foot candles or less are achieved at the property line. Refuse Storage Plan & Detail: All refuse will remain of the south side of the building as previously approved. All compactors will be shielded from the street via a natural screen of coniferous trees. Utility and Water Connections: The previously approved improvements to the building included the addition of storm sewer and an additional 8" water line. Additional storm sewer and sanitary will be added as required. Signage Plans & Detail: It is the intention of WinPark Associates, to install a concrete base to support a fabricated sign approximately 12.5 long x 8 feet in height, along the Northwest property area next to Winpark Drive. Snow Storage: Initially, snow would be stored on the asphalt areas along the Southeast and south areas of the rear truck dock area. Additional snow would be stored on the vacant land to the North of the building. After a Northside expansion is completed, additional snow storage would take place on along the East expanded parking area. At the point where there are no available parking spaces to be utilized for snow storage, all excess snow would be contracted for off site removal. Lawn Irrigation: No lawn irrigation is planned at this time. June 9, 2000 Page 4 Fire Protection: The existing facility has a full Wet ESFR and Dry. rated fire protection system. The proposed additions would have an approved ESFR wet fire suppression system and smoke/heat vents installed. WinPark Associates has been working closely with Randy Kurtz of the West Metro Fire Department to address all fire and life safety protection related matters. Traffic Circulation: The site will have two points along Winpark Drive for in.ess and egress. Truck traffic will be limited to the south access point and contained within the south track dock area. Office and other facility car parking will be contained to the west and north side parking areas. Rooftop and Ground Mounted Equipment: There is currently no planned ground mounted equipment for the North Side addition. All roof top equipment for I-IVAC would be painted the same color to match the facility trim/flashings. II () ;) [iJ S 89'38'10" w PART OF 12 LOT BLOCK I I I t Lot 1, Block 2, Winnetka Indugtri~l Pork, EXCEPT that port of sold Lot 1, I~ ~ atr o ~ " ~Ib~ o. beln~ 550 f~t Eo~ ~d p~dl~ to ~e ~t I~e of ~e N~~ 1/4 of ~ ~. T~ 118 N~, R~ge 21 ~ of ~e 5th Prin~ M~d~. ,id 6~ ~t b~ ~~ a~g ~e N~ I~e of ~ N~w~t 1/4 of ~ ~, T~ 118, ~nge ~, ~ ~e N~~ ~ ~f, ~d ~T ~ot ~ of Lot 1, ~ ~ ~n~e ~~ P~ ~g ~ ~e d~r~ ~ fMIo~: ~n~g ~ ~e No~eu~ ~ of ~id Lot 1; th~ ~t~y ~g the N~ I~e ~ ~M LOt 1, ~.~'~ ~ ~ ~Yl~e of ~ ~t 1; ~ ~th~y ~ ~e W~t~y line of m~ Lot 1 ~d ~ ~y ~t~n, ~7~ ~ ~ce E~t~y. p~ ~ ~ N~ I~e of ~ Lot 1, 6~.61 ~t to ~e E~t~y I~e of eo~ Lot 1; th~ N~h~y ~g the ~y I~e of ~ Lot 1 to ~e po~t of b~inn~g, e~g to the r~d~ plot th~eof, H~ C~nty, M~n~to. (Abstract prop~ty) Above legal deacrlptiofl deacrlbe~ the game property aa Insured in the tiffs commltmeflt prepared by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporotiofl, file no. 15034 I~ Supplemental, doted June 8, 2000. GENERAL NOTES: 1. The bearing ey~tern u~z~l ie based on the plot of Winnetka Industrial Pork. 2. The Ioc~tlon of the underground utilities shown hereo~, if any, ore app,oximote only. PURSUANT TO MSA 216D CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT (612) 454--0002 PRIOR T6 ANY EXCAVATION. .3. Sub~ect property Insurance Rote Mop, Communlt),--Panel No. 270177 0002, effective dote January 2, lg~1, 4. Zoning=, Presently I-~. (Industrial) per City of New HoDs. 5. Setback requirements per Clty of New Hope Front Rear ---- 0' Note: Variance has been approved moklng existing building Iocotto~ comply, Side -, 10' 6. Sire oreo ~- 31q8.741 square feet -- 8.92 ocre~. 7. Number of striped parking atolls 0 Total of which there ore 0 Handicap ~ 8. All field meoaurementl matched recorded dlmenliofle within the prect~io~ requirement~ of ALTA/ACSM speclflcotlone. 9. Thi~ ~ur~ey was mode oft the ground and In occordoflce with the Minimum Standard Detail Requlrsments for Land Title Sur~y~ os adopted by ALTA ofld ACSId. PRINTED Ht\HHY $ ,IOHN.~Oi~' CO. INC. ,-, .~1 III I IIII!?.~ I I I1! 111111 III I I I I I III1 I/lllllll~ I~ II~llllllll II1~ 11111 EXI.~TIN~ UI=I=EI~ LEVEL= ~IN LE~L; ~ST ~DITI~= TOTAL ~IL~I~= PA~I~ ~IL~I~ ~~: ~ ~ICE: ~1~-~/12 ~IN~E= 51~E: ~A= 51TE PAvI~ G~EN 6PACE E×ISTING TREES-5 E)lz~: varl~ C..~LDFL~ ~ci~.= ~r..ca J,.poeica Size: 4 ~ ~ N' TO TIlE ft. ~t. I · J SHEET "' ~:::"~"-'=--"~"~" .-k '-.' ("-"" SIMON DEI.IVERS 13440 WinPark] MONUMENT SIGN SCALE: I' ' =.5 F~L~N I Z I ,ill ANYdPI03 '21'21 3N19 AVE. N ,I: Z L~ W 0 n-' : EXHIBIT B Z ; ANYdlAIO0 '~'~ 3NI"t OOS ' I I \ I ,iii AVE. N I I I Iai m m 0 I IZ~I VOIO~G a~olk~t~t LINE OF LOT EROSION CONTROL, NOTES: GRADINO CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITH THE RESPECTIVE UTIUTY COMPANIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES CALLED FOR ON THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. WHICH MAY INCLUDE SILT FENCE. SEDIMENTATION BASINS OR TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND SERVICEABLE IN THE FOLLOWltJG ORDER: A. ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET. B. SILT FENCE. C. STRAW BALE BARRIERS AT NO-CUT/NO FILL LOCATIONS. D. TEMPORARY CULVERTS. E. TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS AND OUTFALL FACILITIES. F. STORM WATER POND CONSTRUCTION. (3. COMMON EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENT (GRADING ) H. SE/D AND MULCH OR SOO. I. SI'RAW BALE BARRIERS IN FINISHED GRADED AREAS. J. INLE'r AND OUTLET FACIUTIES SUBSEQUENT TO STORId SER~:R WORK. GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS SHO~N ON THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IMPLEMENT ANY ADDITiONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTY. ALL EROSION CONTROL FACIUTIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR DURING GRADING OPERATIONS. ANY TEMPORARY FACILITIES WHICH ARE TO BE REMOVED AS CALLED FOR ON THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE GRADING CONTRACTOR WHEN DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEEFL THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL THEN RESTORE THE SUBSEQUENTLY DIS1URBED AREA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE PLANS AND SPECIfiCATIONS. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE THE SCILS ENGINEER SO THAT CERTIFICATION OF ALL CONTROLLED FILLS WILL BE FURNISHED TO TI4E OWNER DURING AND UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. 6....N~..._.~ AREAS. EXCEPT STREETS. SHALL BE COVERED WITH A MINIMUM 4' OF TOP SOIL. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED k MULCHED AT THE PRESCRIBED RATES WITHIN 72 HOURS OF FINAL mADINO UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ~EED MIX: MNDOT NO. 500 MULCH TYPE 1 FERTIUZER: 150~/ACRE 501/ACRE 2 TONS/AmE (DISK ANCHORED) 7. 1HE EXI~II~O TOPOGRAPHY AND CONTOUR ELEVATIONS SHORN ON THE PLAN WERE TAKEN FROM A PLAN FURNISHED BY OWNER. 6. CONTRACTORS GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL CII=~RATION~ SHALL TAKE PLACE ~THIN TIE CONS/RUCTION UMITS. IT IS REQUIRED THAT SOILS TRACKED FROM THE SITE BY MOTOR VEHICLES BE Ct. EANED DALLY FROM PAVED ROADWAY SURFACES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. ' 10. PROVIDE TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 11. ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCAL WATERSHED DISTRICT SHALL BE SATISFIED PER THE APPROVED PERMIT. 12. ALL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN AND IMPLEMENTED IN THE FIFI n AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER SHALL CONFORM TO THE MPCA'S 'PROTECTING WATER QUALITY IN URBAN AREAS: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR MINNESOTA'. EROSION CONTROL SCHEDULE OF INSTALLATION ~ILT FENCE ROCK CONSTo ENTRANCE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF EARTHWORK OPERATIONS. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF EARTHWORK OPERATIONS. &: MAINTENANCE IN~PECllON ~1, MAIN'II[NANCE INSPECT & MAINT. AFTER EACH RUN-OFF EVENT. REMOVE SEDIMENTS AS REQUIRED. INSPECT REGULARLY. MAINTAIN AS NEEDED. OUTLET SKIMMER AFTER POND GRADING STRUCTURE IS COMPLETED. INSPECT REGULARLY. MAINTAIN AS NEEDED. RIP-RAP ar FILTER DETENTION POND UPON COMPLETION OF POND GRADING. CONC. SWALE CONST. AND OUTLET INSTALLATION. DURING EARTHWORK OPERATIONS. INSPECT Jr MAINTAIN AT LEAST ANNUALLY AND AFTER HEAVY RAINFALL EVENTS. INSPECT & MAINTAIN AFTER HEAVY RAINFALL EVENTS. REMOVE SEDIMENTS AS NEEDED, SEED Jr MULCH AFTER FINAL GRADING OPERATIONS. INSPECT ar MAINTAIN AFTER HEAVY RAINS. REPLACE WASH-OUT AREAS IMMEDIAI~LY. NOTE: CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION. MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL OF ALL APPMCABLE EROSION Jr SEDIMENT CONTROL ITEMS. AFTER TRIBUTARY DRAINAGE AREA IS RESTORED. PRIOR TO PAVING. PERMANENT. PERMANENT. PERMANENT. NO REMOVAL NECESSARY. i! ANYdI~IO3 '~1'~ 2NI-'I OOS ' PENNS"f~.VANIA A~VI~. N .! EXHIBIT C ,k, NYd~O3 '~'~3NlqOOS I ! $%&o PI[NNSYL..VAN AV~. N EXHIBIT il~ii~ Il ~li I ':! i1",i---;:!! ;:; ;-;; .; 1,B,t, t!l~ll~ltltl:lhltll- ', ......... I~1 I I UMINA RE SCHEDULE LABEL OTY LUMINAIRE DESCRIPTIDN iLUMENS LLF SPII A 18 GMA40Ia93V 40000 . 75 0 B. Il GMA40]293V W/ HOUSE SIpE SHIELD 40000 75 0 , LUMINAIR£ LOCATION SUMMARY COOR0]NAT£S IN FEET LUNINAIRE AIH]r,C ,-DDRDINATES NO. LABEL X-CDDRD ¥-CODRD Z-CQE~D O~lENi i,.; , , Z 311 5E3 18 90 o 31: ~3 0 251 523 18 90 6 2~ ~)23 0 105 533 30 332 14~ 338 18 18u [, 14,' J3~ u 471 5~3 18 90 0 471 523 0 551 ~23 18 90 0 55! 5~3 0 631 523 18 90 0 14~ 418 18 180 A, TOTAl_ NUN~ER ~ LOCATIDNS = 8 TOTAL NUN~R OF LBCATI01dS = I AVERAGE TILTED LAMP CORRECT[ON FACTB~ APPLIED Il L~J 0 EXHIBIT ul Z nl r~ o MCGRAW-EDISON® DESCRIPTION GMGALLERIA 250W-1000W High Pressure Sodium Metal Halide ARCHITECTURAL AREA LIGHT · Formed aluminum housing with stamped reveal has interior-welded seams for structural integrity and is finished in polyester powder coat · Ballast tray is hard- mounted to housing interior for cooler operation · Long-life core and coil ballast · Spun and stamped aluminum reflector in vertical lamp units, or hydroformed anodized aluminum reflector in horizontal lamp units · Formed aluminum door has heavy-duty hinges, captive retaining screws and is finished in polyester powder coat (Spider mount unit has steel door) · Convex tempered glass lens · Mogul-base porcelain socket · Approximate net weight: 64-69 lbs. (29-31 kgs,) COOPER LIGHTING The Galleria achieves superior light distribution by utilizing a seamless reflector system, making it the optimum choice for almost any small or medium area lighting application. U.L listed for wet locations. CEA certified. DIMENSIONS Arm Mount A B C D E F G H J Medium 14 1/2' 3/4' 1 1/2' 3 1/2' 19 114' 21 3/4' 6' or 14' 11' 15' or 16' 1368mm) (19mm) (38mm) (89mm) (&80mm) (552mm) (152 or (279mm) (381 or 356mm) 406mm) EPA-Effective Projected Area: 2.4 )RDERING INFORMATION SAMPLE NUMBER: GMA251292D roduct Imily I Size I Method Wattagn/Ber, e I Type A~Armn~ I 1-MH ~ ~J i 2-H~ t ~W; M~ul MogulmI for 3 1/2' O.D. tenon Voltage[s) 1-120V 2.208V 3-240V 4-277V 5.480V 6.Triple-Tap{4t wired 347V 9=Multi-Tap;~1 wired 277V r Distribution 1D-Type I Mca [ {add as Horizontal ~ suffix) 2D.Type I[ Mca I ~.aronze Horizontal I {standard) 3D-Type III Mca I AP-Grey Horizontal ] BK. Black ;T.Forward ~ WHaWhita AR.Area Round AS.Area SCluare Wide VerticalIm Type IIIm ~RODUCT INFORMATION Catalog Lamp Lamp Number la Wattage Type m _Op. tions ladd aa suffix) Arm Mount {Order arm separately) F-Single Fuse 1120, 277 or 347V) GMA25229XX 250 HPS FF-Double Fused 1208, 240 or 480V) GMA40229XX 400 HPS R.NEMA Twistlock Photocontrol GMA25129XX 250 MH Receptacle GMA40129XX 400 MH O-Quartz Re~frike ILimit to 150W max. quartz lamp only. Lamp Spider Mount (For 2 318' O.D. Tenon) not included) GMSZ5229XX 250 HPS GMB40229XX 400 HPS Ha-House Side Shield GMB25129XX 250 MH va-vandal Shield GMB40129XX 400 MH FG=(FIeI Glass) Reduced lamp e~velope required for 400 Watt GMC25129XX 250 MH MH- AR Dist.. and all 1000 Watt GMC40129XX 400 MH MH. 250 & 400 Watt HPS- AR Spider Mount {For 3 112' O.D. Tenon) Dist. not available in fiat glass GMC25229XX 250 HPS GMC40229XX 400 HPS _&._~_~orias larder separately) MAI004-14' Arm fur Square Pole. 1.0 EPA MA100~-6' Arm for Square Pole. 0.$ EPA MA10~6-Diract Mount Kit for Square Pole MA1007-14' Arm for Round Pole. 1.0 EPA MA1008-6' Arm for Round Pole. 0.5 EPA MA1009-Oirect Mount Kit for Round Pule MA1010.Single-arm Tenon Adapter fur 3 1/2' O.D. Tenon MA1011-2 ~ 180' Tenon Adapter for 3 1/2' Tenon MA1012-3 @ 120' Tenon Adapter for 3 1/2' O.D. Tenun MA1013-4 @ 9G° Tenun Adapter fur 3 I/2' O.D. Tsn~ MA1014-2 @ 90' Tenun Adapter for 3 1/2' O.D. Tan~r~ MA1015-2 @ 120' Tenon Adaptor for 3 1/2" O.D, Tenon MA1016,-3 @ 90' Tenon Adapter for 3 1/2' O.D. Tenon MAlO17.Singie-arm Tenon Adapter for 2 3/R' O.D. Tenon MA1018-2 ~ 180' Tenon Adapter for 2 3/8' O, D. Tenon MA1029-Wall Bracket with 6' Arm (specify OA1016-PhotocontroI-Multi-Tap OA102?.Photocontrol.-48OV OA1201.Photoelactric Control, 347V NEMA Type L~Lamp Included ' SENT BY: 6-16- 0 ; ~:02Al~l ; Or~iL~To3buxLooc ,~ · ; 2445 Nevada Ave North · Golden Valley, MN 55427 ; (763)-$12-1000 · Iaaa ('763)-595-988n " www.realtimc2.corn /.5 LESSEE'S COPY Lease No. 30799 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of the 1st day of July, 2000, by and between SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, doing business as Canadian Pacific Railway, hereinafter called "Lessor," and WINPARK ASSOCIATES, LU~_, hereinafter called "Lessee," WlTNE$$ETH:. C 1. The Lessor, in consideration of the payments, covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth, to be made, performed and complied with .by the Lessee, hereby leases to the Lessee those certain premises situated at or near Golden Valley, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, described as follows.' A slrip of railroad property 30 feet wide by 152 feet long, containing 4,560 square feet offend, as shown in grey shading on the map attached hereto, labelled 'Exhibit A' and made a pert hereof, said property not to be closer than 30 feet from the center line of the adjacent track. excepting and reserving all driveways now or herealter laid out across said premises to provide access to other industries located on the Lessors property; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, for the term of TWO (2) months from the date hereof, hereinafter referred to as the 'Basic Term," and thereafter from monlh to month. Except as provided In paragraph 11 below, this lease shall be subject to termination at any time after the Basic Term by either party hereto upon thir[y (30) days' written notice to the other. Upon such termination, the Lessor shall make proportionate refund to the Lessee of rental that shall have been paid in advance, after deduotion of any amounts payable by the Lessee hereunder. 2. Any and all buildings and improvements, including all necessary machinery and appliances, shall be constructed, installed and maintained at the Lessee's sole expense, upon the leased premises in a manner satisfactory to the Lessor. The premises shall be con~nuousiy and exclusively occupied and used by the Lessee during the term of this lease as a site for such buildings and improvements and for the conduct upon the premises in an a~ive and substantial way of a parldng lot and driveway, or such other kind of activities as may be approved by the Lessor. 3. The Lessee shall pay the Lessor ONE-HUNDRED and NO/100 Dollars ($100.00) per month, payable annually in advance, as rental for the leased premises subject to increase as provided in subparagraph 4(C) hereof, hereinafter referred to as the 'Base Rent'. 4. (A) The Lessee, in addition to the Base Rent, shall pay all taxes, assessments, license fees or other charges (except assessments or taxes for permanent street improvements other than crosswalks) which, during the term of I~Js lease, shall be levied or assessecl by, or beoome payal~le to any state, municipal, county or federal authority for or against the whole or any part of the leased premises, including ail improvements located thereon, or against the business conducted upon the premises. If any assessments or taxes for permanent street Improvements other than crosswalks shall be levied or assessed or become payable against the leased premises riudng the term of this lease, the annual rental hereunder as the same shall have been modified pursuant to reappraisal, if any, shall be increased by an amount equal to the proportionate share of the total gross ameunt of such assessments or taxes that is properly chargeable to the leased premises. (B) The Lessee, in addition to the Base Rent. shall assume and pay the entire cost of installation, maintenance, repair and renewal of any crosswalks which have been or may be installed to provide exclusive driveway entrance to or exit from the leased premises. The Lessee shall at all times keep FORM 100.6/97STD SITE LEASE No. 30799 Golden Valley, MN -1- =lean and free from snow, ice, refuse and obstructions, any such crosswalk and any sidewalk now located or to be located adjacent to the leased premises, and shall fully Indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the I.eseor from and agairmt all Claims in any manner arising from or growing out of Lessae's failure to do so. Any Ill~int~llanl=~ or snow r~tttovai by L~se~ ~hall be carried out In a manner that will not interfere with railroad operations on trackage adjacent to the leased premises. (C) The Base Rent shell hereafter be increased or decreased each billing date of this lease to an amount equal to the preduct of the Base Rent multiplied by the fraction of the 'index" for the "oompariaon month" over the "index" for the "base monl~'; provided however..that in no event shall the Base Rent be less than the sum I~rovlcled in paragraph 3 above. A~ used herein, the term 'index' shall mean the "all items" group of the Untied States oity average =onsumer price index (1982-84 = 100) issued monthly by the Bureau of Labor Sial]atica st'the United States Department of Labor, or its suc=eseor. The term "compa~n month" shall mean the month most recently preceding the billing date of this lease for which the 'Index' is available. The term "been month" Shall mean April, 2000. The "index' for the "base month" will appear on the metal bill. 5. The Lessee shall not place or permit any matsrlal, structure, equipment, pole, beam, cable, wire or other obstruction nlal~r theft eight (8~fee~ six (6) inches horizontally (measured at right angles) from the center line of any railway track now or hereafter located upon or adjacent to the leased premises, or nearer than twenty-seven (27) feet vertically measured from the top of the rail; nor permit any excavation to be made or remain nearer than eight (8) feet six (6) inches horizontally from the center line of any such track; nor permit any pipes or facilities to be Installed underneath the same without securing the advance written consent of the Lessor. 6. The Lessee shall, during the term of this lease, filly protect the leased premises fro. m ell mechanics' and rnaterielmen's liens accruing by mason ofthe construction, maintenance, repair, replacement or renewal of any buildings or improvements of the Lessee located upon the leased premises, or the use or o~=upan~/thereof by the Lessee. 7. The Lessee shall not permit any advertisements or signs upon the leased premises other than advertisements-or signs relating ~trictfy to the business which ia being conducJ~l thereon. 8. (A) The Lessee shell not permit the existence of any nuisance upon the leased premises and shall at all times keep the leased promises in a proper; olean, earl= and sanitary condition, and free from brush, vegetation and accumulations of waste materials ~ may create a fire hazard. (B) The Lessee shall not cause or allow the leased premises to be used for any purposes other than as herein authorized, or in any manner cause or allow the leased premises or any of the Lessor's adjacent property to beoome a hazardous waste treatment, st=rage or disposal facility within the meaning of, or to otherwise bring any such property within the ambit of the Resource Conservation and Re=ovary Act, 42 U.$.C. §8501 et seq. or any similar state statute or local ordinance. (C) The Lessee ~hall be familiar with the requirements of. comply with, and secure at the Lassee'$ own expense any permits or licenses required by, all. applicable laws, regulations, ordinances, and standercls, Including without limitation all Environmental Laws and the ordain of any duly constituted public authority now or hereafter in effeot whic~ in any way govern or regulate the Leseee's occupancy or use of the leased premises, and shall at the Lesses's sole expense, make all improvements, alterations, repairs or additions, and install all appliances required by any such laws. regulations, ordinances or standards. (D) The Lessee shall, upon written request by the Lessor, provide the Lessor with copies of transl3ortation and disposal =tm=ts and manifests for Hazardous Waste, any permits issued under any Environmental Laws, and any other documents demonstrating that the Lessee has complied with all Environmental Laws relating to the leased premises. Upon reasonable notice to the Lessee, Lessor and Lessor's beneficiaries, agents and employees shall have the right to enter the leased premises at any time FORM 100.6/~7STD SITE LEA~E No. 307e9 Golden Valley. MN -2- Canadian Pacifio Railway SENT BY: 6-16- 0 ; 8:04A~1 ; ~rr~-~~' 31~ (~2 2~ t~:t? F~ (~ ~IL 6~ ~47 85,'78 TO 9~95988~ ~.~/~ oon~mm~ O) mW RMmmm ~f~ Hmm~k~m 8u~mmm ~m. tu o~tmm ~m mm~ ~mmmm. (i) me in~m~t~ of ~m'/~ m ~ WMid premiMi, arM) any Meged vtomWn ~or nupmml~iy u.der any Envtronmem,,I ~m mmm mine mmmml cmm~m~m~ of~ ~m~ m~hout which ~twou~ not ~gmmm~. -3- SENT BY: employMl~ =ge.~ ~nd imdiaes), teduetng mj~ ~ ~ d~. ~ ~ m ~ ~ -4- SE~T BY: ...... 6-16- 13:19 I;R CP ~nmtme~ or ixovimorus ~ m INs lame. Tho I,MmJe'u M~gMJons I~emuncJer snMf m2rvJve lhe (B) '~m,i~nme,M I. aw' ~r'Env;mnmin~ I.,aw~ mmms me Cm~l~,~lene~,~,e Environm~tal R~mlimnsn, CmniNm~ and LJIM~Agt ("CERCLA-}, 42 U.~.C. S ~1 N S~l., t~e R~:~urc~ Consavatlon ~ Ret~gwMy A~ 42 U.9.C. ~ 690t Mmw.., the Fedend INMmr PoirMmt CoMnd Act, ~3 U..I.C. § 1251 et SENT BY: 6-16- JUN 8~ ~ 1~;I~ I~ ~ I~IL WINPJId~K~k~K:~klkT~. t.J,J~ ~ -8- SE]~T BY: 6-16- 0 ; 8:07~ ; orrl~m~oooo~=ooc .... .t'" [ / '-L 'CGnGdlGn PGcIF'Ic: RGllwo. y Pru_uos~ Leme of l~.~tromt Proper~ For PJl'k~g & Driveway C~yml, Hennepln Count~, ~ COMMUNITY'PLANNING ' DESIGN ' MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Jason Lindahl/Alan Brixius June 30, 2000 New Hope: 3440 Winpark Drive (Simple Simon Foods) Second Expansion 131.01 - 00.08 BACKGROUND The applicant, Robert Zakheim of Winpark Associates, LLC, is requesting site plan approval for an approximately 77,000 square foot expansion to the existing industrial building located at 3440 Winpark Drive. According to the applicant, they wish to construct this expansion in one phase. If this cannot be accomplished, the applicant would first construct the northwest section (35,700 square feet of office / warehouse) and then construct the northeast section (40,230 square feet of office / warehouse). Should the City prefer that the northeast section be constructed first, the applicant would do so and would construct the west facing wall out of concrete block to match the existing building. The applicant would also install attractive shrubs and trees along the west wall. This request is the second major expansion of the Simple Simon site. In march of 2000, the Planning Commission recommended and the City Council approved a 23,188 square foot expansion. As part of that application the City Council also approved a 10-foot rear yard setback variance to help facilitate the current application. Originally, the applicant thought that this second expansion would not occur until 2002. The development review staff evaluated this application on June 14th and the Planning Commission Design and Review Committee reviewed it on June 15, 2000. These reviews produced several requests for revisions. The applicant complied with many of these recommendations. Any outstanding issues are cited in the recommendation section of this report. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@ WtNTERNET.COM Attached for Reference: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: Exhibit H: Exhibit I: Exhibit J: Exhibit K: Site / Landscape Plan Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan Utility Plan Lighting Plan North Elevation Northwest Perspective North & West Side Perspectives View of Emerald Point Apartments From Winpark Facility (After Landscaping) Distance From Emerald Point Apartments to Designated Area. Cross Section of Winpark & Emerald Point Adjoining Property Area Applicant's Narrative RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the site plan from Winpark Associates, LLC to allow an approximately 77,000 square foot expansion of their existing industrial building located at 3440 Winpark Drive. This recommendation is based on the findings contained in this report and subject to the conditions outlined below. Staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to redesign the parking lot so that no curb barrier is located closer than five (5) feet to any lot line. The applicant will establish a truck routing plan that requires large trucks (semi tractor trailers) to solely utilize minor arterials to access and egress the sites. Minor arterials serving the site may include: Medicine Lake Road, Winnetka Avenue, and 42nd Avenue. Large trucks will not utilize 36th Street (a community collector street) to travel between the site and Highway 169. All Grading and Drainage Plans must comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer and the Bassett Creek Watershed District. 4. The applicant replace the four-foot tall spruce with six-foot tall spruce trees. The applicant must provide evidence that they have legal access to all applicable railroad land. Design and operation of the site must comply with the terms and conditions outlined in the applicant's graphics and narrative dated 6-28-00 (attached as Exhibit K). ANALYSIS Direction of Comprehensive Plan According to the City's Proposed Land Use Map, the subject property is guided for industrial development. Therefore, the development and expansion of an industrial use on this site is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is zoned I-2, General Industrial District. The properties to the east, west, and south are zoned and guided for industrial use. However, the property directly to the north is an existing apartment building which is zoned and guided for high density residential use. As a result, this expansion will require additional screening to ensure the continued compatibility of these uses. Lot & Bu~Tding Performance Standards The subject property meets the minimum lot area, lot width, and building height requirements for properties in the I-2, General Industrial District. The chart below compares these standards. Lot & Building Performance Standards for the I-2, General Industrial District Performance Standard Required Proposed Lot Area 1 Acre 8.92 Acres Lot Width 100 Feet 820 Feet Building Height 3 Stodes 1 Story With the exception of the rear yard setback, both the existing building and planned expansion are in compliance with the performance standards for the I-2, General Industrial District. The chart below compares the existing and proposed setbacks. The applicant has received a 10-foot rear setback variance. (See variance section below). Setbacks for the I-2, General Industrial District Yard Existing Proposed Required I Front 99 feet 99 feet 50 feet Side (North) 248 feet 100 feet 10 feet Side (South) 131.5 feet 131.5 feet 10 feet Rear* 0 0 10 feet *Setback for property adjacent to a rail line Variance The City Council approved a 10-foot rear yard setback variance in conjunction with the initial site rehabilitation and expansion in March 2000. The variance was approved based on the findings that the proposed rear yard setback will match the rear yard setback of the existing building and the City is currently considering reducing the rear setback adjacent to rail lines to zero. Grading The Grading and Drainage Plan indicates that the site will be graded to match the Finished Floor Elevation of the existing building (906.85). The topography will drop approximately three feet from the building to the grade of the parking lot to the north. Overall, the existing topography decreases as you move north toward the existing apartment building. Staff is concerned about this change in elevation and the effect it will have on screening the expanded industrial use from the apartment building. As part of this expansion, the applicant will construct a new 113 stall parking lot on the north side of the proposed expansion. According to the plans, this entire parking area will be drained through two catch basins along the north side of the new lot. Staff recommends that the City Engineer review the site's proposed grading and drainage. Parking & Circulation The site plan illustrates the three stage expansion of the 3440 Winpark Drive building as follows:' Total Floor Area Office Floor Area Warehousing Floor Square Feet Square Feet Area Square Feet Existing Building 99,159 415 98,744 West Expansion 23,100 5,500 17,600 North Expansion 76,500 13,000 63,530 TOTAL 198,789 18,915 179,874 Based on the proposed building uses, the proposed site is required to provide 57 parking spaces for the office space and 120 spaces for the warehousing use totaling 177 parking spaces. With the proposed expansion, the applicant is proposing to provide 247 total parking stalls. Out of these 247 stalls, the applicant will designate seven disability stalls and one van accessible space. Therefore, staff finds that this site complies with the off- street parking requirements for office / warehouse uses. 4 Per staff's recommendation, the applicant created a back out area at the eastern end of the new northem parking lot. According to 4.036(4)(h)(xv), all open and off-street parking shall have a continuous perimeter concrete curb. This curb barrier shall not be located closer than five (5) feet to any lot line. Currently, the curb of the back out area is only one (1) foot from the eastern property line. Staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to redesign the parking lot to meet the standard outlined above. The applicant has designated two on-site snow storage areas. One is in the southeastern comer of the site next to the van loading dock. The other is located in the eastern end of the new northem parking lot. The applicant has indicated that snow that cannot be stored in either of these areas will be removed from the site. The City Engineer should comment on how the snow storage areas fit with the site's drainage plan. As part of the first phase review, the City Council expressed concern regarding increased volumes of truck traffic and travel routes into the site. The applicant has provided the following truck traffic forecasts. Anticipated Daily Truck Traffic Vehicle Type August 2000 After Expansion (August 2002) Semi Trailer Trucks 18 34 Delivery Vans 18 26 The Comprehensive Plan discourages industrial traffic through residential areas. To implement this policy, the City will, as a condition of approval, require the large trucks accessing and egressing this site to follow minor arterial streets. The applicant has submitted documentation that they will complying With the following recommendations. The applicant will establish a truck routing plan that requires large trucks (semi tractor trailers) to solely utilize minor arterials to access and egress the sites. Minor arterials serving the site may include: Medicine Lake Road, Winnetka Avenue, and 42nd Avenue. Large trucks will not utilize 36th Street (a community collector street) to travel between the site and Highway 169. Landscaping The elevation change between the proposed expansion and the adjacent apartment building, along With the exterior lighting from this industrial site, has staff very concerned about screening. The applicant has increased the plantings along the site's northern property line. However, they have not replaced the four-foot tall arborvitae with six foot tall spruce trees as direct by staff. Six foot tall plantings are required under Section 4.033(3)(4)(I) of the City Code. Lighting According to Section 4.033(5), any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area or other structures, shall be arranged to deflect direct light away from adjoining residential zones or from the public street. The source of light shall be hooded or controlled in a manner so as to not light adjacent property. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on residential property shall not exceed one foot candle as measured at or on the adjoining property. The applicant's Photometric Plan indicates a light measurement of less than .1 foot candles at the adjoining residential property line. All lighting on the north side of the building will be downcast and all other exterior lighting will be hooded to direct light away from adjacent residential uses and public rights-of-way. Architectural Appearance The plan indicates that the building will be constructed out of precast concrete panels but have few architectural accents. All roof top equipment will be painted to match the building. With the initial expansion proposal, the applicant indicated that the northern building expansion would include a significant architectural feature encompassing the building's main entrance. Review of the building expansion illustration reveals a few windows and a glass entryway under a green canopy. Both staff and the Design and Review Committee recommended that the applicant consider redesigning the building's entryway. The applicant feels that they have created an attractive industrial building and finds no need to change the design (see Exhibit K, page 2). The Planning Commission sl~ould make a finding regarding the appropriateness of the building's architectural appears. Signage According to the Ordinance, the applicant is allowed up to two wall signs that are equal to 15 percent of the front face of the principal building or 250 square feet, whichever is less. In addition, the property may have a freestanding sign not to exceed 100 square feet in area or 30 feet in height. The applicant's site plan illustrates a single monument sign totaling 100 square feet. The proposed sign will be located 10 feet from the northwest comer of the site and adjacent to the northern entrance from Winpark Drive. Should the applicant wish to install any wall signs, they should submit a detailed sign plan for review and approval by the City. 6 Railroad Right-Of-Way The site plan illustrates a trash compactor on railroad land adjacent to the southwest comer of the building. The site plan also indicates the building's doorways, walls, stairs, and landing also encroach on the railroad property. The applicant was asked to provide evidence permitting these encroachments. The documents submitted in response to staff's request do not appear to match the location of the subject property. In addition, the land described in the lease agreement does not appear to include access to the railroad doors on the east side of the building. The applicant must provide evidence that they have legal access to all applicable railroad land. Drainage The Grading and Drainage Plans must comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer and the Bassett Creek Watershed District. CONCLUSION Staff finds that this application is consistent with the policy of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, we can recommend approval of the proposed site plan subject to the conditions outlined in the recommendation section of this report. pc: Doug Sandstad Mark Hanson 7 Bonestroo Rosene Ander. lik & Associates Engineers & Architects 06/30~00 15:16 ~: 01101 I~onestro00 Rosalie, Anderllk altcl AssocJatos, I~:. Il in Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer anti Employee Owned Prlnilpals: O~o G. Bonescroo. RE. · Marvin C Sorrels. P~. · Glenn R. Cook, PE. · .; Robert G, SchuniLht, ~E. , Jerry A. GoMf~o/1. RE. ,*~. Se~le~ Consultants: RoDert ~ Rosene. P.E. · Josep~ ~. Anderlik. RE. - RIc~a~ ~. Tumm, EE. · Susan M Euerl~, C.RA. Associate Prlnllpa~; H~)wa(~ A. Sanfo~, RE. · Kelth'A. Go~nn, RE. · RoDe/t R. Ptefferl~, RE. · Richard ~ Foster, P~, * Dnvid O. Lostota, RE, ) Rabe(~ C. Rus~, A.LA. · wrK A. Hanson, RE. · Michael · Raymac, P~., Ted ~.fleld, RE. f Ke~ R Anaerson, P.~. · M~X R. Rolrs, RE. - David A. ea~zroo. M.B.A. · Sidney R ~lJl~, RE, LS. * A~es ~ Ring, ~B.A. · Allan RICR ~rnmidl. RE. Offlcel: ~t, P~I, SI. Cloud. Rochester and Will,ar, MN * MIIwauRee, WI ~i~ www~o~stroo,cem To: Kirk McDonald' From: Subject: Vince Vande~ Tbp, Mark Hanson 3440 Winp~k Drive Our File No. 34~3EN R99-09 Date: Ju~¢ 30, 2000 Ii iii ~.. i iii iuI iiiiiii I I ... J LII ji We have reviewed the submitted expansion plans for the north side of the property. The following comments are based on this submittal and past information. Bassett Creek Wateml~ed has approved the 'proposed improvements with certain conditions. Approval was based on revised storm water calculations. The revised drainage calculations must also be submitted to the City. Drainage calculations must account for all drainage to the pond. This includes runoff from wof drains. The calculations must demonstrate that the pond m~ets NURP standards. The pond outflow for a 2-, 10-, and 100-year event must also be shown. The Watershed also requires a maintenance agreement for the storm water pond. The agreement recently developed for LDI/Safeco property could be used as an example. It is recommended that a Bond or Letter of Credit be ~stablished in the amount of 150% of the proposed site improvements. Any new sewer or water sm'vices to the building must be shown. No new services are shown at this time. End of Comments 2335 ~:/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 - Fax: 651-636-1311 NO: 382 '~;,!, :' i:~ BARR Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street · Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 Phone: 952-832-2600 · Fax: 952-832-2601 Minneapolis, MN · Hibbing, MN · Duluth, MN · Ann Arbor, MI · Jefferson City, MO June 1,2000 Mr. Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope MN 55428 Re: 3440 Winpark Drive BCMWC #00-1 la Dear Mr. McDonald: We have reviewed a revised grading, drainage, and erosion Control plan for the above-referenced project. We find the plans to be in conformance with the policies of the Bassett Creek Water Management Plan. In accordance to the May 25, 2000 letter from Roger Anderson & Associates, the water quality pond will be expanded to have an effective dead storage volume of 0.53 acre-feet; a 72" diameter sump manhole and skimmer will be provided to treat runoff from the site access and loading dock area; and 57 % of the existing roof runoff will be directed through the water quality pond. The remaining roof runoff will be directed through the sump manhole. Approval of the project is based on the following conditions: 1. Sweeping of all parking areas must be performed at least twice per year. 2. A maintenance agreement shall be established between the owner and the city of New Hope to address the following best management practices (BMPs): · Parking lot sweeping · Sump manhole cleaning · Pond maintenance 3. Plans for the future addition must be submitted for review prior to expansion. The plans we reviewed were revised May 25, 2000. Please send an executed copy of the maintenance agreement to us for our records after it has been completed Sin~rely, , P.E. FJffgi.neer, Bassett Creek Water Management Commission C: Mark Hanson, City Engineer Bob Mikulak, DB Development David Dahlquist, Roger Anderson & Associates ::ODMA\PC DOCS\DOCSX217161\1 · ~'B~SSETT CREEK WATER MANAGEMENT COMMqSSION Charlie LeFevere, Attorney Kennedy & Graven 470 Pillsbury. Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612/337-9215 Fax: 612/337-9310 Leonard Kremer, Engineer Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street Minneapolis MN 55435-4803 Phone: 612/832-2600 Fax: 612/832-2601 · Crystal Golden Valley - Medicine Lake Minneapolis · Minnetonka~ · New Hope · Plymouth · Robbinsdale · St. Louis Park May 26,2000 Mr. Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope MN 55428 Re: 3440 Winpark Drive BCMWC #00-1 la Dear Mr. McDonald: The Bassett Creek Water Management Commission has reviewed a grading, drainage, and erosion control plan for the above-referenced project. The project is located along the east side of Winpark Drive at 35~ Avenue North. The site drains to the North Branch of Bassett Creek. The initial project includes a proposed 24,200 s.f. building addition and parking expansion. Approval was also requested for a future addition located on the north side of the site. Most of the runoff from the proposed expansion will be directed to a water quality pond located at the northwest comer of the site. Approximately 0.64 acres will be disturbed in the southwest and southeast comers of the site that is not being directed to a water quality pond. The applicant proposed to divert one-third of the roof flow (0.76 acres) to the pond to compensate for the off-site drainage. Overall, the proposed pond will treat runoff from 5.4 acres of the site (including one-third of existing roof water). After discussion at the Commission's May 18, 2000 meeting, the project was approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A sump manhole and skimmer must be installed to treat the stormwater runoff that could not be directed to the proposed pond. 2. The water quality pond must be expanded to include nearly 100% of the roof drainage. Sweeping of all parking areas must be performed at least twice per year. We recommend a maintenance agreement be established between the owner and the city of New Hope to address the following best management practices (BMPs): · Parking lot sweeping · Sump manhole cleaning · Pond maintenance Mr. Kirk McDonald May 26, 2000 Page 2 5. Two copies of revised plans must be submitted to the Commission engineer for administrative review and approval. 6. Plans for the future addition must be submitted for review prior to expansion. The plans the Commission reviewed were dated May 6, 2000. The Commission will exercise the option to extend the 60-day waiting period for another 60 days should there be a need for the project to come to the Commission for additional review and discussion. Sincerely, Lee Gustafson Chairman, Bassett Creek Water Management Commission c: Mark Hanson, City Engineer Bob Mikulak, DB Development David Dahlquist, Roger Anderson & Associates Jim Herbert, Barr Engineering Company 216884 BOO 372 CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLLITION NO. 00-55 RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR REAR YARD SETBACK AT 3440 WINPARK DRIVE (PID #20-118-21 22 0010) SUBMITTED BY WINPARK ASSOCIATES LLC/ROB ZAKHEIM PLANNING CASE NO. 00-02 WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Planning Case No.. 00-02 on March 6, 2000, found that all conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code for site and building plan review and a variance have been satisfied by the applicant, and recommended approval of the planning case request subject to all conditions as set forth in the City Staff Report dated March 3, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City Council on March 13, 2000, considered the report of the City staff, findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, and the comments of persons attending the City Council Meeting and recommended approval subject to conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of New Hope that the site and building plan review approval for construction of a one-story addition onto the west side of the existing building (Phase II) and a variance to the requirement for the rear yard setback for a future Phase III expansion on the north side of the building at 3440 Winpark Drive is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit Engineered plan for Phase I southeast slope grading changes within seven days of Planning Commission meeting. 2. Relocate three of the disability parking stalls located adjacent to the northern curb cut along Winpark Drive so they are adjacent to the entrance for Phase II. 3. Change direction of parking stalls .directly adjacent to the northern curb cut along Winpark Drive. 4. Eliminate the parking stall directly adjacent to the southwestern corner of Phase II. 5. Extend the planting pattern shown along the west side of the Phase II 'to the southern end of the building. 6. Increase the number of plantings from six to twelve in the southwestern corner of the site and arrange them in a staggered pattern with 15-foot spacing. 7. Compliance with all recommendations from the City Engineer. 8. Enter into Development Agreement and provide financial security (amount to be determined by the City Engineer and Building Official) before application for building permit. 9. Allow issuance of a grading permit as approved by City Engineer and Basset Creek Watershed Commission prior to approval of-site plan and building permit for Phase Ill. 10. Maintenance of landscaping to be included in Development Agreement. 11. Trucking and traffic issues to be addressed and resolved with submission of Phase III plans. the applicant, WinPark Associates LLC/Rob Zakheim, has submitted a request identified as Planning Case No. 00-021 is requesting site and building plan review approval for construction of a one-story addition onto the west side of the existing building (Phase II) and a variance to the requirement for the rear yard setback for a future Phase III expansion on the north side of the building, pursuant to Section 4.039A and 4.034(3) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances; and Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 13th day of March, 2000. Mayor Attest: ~ '. City Clerk 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 00-12 WinPark Associates 6/9/00 8/8/00 10/7/00 14859 Richards Drive West Minnetonka 55345 512-1000 fax 935-6500 Robert Zakheim B. C. D. Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. Assign each application a number. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). List the date the City received the application. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) List the deadline under any extension or waiver. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. ) Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development June 7, 2000 Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on CouncilIEDA/HRA actions. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. 1. June 12 Council Meeting - At the June 12 Council meeting, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Project #668, Motion Approving Quote Submitted by Pete's Water and Sewer in the Amount of $900 for Sewer and Water Disconnect at 6003 West Broadway: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Project #660, Motion Approving Final Payment to Atlas Foundation in the Amount of $21,240.40 for Piling Installation at 8808 41st Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Proiect #665, Resolution Authorizinq the City Manaqer to Execute Aqreement-~ Necessary to Receive Funding from the State of Minnesota Contamination Investigation and RAP Development Proqram for the City-Owned Properties at 7500-28 42nd Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. D. Motion to Waive Fees for Eight Special Event Siqns for 2000 Duk Duk Daze Festival: Approved, see attached Council request. E. Project #651, Motion to Proceed with the Purchase of 7603 Bass Lake Road: Approved, see attached Council request. F. Project #685, Motion to Proceed with the Purchase of 7105 62"d Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. G. Project #675, Resolution Approving Purchase of 5422 Winnetka Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. H. Planning Case 00-05~ Resolution Establishing Findinqs of Fact for Denial/SuperAmericn Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit Request: Approved, see 'attached Council request. I. Planning Case 00-10, Request for a CUP to Allow a School Use in a Church Facility, Hope Alliance Chapel/Medicine Lake Lutheran Academy: Approved, subject to conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, see attached Council request and site plan. J. Acceptance of Ist Tier Trails, Greenways, and Parks Master Plan: To be discussed at a future Council work session, see attached Council request. K. Pr0iect #672, Acceptance of Master Plan for Hidden Valley Park: To be discussed at a future Council work session, see attached Council request. June 26 Council/EDA Meetings - At the June 26 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Project #685, Resolution Authorizinq Execution of Agreements Necessary to Receive Funding from the State of Minnesota Contamination Investigation and RAO Development Program for the City-Owned Properties at 7500-7528 42nd Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Project #665, Motion Approving Change Order #1 in the Amount of $2,175 for Demolition of City-Owned Building at 7500 42"d Avenue by Kevitt Excavatin.q~ Inc.: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Project #667, Motion to Proceed with a Written Offer to Purchase the Properties at 5410/12 Winnetka Avenue: Authorization granted to proceed with purchase. D. Project #668, Motion Awarding Asbestos Survey Contract for 6003 West Broadway to Angstrom Analytical~ Inc. in the Amount of $395: Awarded contract, see attached Council request. E. Proiect #597, Motion Approving Quote for Soil Borings in the Amount of $4,476 from STS Consultants, Ltd. On City-Owned Property at 9200 49th Avenue: Awarded contract, see attached Council request. F. Project #673, Resolution Awarding Contract for Liberty Park Improvements to Koolmo Construction -$102,008: Awarded contract, see attached Council request. G. Project #676, Motion to Proceed with the Purchase of 5406 Winnetka Avenue: Authorization granted to proceed with purchase. H. Resolution Adopting Business Subsidy Criteria: Approved, see attached Council/EDA requests. I. Project #656~ Resolution Awardinq Contract for New Hope Village Golf Course Clubhouse: Awarded contract, see attached Council request. J. Project #656, Resolution Rejecting Bids for the New Hope Village Golf Course Parkinq Lot Proiect: Bids rejected, see attached Council request. K. Project #671 and #679, Resolution Awarding Contract for the Construction of Public Works Addition and Renovations: Contract awarded, see attached Council request. L. Project #691, Motion Approving Plans and Specifications and Callinq for Bids for the Public Works Facility Storm Sewer Improvements: Approved, see attached Council request. M. Proiect #688~ Discussion Reqarding bids Received for Construction of City of New Hope Illuminated Pylon Sign with Electronic Message Center to be Located at 8100 42nd Avenue: All bids rejected, see attached Council request. N. Project #678, Motion Approving Development Concept for 4864 Flaq Avenue: Approved concept, see attached Council request. Codes & Standards Committee - Codes & Standards did not meet. Design & Review Committee - Design & Review met on June 15 with Avtec and WinPark Associates/Simple Simon. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - The Committee did not meet in June. Zoning Code Update Committee - The Committee did not meet in June. City Council scheduled work session for July 31. 7. 60-Day Rule: Enclosed for your information is information on the 60-day rule. 8. Proiect Bulletins - Enclosed for your information is a project bulletin on 5550 Winnetka Avenue. 9. Miscellaneous Issues: A. City staff continued to work on the following potential developments: 1) KFC at Winnetka Center - proposal withdrawn 2) No further action on Navarre, A.C. Carlson, or 36th & Winnetka site 10. August Meeting: No applications were received for August, so there will be no need to conduct an August Planning Commission meeting. There is one minor application pending for September. 11. Miscellaneous Articles - Excerpts from Zoning Bulletin are enclosed for your information. Attachments: 6003 West Broadway sewer and water disconnect 8808 41st Avenue final payment for pilings 7500-28 42na Avenue Duk Duk Daze Festival Signs 7603 Bass Lake Road proceed with purchase 7105 62n~ Avenue proceed with purchase 5422 Winnetka approve purchase SuperAmedca findings of fact for denial Hope Alliance Chapel revised site plan 1st Tier Trails, Greenways & Parks Master Plan Hidden Valley Park Master Plan 7500-28 42na Avenue Funding Agreements for Cleanup 7500-28 42nd Avenue Change Order 5410/12 Winnetka Avenue 6003 West Broadway 9200 49th Avenue Liberty Park Improvements 5406 Winnetka Avenue Business Subsidy Criteria New Hope Village Golf Course New Hope Village Golf Course Parking Lot Public Works Addition and Renovations Public Works Facility Storm Sewer City Sign 4864 Flag Avenue 60-Day Rule Project Bulletins Miscellaneous Articles COUNCrA RF. T FOR ACTXON OrigmaUng Department ~p~d for ~e~a ~da Secuon Community Development Consent Susan Hen~ /~ 6-12-00 Item No. ~:Community Development Specialist ~/ / 6. & MOTION APPROVING QUOTE SUBMI~E~Y PETE'S WATER AND SEWER IN THE AMOUNT OF $900 FOR SEWER AND WATER DISCONNECT AT 6003 WEST BROADWAY (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 668). REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends approval of a motion approving the quote submitted by Pete's Water and Sewer ~n the amount of $900 for disconnecting the sewer and water at the prope~y line of 6003 West Broadway. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE For this routine item, city staff normally goes out for quotations and recommends the lowest responsible bidder to the City Council for approval. BACKGROUND In March 2000, the City purchased the propemy located at 6003 West Broadway under its scattered site housing program from a willing seller. It has been determined that demolition and new construction is the best redevelopment scenario for the prope~y. Before the home can be cleared, there are some essential steps the City must take. One of those steps ,s cutting of the water and sewer at the prope~y line. Recently, the City went out for bid for this and the following two bids came in: Company Quote Pete's Water and Sewer $900 Gene's Water and Sewer $1100 Pete's Water and Sewer submitted the Iow quote and their quote for cutting the water and sewer and ~s ~ower than Gene's Water and Sewer quote. FUNDING The cutting of the sewer and water, including other pre-demolition and demolitiOn activities, will be paid for with Community Development Block Grant funds. A~ACHMENTS · Map · Quotations M~ON BY S~O~ ~ ~A-~ I ~ Orlg~ Depaz tzuent Approved for Agenda Agenda Secuon Community Development Consent Susan Henry ~ / Item No. 6-12-00 By':Community Development Specialist ~'// 6..5 MOTION APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT TO ATLAS FOUNDATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,240.40 FOR PILING INSTALLATION AT 8808 41sT AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #660) REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests Council approval of the first and final payment to Atlas Foundation in the amount of S21,240.40 for the installation of pilings at 8808 41st Avenue North. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE Before final payment is made to a city contractor, the request is brought before the City Council for approval. BACKGROUND On April 10, 2000, the Council awarded the contract for pilings installation for the property located at 8508 41s: Avenue North to Atlas Foundation in the amount $21,100, The final invoice, in the amount of S21.240.40, includes a unit price adjustment for the piles (-$49.60) and a bond ($190.00), which was previously approved by the Council as a minor change order. The City will be reimbursed for piling installation by Habitat for Humanity. The pilings were installed in early May and new construction began on May 15. Construction is planned to continue steadily through the summer months with volunteer crews. The home should be substantially completed by fall. FUNDING The City will be reimbursed by Habitat for Humanity, utilizing their HOME dollars. ATTACHMENTS Invoice MOTION BY SECOND l~Y ~'O: RFA-O01 ~ ~ COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originalfing Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development June 12, 2000 Consent  Item No. Kirk McDonald, Director 6.7 By: and Phil Kern B?': RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS NECESSARY TO RECEIVE FUNDING FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA CONTAMINATION INVESTIGATION AND RAP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY-OWNED PROPERTIES AT 7500-28 42ND AVENUE (IMP. PROJECT//665). ACTION REQUESTED Staff ~s requesting that the City Council designate the City Manager as the authorized person to execute agreements on behalf of the City of New Hope as part of the State of Minnesota's Contamination Investigation and RAP Development Program. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The Councii. m the past, has designated the City Manager to execute agreements involving grant requests on behalf of the C~t~. BACKGROUND On April 24. the City Council authorized staff to submit a grant application for the Contamination Investigation and RAP Development Program with the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development. Grant funds from the }rogram would allow the City and Electronic Industries to complete the investigation of the contaminated properties at 7500-7528 42~ Avenue. tn May. DTED requested that the City declare a representative authorized to execute agreements should the grant funds 3e awarded. As is customary with past grant funding, staff is recommending that the City Manager be authorized to execute agreements on behalf of the City. While the request by DTED for the Council to authorize a representative to enter rotc agreements ~s encouraging, the City has not been notified as to whether or not grant funds will be issued to th~s 3rolect State Representative Ann Rest recently wrote a letter of support on behalf of the City's apphcakon to DTED FUNDING The grant requires matching funds to cover 25% of the investigation costs. It is expected that the entire amount of the matcmng funds will covered by Electronic Industries. It is expected tt~at the investigation wilt cost around $50,000, m v,;;;cn case El would be responsible for $12,500 in matching funds. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · Excerpts from grant application MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: I F~FA .Ptanmng',Q-~p665-2.doc COUNCIL RF. UEST FOR ACTION Originating Depa~ L~ent Approved for Agenda Agenda SecUon Community Development ~ -12-00 Item No. t!!~y: Kirk McDonald ~ ' 6.8 MOTION TO WAIVE FEES FOR EIGHT SPECIAL EVENT SIGNS FOR 2000 DUK DUK DAZE FESTIVAL REQUESTED ACTION City staff request that the Council pass a motion to waive the $200 fee for eight temporary special event signs for the 2000 Duk Duk Daze festival to be held at Northwood Park on July 14-16. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE In the past, the Council has waived the fees for signage for the Duk Duk Daze festival. BACKGROUND Gre§ Henry, Duk Duk Daze Committee, has requested that the City waive fees for temporary sign permits required for Duk Duk Daze. The signs would measure 4'x 8' and be placed two weeks before the festival at the following locations: 1. Winnetka and Bass Lake Road (NW corner) Amoco Service Station 2. Winnetka and 42"0 (SE corner) lSD 281 Administration Building 3. Winnetka and 36th (NW corner) Union 76 Service Station 4. Boone and 27tn (NW corner) lSD 281 Sunny Hollow Elem. School 5. Boone and 36th (SW corner) St. Joseph's Church 6. Boone and 42"'~ (SE corner) Gethsemane Cemetery 7. Boone and Bass Lake Road (SE corner) Chardon Court Apartments 8. Northwood Park east side of Boone - North side of parking entrance Festival sign and event sign are back to back Event sign faces south and Festival sign faces north (8 signs @ $25.00 = $200.00) Impacted property owners have signed the enclosed permission slips. Staff recommends approval of a motion waiving the fees for the temporary sign permits. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: RFA-O01 RE III T FOR ACTION Originating Depa~c~uent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development Consent  Item No. Susan Henry 6-12-00 BY:Community Development Specialist By:. 6.10 MOTION TO PROCEED WITH THE PURCHASE OF 7603 BASS LAKE ROAD (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #651) REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests Council approval of a motion for staff to proceed with the purchase of the property located at 7603 Bass Lake Road. BACKGROUND On February 28, 2000, the City Council gave staff authorization to negotiate the purchase of the single family property located at 7603 Bass Lake Road. Staff met with the property owners in ~ate May. Staff presented the city-ordered appraisal from Griffith Appraisals in the amount of $90,000. The property owners will accept a $90,000 offer for the property. At this point, if Council is agreeable, staff is looking for approval to proceed with a purchase agreement for S90.000 for the property. Since 1998, staff has been in communication with the property owners about a potential sale to the City. At this time, the property owners are ready to sell to the City. The subject property, a key piece for redevelopment to proceed, is located on the "Bass Lake Road extension" behind the Alano building. The City has previously acquired the property west of and adjacent to the site and demolished the single family home. The City has also acquired several other single-family properties in the area along Sumter Avenue. FUNDING The property is located in an area where TIF funds can be expended and that would be the source of funding for this acquisition/demolition. Proceeds of the sale of the property for redevelopment will reimburse the TIF pool in the future. This would be a voluntary sale and no relocation benefits would be pa~d. ATTACHMENTS · Site Map · AoDraisal ~OTION BY SECOND BY TO: RFA-O0 / ~ 5421)~ i 5417: ' 5420 ~ 5425, - ~.-- -- .....: ............ ~ ,' -- ~ .... ---,: s ............... ' "" ,. 5408 i 544~ i 5,44~: 5400i .. s ,,,..,ff- ..... .... , : j . ! ~. ' ' ~ . ..I.,: ' I ' · Originating Dcpa~t~uent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development Consent Susan Henry ~ ,,~-12-00 Item No. Bye. ommunity Development Specialist By:.~/,/ 6.11 MOTION TO PROCEED WITH THE PURCHASE OF 7105 62ND AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMEN' PROJECT #685) REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests Council approval of a motion for staff to proceed with the purchase of the property Iocate¢ at 7105 62n~ Avenue North in the amount of $103,000. BACKGROUND At the May 8, 2000, City Council meeting, staff was given the authorization to negotiate the purchase o the s~ngle family property located at 7105 62n~ Avenue North. Staff met with representatives of the Estate of Faye C. James in mid May. Staff presented the city-ordere< appraisal from Griffith Appraisals in the amount of $110,000; however, staff communicated with the Estatt representatives that the appraisal seemed high, given the number of improvements needed on the home At th~s meeting, staff offered the Estate representatives $100,000 for the property. The representatives lef meeting to think about the offer. Recently, staff received the attached letter from the Estate representatives asking $103,00 for th, property. The 1999 valuation for tax purposes is $77,000. Staff feels $103,000 is reasonable and advise: the C~ty to proceed with acquisition if that is the desire of the Council. The subject property, located at the far northeastern corner of the City at the intersection of 62*¢ an( Louisiana, measures a total of 14,000 square feet. The property consists of a one-story, s~ngle famil~ home and a detached garage. The home, with a living area of 936 square feet, was constructed in 195 and is considered to be in average overall condition. While some improvements have been made to tht property in recent years, there is a good deal of deferred physical maintenance to be accomplished. At this time, if Council is agreeable, staff will pursue the purchase of the property and bring the purchas( agreement back for approval. If the City moves ahead with the purchase, staff will evaluate th( redevelopment options more thoroughly. The redevelopment of the property could take shape a number o ways: a simple MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: RFA-00 / ~ Request for Action Page 2 6-12-00 '~ t, rehab (a CHDO project), a Planbook showcase home, or a Greater Minneapolis Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMMHC) rehab/new construction project. Another option is the City could clear the lot and sell it to a developer through an RFP process, stipulating requirements for the development. The cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale Economic Development Authorities have been actively redeveloping in this fashion. FUNDING The redevelopment project will dictate what funds can be used for the site. The property is located in an area where TIF funds may be expended. In addition, there are HOME funds available from the five city CHDO and the City has approximately $95,000 in CDBG scattered site housing funds that need to be committed to a project by the end of June. Also, the City has funds available through the Greater Minneapolis Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMMHC) project for either a rehabilitation or new construction project. ATTACHMENTS · Property map · Letter from the Estate of Faye C. James · Excerpts from Appraisal AVE N 'r'~  COUNC~A ~ Originating Depa~t~uent Approved for Agenda Agenda SecUon Community Development Consent Item No. Susan Henry 6-12-00 By: Community Development Specialist By:. 6.12 RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF 5422 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 675) Staff recommends approval of the resolution approving the city purchase of' 5422 Winnetka Avenue North. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE On October 25, 1999, the EDA authorized staff to contact the residential property owners along the 5400/5500 blocks of Winnetka Avenue North to inquire if they may be interested in a voluntary sale to the City, as these properties have been sited in the Comprehensive Plan for redevelopment. BACKGROUND In December 1999, the City mailed out the letter of interest to purchase property along the 5400/5500 block of Winnetka Avenue North. Greg Caron, estate administrator for Eugene Caron, responded to the City's letter. The Estate of Eugene Caron is located at 5422 Winnetka Avenue North. The property is currently vacant and in probate, as the owner recently passed away. On March 13, 2000, the City Council gave staff authorization to negotiate the purchase of the property. In April, city staff wrote the estate representatives with a written offer of $92,00, given the Griffitt' Appraisals report of $92,000 and prior Council direction. Also in April, city staff received a note from estate representatives that they are willing to sell to the City for $92,000. If the Council is in agreement about the purchase, a closing will take place on June 23. The various Purchase Agreement terms (see attached) are standard for properties of this type. The subject property is good-sized, measuring a total of 19,950 square feet. If the City Council approves the purchase, staff will move forward with the closing and associated paperwork. The next steps would be the lot will be cleared (either the home and garage will be moved and/or demolished) and the property will be landbanked for future redevelopment. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: RFA-O01 ~ ''--. "-. ; , ..._ ' --~ !--. i IB'~61~ :, --. '---.. ~ '. om, N : 7UU~ ~,~; : .J"-~14 ~ ' / '.. '-, i ~ ~ : ~.-7610 ' / 7801 ' , ............ !BI, ! ~ .......... /" . ...... ", ...... ..,. a'iR'm I'Fi-iiI~'~6TH AVE -, .N. ........ : ............... :'~ ~ ; :' ':';.;.2 .....,., ..................... ..- .... T'-'"t"r-- ~ ......... ."; "*~: , · . : ~ . - I I . . .~ ' 1 . ; ............ ? ..; .... :w ~w ; ! ~ - ~,, iF, ti', ~, ! ; .,- ~ · · ~ : : ~ i ~ ~: ~ ' ~ ; '11 ' : , '~' · · I , 5531 ~ . 5530 ~ · , : - 5532 . : ~ . : : . ~ ; ~- ................... ~ .............. ~ '.' ............... ! 7621 : .'): 7601 i . ~ · ,. : ;,. .....-, ._.:....._.~_ ...~ ~; ! F_L.I_¥~ · i " ........... " : ! · - ; · ~ , , 5512 . . · 7706 , , :, ,w. , :. :I PAIRt ' ' I' ............... ; ' / ' ! J ' '' -'~ .......................... : i ! , - ', .............. ~ ...... ~ ........ ... ....... ~ ~ ...... .. : :." .... . .... ~ : · : : ; . . .... '. .......... ; '- ....... : ....... . ...... 5434 ': 6437 ,: ~ ! 5437~ ? ................... ~ .... ::'----: i'_-;--~' ~ .... ~ ." ...,. !' ,..,.,.-, ! ....... ~ ......... ~ ........ , '-~'.-": . : ~ ' :&,,,: ; .' ,,G,,' ! . .: 5430 , 5431 , : 5430 ; 64~1 ............... ;. .... ~ ....... .. I . i : : .. ;'' ~ · 5429 :LLI~ M:~B ' 5429:1~11 5430 ~ 5429 · ~ 54~ ..... · ,-- ........ , :. .............. ~ · k,"T'~v · ~ ' ; , . ,,..,~l ~ ' , ~2s ! 5427- · : ....... ,~; ........ .~ .......... ,~,- ......... i .......... ~ I .... "~ ..... i ----- ~ ; ................... .~,.: : : ; . ........ ? ........ i ; ........ : · ' ' ' ' .- -.' .-: '- ....... ~ ........ : " .... 5420, M2~ ,z. 54~} ~ ~,j~/~ ...... ~ ...... ~ ........ , ..........""~' "'"L DR i~i,i ~ ~'~';!~[ ~-~i~.'~~ ....... , .......... : ......... ! :-"7.-"'? '_'.22m .."~;~-7 ~'i;': ""'" ; :~' ' : ..... 5420 ~ 04,;;~; , M-...v ~ .----.- , · -~1:~ } . : 5420 : , 5417 . ' .~ . · ~.... ........ ; ...... .4 , ' ............. "~ T , ' 4 .--: ; ....... : .... 4 dC,. ..... 5410 ~ MI1 ...,- 6'ilo , 5411 , , .~1,,) , ,~,,., , ....... :.v' _ __ ; .... · , -.,,-- ~ ..,,~ ..... ."' ..... '-1 .'4: t . ~ .... : ....... tbJ? ~ -4::3 ....... _. :. S40e: 6407:1~, ~4M 6407 . ~ ~ .1--. ,~ ..... ~ ,r,(. '. : '----'J' : -'~ , KAhG ~; S40~ : 540e 1:~: ~H~ ~ ~ ,'"q.; ~'~ ....... .- ..... .~--:. ................. : ............... ~ --~ .__... ---- : . . . ; .... , , · :::::),_ ....... ~- ......, ...... -t . .-- 5400 -' 6401 ~. .:6400 . 6401 ~ ........... ~ ."' .....,. . , , .. : , . , . ' MOO · 5'101 (/)' _-.~h: 5401i__U).'- 544X)~ MOl: :540 ....... .~- ........ .~ ........ £ .......... 1 ~ ~ ~ : . I ; ~ . ............................................ t ,K'x,,~ . ; ; . i i : " ......... ? ; ......... " ..... : ~- ....... ; .. ..... , ....... _~...: .......... ~.. . ;. ......... !,,,,. ........ ~ ........ ; ~; ..... ~ ,,~ ~ ~; ~... '--... .... . ,.: ~ ....... ~ ...... !o_~ ....... ~ ........ ~.Or: .... '-- ..... '-- '. .~ ~ /s3o7 ~· 531~ i 53te :n-: 5330 5~I? , ; 53 ~ . s , · 4~11~1~ ~ we~' ; ~. ...... COUNCIL - RE UY T FOR ACTION Originating Depa~ l.ment Approved for Agenda A~enda SecUon mevelopmem Community Development & Planning 6-12-00 B~.~ Item No. B~irk McDonald 8. ! / RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL/SUPERAMERICA REZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST (PLANNING CASE 00-05) REQUESTED ACTION The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed Resolution Establishing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Relating to Rezoning Request and Conditional Use Permits for Property at 9398 Medicine Lake Road and Denying All Requests. Also enclosed is the resolution that was included in the May 8 Council packet approving the rezoning and conditional use permits for the subject property. Both resolutions are ~resented so the Council has the option to either approve or deny the rezoning and conditional use ~ermit requests. The City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution denying the requests. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE In the past, when controversial zoning issues are considered, they have been referred to the City Attorney for preparation of "Findings of Fact." BACKGROUND SuperAmenca filed a March 10, 2000, application to the Planning Commission and City Council to re."one property and requested four conditional use permits relating to property at 9398 Medicine Lake P, oa~ The Planning Commission considered the requests at public hearings conducted on April 4 and Llay 2 and recommended approval of the petmoners application, subject to eight conditions. The Piann~ng Commission is an advisory body for the City Council and the Council is responsible for f~nal ~ec~s~ons on all zoning matters coming before ~t and ~s not bound by the recommendations it receives from the Planning Commission. The petitioner's apphcat~on came before the City Council on May 8 ant the Council took no action on this matter, but referred the matter back to City staff for preparation of f~n~ngs of fact for consideration at this Council meeting. The resolution prepared by the City Attorney ~ncludes language that is summarized as follows: ·It essentially determines that the existing "R-O" zoning classification for the property is not a mistake. ·It c~etermines that the character of the adjacent and surrounding properties to 9398 Medicine Lake Road have not sufficiently changed to warrant or justify rezoning of the property from "R-O' to "B-3." .MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 6-12-00 It states that the commercial development permitted within the "R-O" zoning district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations made for the property and, therefore, a zoning change is not required to facilitate the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It states that the auto-oriented business uses permitted in the "B-3" zoning district are too intense for the area. It finds that the "B-3" uses are incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this property and area. The resolution denies the application to rezone the property and states that the existing zoning is not a mistake, the circumstances of the area surrounding the property have not sufficiently changed to justify a rezoning request, and that the "B-3" rezoning of the property would not be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan creating potential uses for the property inconsistent with the surrounding area's primarily residential character. ATTACHMENTS · City Attorney Correspondence, Resolution Denying Requests and Findings of Fact · Original Staff Resolution Approving Request RESOLUTION NO. 2000- , RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RELATING TO REZONING REQUEST AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR PROPERTY AT 9398 MEDICINE LAKE ROAD AND DENYING ALL REQUESTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows: INTRODUCTION WHEREAS, Speedway SuperAmerica LLC (hereafter "Petitioner") filed a March 10, 2000 Application To Planning Commission and City Council (hereafter "Application"), the receipt of which is acknowledged by the City of New Hope on March 10, 2000, and paid all required fees to rezone property and request four conditional use permits relating to property at 9398 Medicine Lake Road (hereafter the "Property") in the City of New Hope, and WHEREAS, joining with Petitioner in the referenced Application for rezoning and conditional use permit approval are Joe Linn and Wendy Linn, the fee owners of the Property, and WHEREAS, Petitioner's Application for rezoning and conditional use permit approval has been identified as Planning Case 00-05 by the City of New Hope, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the New Hope Zoning Code, Petitioner's Application was referred to the New Hope Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation of approval or denial of Petitioner's Application by the New Hope City Council, and WHEREAS, pursuant to state law. Petitioner's Application must be enacted upon no later than Jul3' 8. 2000 or 120 days after the City's receipt of the Application and that the City's failure to act within the prescribed time limit will constitute an approval of the Application by operation of law. and WHEREAS, state law further requires any change to a City's zoning code. like the one herein requested by Petitioner, must be preceded by at least one public hearing after appropriate mailed and published notice of said hearing is made by the City. The hearing's purpose is to permit public comment bearing upon the requested zoning amendment and conditional use perm, approvals by interested parties other than Petitioner. and WHEREAS, pursuant to mailed and published notice the New Hope Planning Commission considered Petitioner's Application for rezonine~ and conditional use permit approvals lbr the subject property at lawfully scheduled public hearines at its April 4 and May '~ 2000 meetines. and ' ~' ~ WI~REAS, the New Hope Planning Commission recommended approval of Petitioner's Application for rezoning and conditional use permits subject to 8 conditions relating to the conditional use permits as set forth in the minutes of the May 2, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, and Wl:IEREAS, the Planning Commission is an advisory body for the New Hope City Council, that the City Council is responSible for final decisionS on all zoning matters coming before it and is not bound by the recommendationS it receives from the Planning Commission, and WHEREAS, all decisionS relating to zoning code applications like Petitioner's will be considered for compliance with the New Hope Zoning Code and compatibility with the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. Further, state law also requires that before a zoning district change is approved, a finding must be made that either: A mistake has been made relating to a property's existing or original zoning, or Changing conditionS relating to development of other properties adjacent to or in close proximity to the subject property warrant or justify rezoning of the subject property, and WHEREAS, the Petitioner's Application designated as New Hope Planning Case 00-05 came before the City Council on May 8, 2000 and for final action on June 12, 2000. That at the Ma3' 8th meeting 'the Council took no action on this matter but referred the matter back to City Staff for preparation of findings of fact for consideration at its June 12t~ meeting. When the City Council considered this matter at its June 1Th meeting it had before it the City's entire file relating to Planning Case 00-05 including but not limited to the following information and record: 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. The New Hope Zoning Code, The New Hope Comprehensive Plan. The May 8, 2000 City Council Minutes. The City Manager's May 5. 2000 Memo relating to May 8'~ agenda items. The Community Development Director's May 8'~ Request for Action (with attachments), The May 2, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes, The April 4, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes, The April 28, 2000 City Planning Case Report (with attachments). The March 31, 2000 City Planning Case Report (with attachments). The City's Special Zoning Procedures Application Log relatine to Plannino Case 00-05, ~ ~ The Petitioner's Application to Planning Commission and City Council for Planning Case 00-05, Several location maps identifying the subject property included in the referenced Request for Action and Planning Case Reports, -2- 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. A Petition from property owners of Presidential Estates II adjacent to and north of the subject property, Nineteen separate letters/e-mails or voice mails from other property owners/tenants adjacent to or in close proximity to the project objecting to the Petitioner's Application, March 29 and April 25, 2000 reports and attachments from Northwest Associates Consultants, municipal planners privately retained by the City for comment on Petitioner's Application, March 29 and April 25, 2000 reports and attachments from City Engineers Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates requested by the City for comment on Petitioner's Application, An April 24, 2000 Hennepin County Memo from transportation planner Dave Zetterstrom, Ail plans submitted by Petitioner in support of its Application for Planning Case 00-05, April 21, 2000 and March 24, 2000 Amendments to Attachments and Attachment to Application for Planning Case 00-05, A March 16, 2000 letter from James Horgan, property owner immediately adjacent and east of the subject property supporting the project, March 24, March 31, and April 19, 2000 letters from Petitioner's representative, Michael Cronin (with attachments), Two April 20, 2000 letters from Petitioner to the City's Building Official relating to snow storage and the Hillsboro Court Apartment Complex, An April 17, 2000 letter from Petitioner to the City's Building Official relating to fuel delivery at the subject property, An April 10, 2000 letter from the owners of the Hillsboro Court Apartment Complex to the City's Planning Commission Chairman objecting to the Application, All public comment presented at the May 8 and June 12, 2000 City Council meetings and the City Council members' own personal statements, recollections. opinions, information and knowledge about Petitioner's Application, the subject property and the surrounding community bearing upon the rezoning and conditional use permits requests, and WHEREAS, except for any information presented for the first time at the June 12. 2000 CIty Council meeting, all of the information referenced in the preceding paragraph of this resolution was before the City Council at both its May 8 and June 12, 2000 meetings and forms generally the basis for the City Council's action taken at both the May 8~h and June 17 meetin,,s as specifically set forth in writing in this resolution. ~ -3- FINDINGS OF FACT WItEREAS, based on the record presented to the City Council described above, this Council hereby makes the following £mdings of fact relating to Petitioner's Application designated as New Hope Planning Case 00-05: That the subject property located at 9398 Medicine Lake Road is currently zoned "R-O" Residential - Office District by the new Hope Zoning Code. That attached as Exhibit 1 are the permitted and conditional uses in an "R-O" Residential - Office District. That the "R-O" District permits property like the subject to be used for medical. professional or commercial offices, retail or commercial sale of merchandise and buildings combining residential and non-residential uses such as a commercial use. That the subject property is currently improved with a single family residence. This use is a legal non-conforming use and an underutilization of the property given its current "R-O" zoning designation. That the subject property is located in District 16 identified in the Comprehensive Plan. That the City's Comprehensive Plan, see Exhibit 2 attached, specifically guides this property for a new commercial land use along with the property immediately adjacent and to the east of the subject as well as a Sinclair Gas Station approximately one block west of the subject at the intersection of Medicine Lake Road and CSAH 169. That the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically indicate the subject property's current zoning designation is a mistake nor does it specificalh' recommend a rezoning of the Property to any one of the City's ~bur separate commercial zoning districts. Basically. the Comprehensive Plan simply indicates "New Commercial land uses are proposed in the southwest ct}mcr District 16 through redevelopment of... the single home and adjoining office use at... Hiilsboro and Medicine Lake Road." That the character of the subject property's surrounding area is primarily medium to high density residential. Specifically. the adjacent property to thc west and north, Hillsboro Court Apartments and Presidential Estates Condominiums respectively, are zoned "R-4" High Densitv Residential. the property immediately to the east. the Horgan Inst~rance Of'rice. is zoned "R-O" Residential - Office identical to the subject, however the property, adjacent and east of the Horgan property is a townhome development zoned "R-3" Medium Density Residential. -4- o i0. I1. 12. The property immediately south of the subject across Medicine Lake Road in Golden Valley is the new Medely Estates Towahome project also zoned residential. That Petitioner has made five separate requests within its Application as follows: ao A rezo~i.g of the subject properly from "R-O" Residential - Office District to "B-3" Auto-Orientated Business District (see attached Exhibit 3 indicating permitted and conditional uses in a "B-3" district). b. Four separate conditional use permits to allow the following uses: iii. iv. Construction of a convenience store with gasoline Shared driveway access from Medicine Lake Road with Horgan property Outdoor display of products for sale Construction of undersized loading area. That the requested conditional use permit for a convenience store with gasoline is a conditional use only in a "B-3" Auto-Oriented Business District. The other three conditional use permit approval requests are accessory to the conditional use permit for a convenience store with gasoline. As a result, without rezoning approval for the subject property, all of the land uses subject to the conditional use permits are prohibited in an "R-O" zoning district and consideration for approval for all four requests will be unnecessary, moot and thereby denied by operation of law. That over the course of the past 25 years there have been numerous discussions with the previous and present property owners of the subject property and the Horgan property regarding commercial development on the subject property and the Horgan property to its east. Prior City zoning maps have designated these properties "LB. Limited Business" in 1977. In 1979, the zoning classification for these properties reverted to "R-O" Residential - Office. The 1977 "LB. Limited Business" district would equate to a "B-I" Limited Neighborhood Business District or "B-2" Retail Business District under the current zoning code. Both the "B-I" and "B-2" districts would provide for significant commercial redevelopment of thc subject property consistent with the land use guidance recommendations of thc Comprehensive Plan. That the "B-3" Auto-Oriented Business District has historically never been considered an appropriate use for the subject property. That a significant number of owners/tenants of the adjacent surrounding residential property to the subject proper~y objected either in person or in writine to the proposed "B-3" rezoning which would permit a convenience store with gasoline use -5- of the property. The primary concerns of these property owners/tenants are as follows: Co Increased traffic and resulting headlight glare into adjacent properties, Increased noise both fi.om more traffic but also fi.om services to the property such as garbage collection, fuel truck deliveries, snow removal and customer traffic due to potential 24 hour operation at the site, Depreciation of the property values due to non-compatible land use, i.e. intense auto-oriented commercial use in primarily residential area, Uncertainty relating to the future rezoning of the Horgan property immediately adjacent and east of the subject property which could exacerbate the problems related in (a) through (c). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WHEREAS, based on the foregoing findings of fact, this Council hereby makes the following conclusions of law: J That the subject property's current zoning as an "R-O" Residential - Office District is not a product of a past rezoning mistake. The "R-O" district permits a high density residential use and for a transition in land use from mid-density residential to low intensity business allowing the intermixing of such uses. This is primarily how the area has developed. The subject property is surrounded in all directions with medium to high density housing with some commercial further to the west near Medicine Lake Road's intersection with CSAH 169. That the character of the surrounding property adjacent to the subject has not sufficiently changed to warrant or justify rezoning of the property. Basically, the most significant change to the surrounding area is the construction of more high density residential townhomes in the Medely Estates project south of the subject in Golden Valley. This change reinforces the validity of the existing zoning rather than precipitating a change in zoning. The only other significant change in the area was widening Medicine Lake Road to four lanes from two. While on its face widening Medicine Lake Road appears significant, it had very little affect on thc surrounding area. The traffic counts on Medicine Lake Road did not increase due to the widening, but simply provided a safer roadway to move vehicular traffic already existing in the area before its widening. That the existing "R-O" zoning is compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan for the subject property. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan calls for new commercial redevelopment of the subject property. The "R-O" District provides for several commercial developments of the subject consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the "R-O" district provides for medical, -6- professional and office uses, retail commercial uses and a mixed use of residential and commercial uses. This could include a commercial office use on the ground or lower floors of a proposed development with a residential apartmentJcondowinium use on a third or upper floor. These kinds of uses are compatible with the commercial redevelopment recommendations called for by the Comprehensive Plan for the subject property. That a rezoning to a "B-3" Auto-Oriented Business District would not be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan or the character of the subject property's surrounding area. Specifically, the purpose of the "B-3" district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. This kind of zoning permits motor vehicle sales, leasing and services, repair and maintenance garages accessory to motor vehicle sales and leasing, auto accessory stores, automobile service stations, car washes, and the sale of propane gas accessory to automobile service stations as well as convenience stores with gasoline sales. It is apparent to this Council that the "B-3" district is a special use district geared primarily to automobile sales, service and use. Such a district is not compatible in a primarily residential area especially where the "B-3" rezoning request is for a single lot property surrounded in all directions by medium to high density residential property. That the Comprehensive Plan may permit the subject property to be rezoned to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District or "B-2" Retail Business District. Either of these districts would permit a significant amount of commercial use without the auto-oriented intensity and incompatibility of the "B-3" District. That the conditional use permits requested by Petitioner in its Application are not permitted in the "R-O" Residential - Office District. ORDER WHEREAS, this Council hereby DENIES Petitioner's Application to rezone the property. at 9398 Medicine Lake from "R-O" Residential-Office to "B-3" Auto-Oriented Business District. Said order of denial is based on the fact there is sufficient evidence in the record to show thc following: The existing zoning is not a mistake, and The circumstances of the area surrounding the subject property have not sufficiently changed to warrant or justify Petitioner's rezoning request, and That a "B-3" auto-oriented rezoning of the subject property would not be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan creating potential uses for the property inconsistent with the surrounding areas primarily residential character, and -7- WHE~, this Council also hereby demes Petitioner's four conditional use permit approval requests. The denial of the requested conditional use permits are based on the fact that said conditional use permits are not permitted by the New Hope Zoning Code in the "R-O" Residential - Office District, and WI~REAS, based on the findings of facts and conclusions of law established in this resolution, all requests made by Petitioner in New Hope Planning CaSe 00-05 are hereby DENIED. Dated June 12, 2000 W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk -8- COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Ori§inatin§ Department Approved for A§enda A§enda Section Deveopment & Community Development 6-12-00 Planning Department Kirk McDonald j / Item No. By: Director By:/ // 8.2 / PLANNING CASE 00-10, REQUEST FOR AfCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SCHOOL USE IN A CHURCH FACILITY, 3351 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE NORTH, HOPE ALLIANCE CHAPEL/MEDICINE LAKE LUTHERAN ACADEMY, PETITIONERS REQUESTED ACTION The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a school use (Medicine Lake Lutheran Academy - grades 9-12) in a religious facility (Hope Alliance Chapel), pursuant to Sections 4.054(1) and 4.21 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The Planning Commission considered this request at its June 6 meeting and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. No outdoor extracurricular or physical education activities will be allowed on the Hope Alliance site. 2. All 39 off-street parking spaces for students to be located in the northwest parking lot and staff parking, as needed, to be in the northeast parking lot of the church. All bus loading and unloading to occur only within the designated area as shown on the site plan. 3. All traffic access and exit the site from 34t~ Avenue, Hillsboro, and 36th Avenue as shown on staff exhibit, and a "right turn only" sign is placed at the northeast driveway as shown on the site plan. 4. All deliveries to the site occur within the designated area in the west parking lot as shown on the site plan. 5. The property owner to install landscaping on the north side of the northwest corner of the parking area to screen the parking area from the adjacent residential properties as shown on the site plan, with plant types to be of a coniferous type. Additional plantings on the south property line by the gate to be of a size and nature to prevent driving around the gate. 6. Maximum term of CUP is five years and maximum enrollment is 150 students and staff with application for CUP amendment necessary thereafter. 7. Conditional use permit agreement to be executed between petitioner and City that states conditions of approval and establishes guidelines for ongoing operation of facility, including hours of operation, age limit, limit on number of staff/students, etc. to be drafted by City Attorney. 8. Trash enclosure to be provided and shown on site plan. 9. Close gate at south parking lot, does not need to be locked, Monday through Saturday, excluding religious holidays. (cont'd./ MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: ~,,,~'"~quest for Action Page 2 6-12-00 Several residents were in attendance at the meeting and were opposed to the request and their major concerns were traffic issues. The school explained that they will require student drivers and parents dropPing off students to utilize the same route as the bus (Hillsboro Avenue from 36th to 34~h). The Commission also added a condition regarding the closure of the gate at the south entrance to try and address this concern. The enclosed resolution approves the request subject to those conditions and staff recommends approval of the resolution. POLICY PAST PRACTICE In 1994, the City Council approved a similar CUP request for this site, implemented. however, that use was never BACKGROUND Please refer to the attached staff report for a detailed description of the request. A'n'ACHMENTS · Resolution · Staff Report REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda A~enda Section Deve'lopmen~ & Parks & Recreation June 12, 2000 Planning Item No. By: Shari French By: 8.3 ACCEPTANCE OF 1sT TIER TRAILS, GREENW~k'YS, AND PARKS MASTER PLAN REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends acceptance of the 1st Tier Trails, Greenways, and Parks Master Plan. Mr. Del Miller, Intergovernmental Land Manager for Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District (Hennepin Parks), will be in attendance to present the plan and answer cluest~ons Hennepin Parks is requesting that each 1st tier community pass a resolution in the near future that simply states the City's support for the 1st tier trails plan as developed by Hennepin Parks staff along with staff from the first tier suburban communities, including New Hope. Discussion and questions re: the plan at this point may warrant further discussion by Council at a work session t~efore passing such a resolution. BACKGROUND m NovernDer of 1998~ City Councilmembers and the Cmzen Advisory Commission Chair expressed concerns to Suburban Hennepin Reg=onat Park D~stnct (Hennepin Parks) staff and Board regard,ng the lack of Hennepin Parks facilities in the 1st tier suburban area· This expressed concern led to the formation of a task force compnsed of Hennepin Parks staff and 1st tier Suburban cily staff. The goals of the ~as,. lorce are mclualed on page 3 of the attached plan The 1 st T~er Trails. Greenways and Parks Master Plan was developed by the task force w~m the help of SRF Consulting Group, Inc, hired and paid for by Hennepin Parks. The purpose of this plan is to identi~ and capitalize ct' cg!em:a! oDportumtles for new regional trail, greenway and park faciht~es within the first tier communities of Minneapolis in Hennepm Z;:;n!v where few such facilities currently ex~st Although the project sought out potential trail, greenway and park facilities, the opportumt~es :e-t';,e." generally relate to trail corridors. '~.~ .'-~':~, cf m=s master plan concerning New Hope took into account the tra~l and bikeway plan incorporated in the City's 1995 -.?..--<:-..~ ~n Plan The New Hope/Crystal/Golden Valley Corr,clor would connect French Regional Park and Eagle Lake Regional Park to .... r.' ~ea~ohs Grand Round by way of New Hope. sou!nero Crystal. and northern Golden Valley· The plan provides for crossings of US · .-;. aT:: ~,-, I00 It a~so includes connections between c,ty parks, w~thm each community Major issues ~dentified in New Hope mclucie the " :",',a, c,oss.ngs tra~ls m the mgustnal area being contingent on re0evelopment, and the trail along 36th Avenue from 169 to Boone ~...".~e contingent on reconstruction FUNDING :-' " :,; me mere ~s no C~ty funding for the trails which were ~0enhfiecl m the 95 City Transportation Plan The 1st T~er Trails master Dian · n 'c' m~nneD~n Parks to be the managing ancl operahng aufnonty of the trails, and to fund construction, operahons, and maintenance ~,TTACHMENT ;" ,;'~e~ is me F~rst T~er Tra~ls. Greenway. and Parks Master Plan a cody of Hennep~n Parks Dubhcahon SEASONS contammci an ,. re the tra~m ~clea. and a copy of Hennep~n Parks tra~ls mad Id m0~cate ex,sting and proposed trails to show how the hnks are to .... a3e !? regional facd~hes ',:,';'1()~ HY SECOND BY t RFA.P&R Tra,ls'.Q*Accept 1" T~er Trails Master Plan 2000 I REQUEST FOR ACTION Or/gmatmg Depaximent Approved for Agenda Agenda Sect/on Development & Parks & Recreation June 12, 2000 Plannin~  --~ Item No. 8.4 By: Shad French Bv: ACCEPTANCE OF MASTER PLAN FOR HIDDEN VALLEY PARK (PROJECT #672) REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends approval of this master plan, which was developed with a great deal of input from the public as well as staff. BACKGROUND At the January 10, 2000 City Council meeting, approval was given to hire Brauer and Associates, LTD to facilitate the process to develop a Master Plan for Hidden Valley Park. This is the same planner who worked with the City on me Northwood Park project in 1997 and the Civic Center Master Plan process in 1998. The process included meetings w~th staff, two meetings with the neighborhood, a meeting with St. Joseph's Church representatives, Sonnesyn School staff, and the Citizen Advisory Commission. All input gathered has been reflected in the ~ro2osed final master plan draft. On Monday evening Mr. George Watson and the Parks and Recreation D~rector wdl present a final draft of the master plan for Council consideration. ATTACHMENTS .A',:acned are m~nutes from the May 15, 2000 Citizen Advisory Commission discussion as well as m~nutes from '~e;~qDornood school, and church meetings on this subject ~1()T/OX BY SECOND BY TO I RFA\P&R',Pool\furnlture bid 2000 · r 4. r- iI I I I \ \\ nzR~ \ i.. i-- Om>_ I I~1 i~, I,q I · '(~-- I I- I~ Iq I I , I I I I I I I I i ~Z ~X~ ~ ~0~ ~ · mo~ I t I I i I o _z Hidden Valley Park Master Plan Pro ect City of New Hope, Minnesota Date: Project: June 12th, 2000 Hidden Valley Park Master Plan Program Statement The following defines the basic program statements for the project area based on input from the $onnesyn School and interested residents taken from a series of meetings held with the school and neighborhood residents. Note that the list of items to be considered for the project is simply a collection of ideas and thoughts that were felt to be worth considering as part of the design process. The following is a consolidated list of program elements taken from the meeting held with Sonnesyn School on February 2nd, 2000 and neighborhood meetings held on March 6th and April 11th, 2000: Athletic Fields: · Soccer and football field space (school) · 1/4 mile running track (school) · (2) improved ballfields · Add full size soccer field Site Amenities to Retain: · Keep hills for cross-country skiing (school) · Keep 3 tennis courts & improve · Keep hockey rink & improve with paved surface · Keep sledding hill open Site Amenities Desired: · Portable restroom for athletic fields · Portable restroom in park area · Additional parking for athletic events · Sand volleyball court · Pedestrian lighting · Drinking fountain by play area · Picnic shelter · Picnic spaces with tables and grills Hardcourts: · One full basketball court for school · Hardcourt space for school · One full basketball court for park Ecological/Environmental: · Improved pond · Natural areas · Educational signage · Vegetative screening in various areas Trail Systems: · Regional Trail system along periphery · Park trail systems with more loops and wider width · New pedestrian bridge over pond · Boardwalk through the natural areas. · Benches along trails · Informal / natural trail through church area COUNCIL REi UEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Secuon Community Development ~ 6-26-00 Consent // Item No. By: Kirk McDonald B?': , 6.4 / RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS NECESSARY TO RECEIVE FUNDING FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA CONTAMINATION INVESTIGATION AND RAP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY-OWNED PROPERTIES AT 7500-28 42ND AVENUE (IMP. PROJECT #665). ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting that the City Council approve the enclosed resolution authorizing the execution of agreements on behalf of the City of New Hope as part of the State of Minnesota's Contamination Investigation and RAP Development Program. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The Council, in the past, has designated the Mayor, City Manager, and City Clerk to execute agreements involving grant requests on behalf of the City. ~ BACKGROUND On April 24, the City Council authorized staff to submit a grant application for the Contamination Investigation and RAP Development Program with the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED). Grant funds from the program would allow the City and Electronic Industries to complete the~ investigation of the contaminated properties at 7500-7528 42n= Avenue. At the June 12 Council meeting, the Council approved a resolution authorizing City officials to execute documents on the City's behalf and that resolution was forwarded to DTED. Subsequent to receiving the resolution, DTED has contacted the City and requested several minor wording changes in the resolution. The revised resolution is attached and staff recommends approval. A'I-DACHMENTS · Revised Resolution MOTION BY SECOND BY 'TO: COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 6-26-00 Consent / Item No. By: Kirk McDonald B.v: 6.5 MOTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO.~I IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,175 FOR DEMOLITION OF CITY- OWNED BUILDING AT 7500 42ND AVENUE BY KEVITT EXCAVATING, INC. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 665) REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends approval of a motion approving change order number one in the amount of $2,175 for the demolition of the City-owned building at 7500 42n° Avenue by Kevitt Excavating, Inc. I .POLICY/PAST PRACTICE When a contract for demolition of a building is awarded, there may be conditions at the site that may not be discovered until the demolition is underway and sometimes warrant additional work by the contractor. If this occurs, the change order is presented to the Council for approval. ,BACKGROUND At the November 8, 1999, Council meeting, the City Council awarded the contract for the demolition of the City- owned building at 7500 42n° Avenue (Ardel Engineering) to Kevitt Excavating in the amount of $26,037. The building was demolished at the end of 1999 and first part of 2000. The building plans for the existing building did not accurately show the building foundation below grade. As a result, during the course of the demolition, the contractor was required to remove additional building foundation material and provide additional backfill. The attached change order in the amount of $2,175 provides for removing deeper foundation material and providing additional backfill. The change order will increase the contract cost from $26,037 to $28,212. The City Manager was notified of this condition during the demolition process and approved the additional work so that the demolition could proceed. All work has been substantially completed. The City Engineer recommends approval of the change order. FUNDING The demolition is being paid for with tax increment financing funds. !ATTACHMENTS · City Engineer Memo · Change Order MOTION SECOND !BY BY TO: COUNCIL Originating Depa~t~mt Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development~ Consent Susan Henry il 6-26-00 :item No. By: Community Development Specialist ~// 6.6 / MOTION TO PROCEED WITH A WRITTEN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTIES AT 5410/5412 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #667) REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests Council approval of a motion for staff to proceed with a written offer to purchase the properties located at 541015412 Winnetka Avenue North in the amount of $136,000. BACKGROUND At the November 8, 1999, City Council meeting, staff was given the authorization to negotiate the purchase of the properties located at 5410/5412 Winnetka Avenue North (this is the property with two homes on two small lots, one behind the other). Last fall, the property owner, Jonathon Pickett, contacted the City after receiving the City's correspondence indicating an interest to purchase properties along the 5500 Winnetka Avenue Block on a voluntary basis. The City ordered an appraisal last fall, which resulted in a combined value of $144,000 for both properties. City staff felt the appraised value was high, and went into negotiations with the property owners last fall. At that point, Mr. Pickett wanted $130,000 and the City was willing to pay no more than $125,000. Since both properties are rental property, Mr. Pickett stated he would like to work with the tenants. Staff pointed out it would be best to avoid relocation benefits, thus Mr. Pickett stated he would like some time to give his tenants notice and get back in touch with the City. In May 2000, Mr. Pickett contacted the City and stated that both tenants have been given notice for the end of July and the homes will be vacant by early August. He said he is ready to sell to the City, but will work on what time schedule is necessary. Since Mr. Pickett's phone call, staff has called and updated the October 11, 1999, appraisal. Currently, 5410/5412 Winnetka has a combined value of $177,000, according to BCL Appraisals. (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND ~ , TO: RFAo00 / ~ Request for Action Page 2 6-26-00 At this time, Mr. Pickett is asking $136,000 for both properties, stating this is what he would like to nL Staff feels this is a fair price for both properties, especially given the updated appraised value of $177,000. Staff recommends the City purchase the properties located at 5410/5412 Winnetka Avenue North in the amount of $136,000. Mr. Pickett is aware that no city wdtten or verbal offer can be made until the properties are vacated. This motion by the Council puts the City in a ready position to make an offer once the properties are vacant. This also gives staff Council approval to enter into a purchase agreement, based on recent property negotiations. The purchase agreement will be brought to the Council for approval. The subject properties are estimated to measure a combined total of 22,750 square feet (5410 Winnetka: 11,550 square feet and 5412 Winnetka: 11,200 square feet). In the spring of 1999, the Council approved the purchase of 5340 Winnetka Avenue North, which sits three lots to the south of the subject properties. At the June 12, 2000, meeting, the Council approved the purchase of an estate property located at 5422 Winnetka Avenue North, which sits two lots to the north of the subject properties. This home will be cleared this summer. FUNDING The acquisition costs can be paid for with available tax increment financing (TIF) funds. ATTACHMENTS · Property map · 6/8/00 BCL Appraisal Reports · 10/11/99 BCL Appraisal Reports · Area Map .... -,, : ............... ~..: ~ , ~ ~J ', ~]j} : ,.. ........... ~ t ; · . f ; ! : : : ~1 I · ; : tJ' : ._ : 7mo .." -'11 '-.,. :. :---: ; .~.-7610 ; ! , 75(Xp"~__.~ '', .[ I~ : ~ , · - , -". -.. -. .... ;..-- ~ ~ - . ..... : ......... ~. - J~: ! ..... ,, ............ ,jj ...... F ..... ', ' - .......... - N illid" tiltall 56TH · . · - · * · r,, ; I~ $' r-. . ; : . .: { .......... .. .,,),.~.,,-/,-~ :~: r /./:. :,,_..,_ ......... ~- · ...... . .................. : .:/.../. : ....... /.! , -- · ' · ' , :.,./~ '" r,,, ' _/. · · ; .. ,,. __.., .....'_-~.~-;;-~'; ] _L'"_~Lv! ._'1" ,-, ,, -,-, · · .... ' ...... '" , ' '' : ! I / ,/~ ''""l""'/r-'~ [3 E-Ii&, IL"l'~ _ ; ~' ...... ;i;,'.'~ ...... i --,,,,, i ~ 5510 ~ ,~:q: o '~-'~/i s L.~i~k./vr.,l: ~'' ' ~ : ,i~li~le - ~ : J d ~1~. a i $.j, ',.-/'~ ~ /'"%1 II ir'- i : ...... ;;'Z,; ....... L ............ ~ ~""_':: :I,,; i ~ ~~ -- ;--' , t ._..'T"~.. III .... ! ; ..... """ .... : i ; ...... - · ---,,,- i M43: ;5444 tj437 ' '. 5434 i M37' .----- ....... " , ~ : : : ; ] : : · P,'~-.~ City-Owned · ; ................. ~ --~- · ; ..~. : ~J~ ; : _~.,,~'~. , S433 . ~ Property - -. : ? ~ ' ;"~"'~. ' '~--; ....... t ......... ' ., , ..... ~- '":542~ !l~Ji54~ , 542~;L al a4~ ,. =4~ , ........ I : i ~ ; ; , ' - _ · 54, ; ...................... .~,(i :_ .-- ::.,(:' .... : .... j I'~ Property ....... ; ~ ~ , a427 ~ : ~4~ f =4z, : :. ~ =~= , I~1 Under 15421:, ~'. ..... :"~' ='-- - r- "~' ......... '~ "~:~ ..... ' ..... ,=;,..,.~; ;'~.T'; ......... '~ ~ Consideration .... ~::_:..-~r,g-::'.-..:~54~,3; ~1- I~fJ~"'~L or in Process I .... ~ .';...~; ..... -'. -- ' i ........ I" '"~ , . ~ 5417 ; ,~---,, ? ' ' : .........: ; ---,- i --~-', : s4mi s41~; . Mit ~ k ~ ....... " ........... -~ ;- ...... 4 ...... ; ; ........ : ...... .l.r__i ......... -- ,. ~5412 ~, 5410 ; ~4t~ ~1~..., 5414 '. 5413:_ · 541a' 5413 i . ~ 5414 ~ ! ,-.- '; ...... . · ' .... il.l! ~ i4"-~ [ , ' LfJ ~ - ' ___ , mj.~l,l~.~ ..... : ........... .; :..~w * , '"--" , ' ~; ' · ' ~ - -- ..... t : : :~-- · .~ , : ; ...... : . ......... '~---'~- ... · :- ................. ; ~.~ ; ' "~ .~ · I I : ~ I · 5401 j ; ....... L ..... ._q.;;~_ .'- ..... -, ....... 4.--~_ g- ....... ;-. - -- --'-I : ........ L ..: ; 53.4 : ' , ' .. s j I : ~ : ~ : .1. .... · . ~ , K4~! ~'J le,,ahh · ~,a~l .I/J. Km'~. K,I~i · . ~ ....... · I '-. ~. I ' .'. : ~ , . J .~ .... ~ ------: ..... ~-~-- --. ..... 4-- ........ i ~ ........... r ......... ! ........ t ......... ~ '- ..... ~ ' ............ ~4~V, ~-~ · ] gg~l~ - : ~ - i : _ ..' .., . ';~,~'4--~ ,.- ........~ ........ ~,1-: ........ ,:.. ....... t~.-;-i~ .......... ; ,I ~ ; I ; , · s - ! i~:=~_~/--., i ; 531a~ 6326...~1~63,M: 5321 '..~I ~2.4 ,~,.x~s : ~...- · · · .i '",, ....... , : j ~ j,,.,ff , · . ~ i4 ,~ j~ t , , -e. ; .......,. ....... ., l .......~ ........! t~ ........ I , , ~.~ '.,~ t : :'. .... ,.,.. ~ & .... ' . '.. . ' ..... . · . , ...... ..., l~,..... ; : .... " ...... , : .... t'- ........... , : ........ ~ ........ j , . :..... - ...... ' ' . ........... t'"'~ -' COUNCIL REQD'F T FOR ACTION Originating Depa~,...ent Approved for Agenda Agenda SecUon Community Development ~ Consent Susan Henry~ 6-26-00 Item No. By: Community Development Specialist By:. 6.7 MOTION AWARDING ASBESTOS SURVEY CONTRACT FOR 6003 WEST BROADWAY TO ANGSTROM ANALYTICAL, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $395 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #668). REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends Council approval of a motion awarding the contract for an asbestos survey of 6003 West Broadway to Angstrom Analytical, Inc., in the amount of $395. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE Before demolition can begin, the City must prepare the lot by accomplishing some key activities. One of those activities is to perform an asbestos survey of the properties. The survey will determine if there ~s asbestos in the structures, and if and how the contents will be removed. BACKGROUND The City of New Hope requested bids from four contractors for an asbestos survey for the City owned property located at 6003 West Broadway. Only one bid came in for the asbestos survey from Angstrom Analytical, Inc., in the amount of $395. Staff recommends approval of the bid for the asbestos survey. This is a standard price for the job and Angstrom Analytical has performed these surveys satisfactory for the City in the past. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants requires that all asbestos-containing materials be removed from a building prior to demolition. FUNDING The asbestos survey, as well as other pre-demolition activities, will be paid for with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. ATTACHMENT · Angstrom Analytical Bid MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: RFA-O01 Il COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Secuon Community Development 6-26-00 Consent - Item No. !By: Kirk McDonald By: 6.8 MOTION APPROVING QUOTE FOR SOIL BORINGS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,476 FROM STS CONSULTANTS, LTD. ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 9200 49T" AVENUE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 597) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting that the City Council approve a motion approving the quote for soil borings in the amount of $4,476 from STS Consultants, Ltd on the City-owned property at 9200 49th Avenue. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE When geotechnicat engineering services are required for the development of a property, quotes are solicited from responsible firms and presented to the Council. BACKGROUND The City acquired 9200 49m Avenue for storm water ponding and development purposes. The Council has directed staff to proceed with soil correction issues on the property to accommodate a development and the excavation of a storm water quality pond. Savings will occur if the pond is constructed at the same time the soils are corrected. A permit application for the pond excavation was submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers and a permit is contingent on DNR approval. Soil borings on the site are necessary in order to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications for the correction of the soils and pond excavation. 'The vacant lot at 9200 49m Avenue is approximately three acres in size and the anticipated development of the site includes a single-story office/warehouse building with a building footprint of approximately 25,000 square feet, located on the southern portion of the lot. A storm water drainage pond would be located on the northern portion of the lot. If good soils are found on the north portion of the lot, they would be used as fill on the southern portion of the lot. The scope of services for this quote is to perform ten soil borings and prepare a geotechnical engineering report. Six borings are located in the area of the proposed building and four borings are located in the area of the proposed pond. (cont'd.) SECOND BY TO: I RFA\ Request for Action Page 2 6-26 The following quotes were received for soil borings: Company Lineal feet Total of Borinqs Quote Sift. Low STS Consultants, Ltd. 260 $4,476 $17.21 #2 Braun Intertec 200 $3,900 $19.50 #3 American Engineering Testing, Inc. 206 $5.000 $24.27 The City Engineer indicates that based on the Sift of borings, STS Consultants, Ltd is iow. The total quote from Braun Intertec is lower, however, this quote is based on 60 less feet of boring than the STS quote. Braun Intertec also quoted $15/ft of boring over and above the 200 feet. This would require the addition of $900 to the Braun Intertec quote to produce a comparable footage to STS Consultants. This would raise the Braun Intertec ctuote to $4,800. The American Engineering Testing quote is high regardless of footage comparison. The City Engineer states that the City has worked with all of these companies frequently and all are capable of completing the work. Based on the quotes received, it is recommended that STS Consultants, Ltd be awarded the work. FUNDING The soil boring work would be funded out of the Storm Water Utility Fund, as this is the fund that will be reimbursed when the property is sold for development. ATTACHMENTS · City Engineer Memo on Quotes · Request for Proposals COUNCIL (~0~ RF.~? FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda SecUon Parks & Recreation dune 26, 2000 Consent Item No. By: Shaft French By: 6.12 t RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR LIBERTY PARK IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 673) TO KOOLMO CONSTRUCTION - $120,008.00 REQUESTED ACTION Staff and engineers are recommending that the City Council award a contract to Koolmo Construction for the Liberty Park Improvements Project #673 for a total price of $120,008.00. This bid includes the base bid but not alternate #1 which includes a small teen play structure. Alternate one would add $3,500 and the project has already reached budget without :hat structure so staff recommends that that not be awarded. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The City has been replacing the play equipment in all its parks on a planned basis since 1988. The old equipment does not meet some new mandates and is not appropriately accessible for all users. BACKGROUND The City Council approved plans and specs for this project on May 22, 2000. The neighborhood was invited to meet with staff and consultants in February to brainstorm about needed improvements and the plan includes their ideas. FUNDING Park 2000 CIP contains $130,000 in funding specifically for this project. The engineer's estimate for the base bid was $127,900. It is estimated that engineering fees will be somewhere near $18,000. Staff recommends that excess 1999 Park ClP funds totaling $15,074 be used to pay any engineering fees beyond $9,992.00. ATTACHMENTS Bids were opened June 12, 2000 and are attached and summarized below: Koolmo Construction: Base bid: $120,008. Alternate: $3,500 Sunram Construction: Base bid: $137,095. Alternate: No bid Nadeau Utility Inc.: Base bid: $151,488. Alternate: $5,400 MOTION SECOND BY BY TO: I:RFA\P&R\Parks\R-Award Liberty Play Equip 2000.doc CiTY Of NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 00- RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR LIBERTY PARK IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 673) TO KOOLMO CONSTRUCTION - $120,008.00 WHEREAS, pursuant to advertisement for bids for Liberty Park Improvements, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Contractor Base Bid Alternate #1 Koolmo Construction $120,008 $3,500 Sunram Construction $137,095 No bid Nadeau Utility Inc. $151,488 $5,400 WHEREAS, it appears that Koolmo Construction is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Koolmo Construction in the name of the City of New Hope for Liberty Park Improvements according to the plans and specifications for a total bid of $120,008.00 therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 26t~ day of June 2000. Mayor Attest: City Clerk I:RFA\P&R~Parks~R-Award Liberty Play Equip 2000.doc cou rczz. gU ST ACT O Orig~ DepazLment Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development Consent Item No. Susan Henry 6-26-00 EhJ'~_,ommunity Development Specialist ~ 6. !_5 MOTION TO PROCEED WITH THE PURCHASE OF 5406 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #676) REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests Council approval of a motion for staff to proceed with the purchase of the property located at 5406 Winnetka Avenue North in an amount not to exceed $110,000. BACKGROUND At the March 13, 2000, City Council meeting, staff was given the authorization to negotiate the purchase of the single-family property located at 5406 Winnetka Avenue North. Staff met with the property owner Sandra Sibbet in late April. At this meeting, the City presented the two city-ordered appraisals. In February, after receiving Council authorization for an appraisal, staff ordered an appraisal from Forsthye Appraisals and the property was valued at $112,000. Council gave staff authorization to negotiate based on the $112,000 appraisal, although communicated to Council at the time that the figure seemed high. Staff decided it would be best to order another appraisal to get another opinion on value. Thus, an appraisal was ordered in April from Griffith Appraisals, which came in at $100,000. Both appraisals were presented to the property owner in April, when the City offered $100,000 for the property. At that time, the property owner stated she would like to think about it. Recently, staff received the attached letter from the property owners requesting $110,000 for the property. Staff feels the property owners' asking price is high and advises the City offer $105,000. Staff will attempt to negotiate a $105,000 sale price; however, it would be helpful if staff could have some flexibility to negotiate up to $110,000, if necessary, to make the acquisition a reality. The subject property measures 19,950 square feet. The acquisition of this property is important for the redevelopment goals of the 5500 Winnetka Avenue North Block, especially as it pertains to the southern end of the block. As you recall, the Council approved the purchase of 5340 Winnetka Avenue North in the spring of 1999. At the June 12, 2000, meeting, the Council approved the purchase of an estate property located at 5422 Winnetka Avenue North. (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: RFA-001 ~ Request for Action Page 2 FUNDING The subject property is located in an area where TIF funds may be expended. ATTACHMENTS · Map · Letter from the Sibbets · 2/26/00 Forsythe Appraisals, Inc., Report · 4/11/00 Gdffith Appraisals, Inc., Report 6-26-00 · . . . ! . . . ~ ~ · . ' - · i : · ~' · --"--- ........, ............. , . 5440 . M2~ :b,J · 6421 . 642e : I, ~l 5430 . S42e 5430 I '. : ~ '- ............. -' ...... "~, ........ ', ......... , .~- .................... ~ i ...... ZO. 5421 , , 5420 t 5421 ................ ~ ..................................... , ......... -~, --- ---,,.,-_, - ~ ..... . · ST RAPHAEL DR. : .................. ~.. .......... , ............ : ........ , . ~t : ,... ',~ ~-'-.. ~ ........ ;.._ . · & ..... z. .. ' ; . ~. : , '-... -. .- --....j ~ · ---{ : { -~ , - ...... m' : i , ; 7eOC) : ?550 ~-' "" '" :---- ' ?IlO ....lli (' m -i-~ lkl156T~ ~VT: N .mil!.~ . I I I COUNCIL Originating Depa~t Approved for Agenda A~enda Section Public Community Development H~_~rin~ 6-~ Item No. By: Kirk McDonald !~. 7.1 PUBLIC HEARING; RESOLUTION ADOPTING BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA REQUESTED ACTION The attached resolution adopts proposed Business Subsidy Criteria policies and a public hearing is required before the adoption of the criteria policies. It is staff's understanding that the ED.A/City Council desire to discuss the criteria at a work session before taking final action on the criteria. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing, take public comment, close the public hearing and then postpone action adopting the criteria until after further discussion at a future work session. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The City Council has always evaluated requests for business subsidies on a case-by-case basis and considered a number of factors pertaining to the requests. BACKGROUND The 1999 Minnesota Legislature enacted a new law regulating business subsidies entered into or authorized after August 1, 1999. All Minnesota cities with populations of more than 2,500 are required to hold a public hearing on and adopt criteda for awarding certain business subsidies and must report to the state on an annual basis. City staff has been coordinating with the City Manager and City Attorney on the drafting of such a policy for New Hope and a draft of the policy is attached. At the May 22 City Council meeting, the City Council scheduled a public hearing for June 26 to discuss and consider a policy. The City Attorney stated in previous correspondence that, in general, the proposed policy contains the basic and standard language being used by other neighboring cities. The proposed policy would not have a significant impact on the financial assistance that New Hope provides to developers due to the fact that New Hope's assistance is usually geared towards providing housing assistance or site redevelopment where a recipient's investment in purchase or site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current estimated market value. These circumstances are exceptions to the business subsidy requirements of the statute. (cont'd.) MOTION BY , SECOND BY TO: RFA-00 / ~ Request for Action ~ ne enclosed draft "City of New Hope · Purpose Minnesota Statutes. · Objective To attract and enhance commercial and industrial · Definition · Policy Guidelines Page 2 6-26-00 Policy for Business Subsidies" contains the following sections: To set guidelines that would enable the City to comply with development thereby increasing employment opportunities for New Hope residents and developing the job base and tax base of the City. A grant, contribution of personal or real property, infrastructure, the principal amount of a loan at rates below those commercially available, a reduction or deferral of any tax or fee, any guarantee of payment or any preferential use of government facilities given to a business. The policy would be used for business subsidies that equal or exceed $25,000. States that the City shall evaluate each request for a business subsidy based on the best interest of the City and its residents, based on factors that may include the following: Proposed number and type of jobs created. Estimated taxable value of the proposed development. The commitment of the proposed development to continue operations at the site where the subsidy is used for at least five years after the benefit date. The ability of the proposed development to fulfill or provide a desired amenity,' facility or service that is not provided by the City. A listing of certain forms of financial assistance that are not a business subsidy and not required to meet the cdteda for business subsidies is also listed in the policy. The City Attorney has indicated in recent correspondence that a 2000 amendment to the Business Subsidy Criteda law prohibits the review of a subsidy request on a case-by-case basis. In other words, the adopted policy must set forth specific job and wage goals a proposed subsidy recipient must satisfy to qualify for funding. This means a specific "wage floor" for created jobs which could be stated as a specific dollar amount or some sort of formula that would generate a specific dollar amount. Attached is a 3-page model policy the City Attorney obtained from the League of Minnesota Cities that sets out some more specific policies and criteria than staff previously reviewed. This could form a basis for discussion at the Council's work session as to specifics of a wage and jobs goal policy. Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing and then discuss this policy further at a future work session. ATTACHMENTS · City Council Resolution · 6/21 City Attorney Correspondence and Model Policy · 5/26 City Attorney Correspondence · Proposed New Hope Policy for Business Subsidies · Department of Trade & Economic Development Information COUNCIL . REQUEST FOR ACTION l, Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section June 26, 2000 Parks & Recreation ~ Development & Planning Item No. By: Shari French By: 8.1 RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT F(~R NEW HOPE VILLAGE GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE - / IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 656 REQUESTED ACTION Staff is recommending that the City Council award a contract to The Builders for construction of a new clubhouse for the New Hope Village Golf Course, Project #656, for a base bid of $508,000.00. If Council wishes to consider the alternates, they include: adding a roof over the east side picnic area - $57,400; adding 2 gas grills to the picnic area - $1,350; removing the clubhouse after it has been burned by the fire department - $2,000; demolishing the existing clubhouse - $2,400; adding a new trash enclosure - $23,000. It is still anticipated that the existing clubhouse can be ciealt with without adding costs to the project - by finding a party who would move it to another site. BACKGROUND The City's golf course clubhouse, located at 8130 Bass Lake Road, predates the City purchasing the golf operation in 1971. The building is in need of replacement. The problem areas include: windows, doors, HVAC system, non-accessible bathrooms, plumbing, widng, floor, landscaping, walkways and parking lot. In early 1999 the City Council approved development of a feasibility study to look at a new clubhouse. In June 1999 Council accepted the feasibility study and directed staff to continue with the process of planning for this project. In fall of 1999, architectural firms were interviewed and Council selected TSP ONE, INC. in January 2000, work began on concept plans for a new facility. By February 22, 2000 Council reviewed concept ideas for the clubhouse and directed the development of schematic designs. On March 13 of this year Council reviewed and accepted schematic designs for this project. The Planning Commission gave their approval for a CUP with regards to this project with nine conditions. On May 22, 2000 Council approved final plans and specifications. The base bid included a new clubhouse. There were alternates to the base, which include a roof over the picnic area and two gas grills in the picnic area. The option of a new parking lot was bid separately. FUNDING Funding for this project is to be through a revenue bond to be paid back over twenty years from Golf Course earnings. The bond for this project totals $600,000. If the base bid is awarded, it is anticipated that an additional $139,400 will be needed to cover a 5% construction contingency and the estimate for other costs, including all soft costs. If alternates are awarded, other funding sources will be necessary. ATTACHMENTS Bids were opened June 12, 2000 and are attached. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: I:RFA~P&R\GolfCrs~R-Clubhouse bids 2000.ctoc TSP One Architects & Engineers BID FOR: PROJECT: GENERAL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION New Hope Village Golf Course Clubhouse New Hope, Minnesota 55428 TSP One Project # 99732 BID TABULATION DATE: June 15, 2000 11:00 AM ADDENDUM BID Picnic Roof Gas Grills Remove Fire Debris Remove entire bldg Trash End. NAME OF BIDDER #1 02 ECURIT BASE BID Allernate ! Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Alternate 4 Alternate 5 TOTALS (~M Construction X X BOND 587,000.00 55,000.00 5,000.00 10,500.00 4,000.00 18,500.00 665,500.00 Eberl Inc. X X BOND 559,800.00 38,000.00 2,900.00 1,800.00 2,200.00 9,721.00 610,421.00 Iiunerberg Construction X X BOND 516,000.00 49,325.00 2,500.00 !,560.00 2,640.00 23,093.00 590,918.00 ?finity Builders X X BOND 599,700.00 42,000.00 3,200.00 5,000.00 6,000.00 20,000.00 664,900.00 LUnd-Martin Construction X X BOND 665,000.00 49,400.00 7,800.00 5,000.00 24,300.00 738,700.00 :Merrimac Construction X X BOND 552,692.00 64,737.00 8,000.00 6,673.00 7,786.00 21,856.00 647,285.00 Morcon Construction X X BOND 635,718.00 66,000.00 1,900.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 27,000.00 730,618.00 RAK Construction X X BOND 784,777.00 69,820.00 3,594.00 7,500.00 9,800.00 14,562.00 872,753.00 '?erranova X X BOND 607,000.00 53,000.00 4,000.00 8,000.00 6,000.00 26,000.00 690,000.00 The Builders X X BOND 508,000.00 57,400.00 1,350.00 2,000.00 2,400.00 23,000.00 589,750.00 F*~Slandard~E ~cel\BidTab COUNC~ REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Parks & Recreation June 26, 2000 Deveioament & Planning Item No. By: Shari French By: 8.2 RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS FOR THE VILLAGE GOLF COURSE PARKING LOT PROJECT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 656 REQUESTED ACTION Staff is recommending that the City Council reject all bids for the proposed construction of a new parking lot for the New Hope Village Golf Course. BACKGROUND The City's golf course clubhouse, located at 8130 Bass Lake Road, predates the City purchasing the golf operation in 1971. The problem areas include: windows, doors, HVAC system, non-accessible bathrooms, plumbing, wiring, floor, landscaping, walkways and the parking lot. When the Council was considenng the schematic designs for the new clubhouse, staff was directed to seek bids for replacement of the existing parking lot. The parking lot project was bid as a separate project rather than an option to the clubhouse bids. The Iow bid was received from Hardrives Inc. for $150,727. FUNDING Funding for the golf course clubhouse project is to be through a revenue bond of $600,000 to be paid back over twenty years from Golf Course earnings. The clubhouse cost appears to be $647,400 if no alternates are chosen. If alternates are awarded and if the parking lot is awarded, other funding sources will be necessary. Therefore, staff is recommending that the bids for the parking lot project be rejected. When funding becomes available in the future, the parking lot project can be re-bid ATTACHMENTS Bids tabulation. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: h RFA\P&R\GolfCrs\R.Parking Lot bias 2000.doc COUNCIL - Ong~ Depaz'tment Approved for A~enda Agenda Section Public Works June-26-2000 Development & Planning / Item No. By: Guy Johnson By:. 8.3 / RESOLUTION APPROVING BID AND AWA'/RDING CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC WORKS ADDITION AND RENOVATIONS TO HUNI::RBERG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 671 & 679) RECIUESTED ACTION Staff recommends that Council review the bids received for the proposed Public Works building addition and renovations. If the base bid and alternates one through four bids are acceptable to the Council, staff recommends awarding a contract to Hunerberg Construction Company in the amount of $894,384.00 for Projects 671 and 679. BACKGROUND The New Hope Public Works Facility was built in 1980 with a 1,800 square foot repair shop. The proposed shop addition will allow staff to move all service work into the expanded repair shop area from the parking garage and outside areas. The improvement has been considered on two other occasions, 1991 and 1997. The Council approved contracts to TSP ONE, Inc., for architectural services and to E&V, Inc., to be the owner's representative for the proposed project on March 13, 2000. Schematic designs were approved March 27, 2000, and the Council approved specifications on May 22, 2000. If a contract is awarded to Hunerberg Construction Company, they are proposing to begin construction the first part of August and substantially complete the project by January 2001. The final layer of asphalt for the repair shop approach, the landscaping, and seal coating the parking and storage lots would be completed late spring or early summer 2001. FUNDING Hunerberg Construction bids: Shop Addition Base Bid $578,000.00 Sprinkler Alternate 1 $ 6,000.00 Garage Ventilation Alternate 2 $ 48,824.00 Garage Roof Alternate 3 $215,560.00 Garage Floor & Drain Alternate 4 $ 46,000.00 $894.384.00 MOTION BY SECOND BY ,, TO: 5,'40I Duit~th ~tHlc ';4 Xhnncapol~$. NIN 5-~42_ June21,2000 Phonc: (o12) Fax: ~o12~ 54 ~, Mr. Guy Johnson City of New Hope 5500 International Parkway New Hope, Minnesota 55428 New Hope Public Works Additions and Renovations Recommendation for Award Dear Mr. Johnson: The bids received on June 15, 2000 for the above referenced project have been tabulated and reviewed. The contract amount is for the base bid plus Alternate Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. It is the joint award recommendation of E&V Consultants and Construction Managers and TSP One, Inc. the contract be issued to the following contractor: Hunerberg Construction Company 13705 262 Ave No., Suite 100 Plymouth, MN 55441 Base Bid $578,000.00 Altemate No. I $6,000.00 Alternate No. 2 $48,824.00 Alternate No. 3 215,560.00 Alternate No. 4 46,000.00 PLM Bond Included in Base Bid Total Base Contract Amount $894,384.00 The recommended alternates for the project are as follows: Alternate No. I: Fire sprinkler work in existing garage to bring the area to code. Alternate No. 2: Modify parking garage exhnust Alternate No. 3: Roof replacement and associated work. Alternate No. 4: Parking gnrage floor and drnin replacement. Upon approval, TSP One, Inc. will issue the Contract. Very uuly yours, E&V CONSULTANTS AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS Project Manager CLB cc: Mark Thiede - TSP One, Inc. ILl LW ICI 0 O. o o o r- COUNCE., REglrI T FOR ACTION Originating Depa~ L~ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Secuon Public Works June 26, 2000 Planning and Developmer  Item No. By: Guy Johnson ]~. 8.4 MOTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPF~FICATIONS, AND CALLING FOR BIDS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #691) REQUESTED ACTION Staff is requesting Council pass a motion approving plans and specifications, and a call for bids for the Public Works Facility storm sewer improvements. BACKGROUND The New Hope Public Works Facility was built in 1980 and an office expansion was completed in 1997. When the office expansion occurred, there was some work done to part of the parking lot on the north side of the building. Unfortunately, there was very little slope to work with and the resulting drainage of the parking lot has been poor. This project will involve the installation of catch basins and storm sewer pipe in the parking area. Roof drains will be connected directly to this storm sewer. Sections of curb, and areas of asphalt in the parking lot will be replaced to improve the flow of water to these new catch basins. The project will also include seal coating the Public Works parking and storage lots next spring or summer, possibly in conjunction with a City seal coat project. The storm sewer pipe will be connected to a new water quality pond to be constructed at the north end of the property, directly east of the Public Works Facility. This property may be the site of the proposed Care Break facility. This new pond has been discussed for several years and will be sized for both the Public Works site and the property east of Public Works. The cost for construction of this pond will be shared between Public Works and the Care Break organization, or other future owner. FUNDING Estimated costs are: Public Works Storm Sewer Pipe, Curb, and Pavement $50,000.00 Water Quality Pond (Possible Care Break Site) $28,000.00 $78,0OO.OO The project would be funded through the Storm Water Fund and the Central Garage Replacement Fund. ATTACHMENTS The Engineer's memorandum and plans for the Storm Sewer Improvement PrOject are attached. MOTION BY .,, SECOND BY TO: I:Rfa~Put-_c~:~,27~ .. ~- _ : .......... ~ '1~ ['u"l RFAoOO1 ~ Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects MEMO Em~Oloyer and Employee Owned TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Guy Johnson Vince Vander Top June 22, 2000 Public Works Storm Water Improvements City Project No.f379 6 q / Our File No: 34-00-125 The City has committed to constructing storm water improvements for the Science Industry 3ra Addition Plat. This includes primarily the Public Works property and the vacant "Care Break" lot. Plans for the construction of storm water ponds and storm sewer are attached. The proposed improvements include: · The construction of storm water ponds on the north end of the Care Break lot. The ponds address water quality and quantity requirements according to NURP and watershed standards. · Storm sewer to the north parking lot at Public Works. This will improve drainage and storm water collection. Storm water from roof drains will also be collected. · Replacement of some curbing and pavement. This will also improve drainage. This primarily includes areas that were not improved as part of the previous Public Works expansion. The current cost estimate for the improvements is as follows: Pond construction Storm sewer, pavement, and curb Total Improvements $28,000 $50,000 $78.0O0 The Pond construction estimate reflects the costs to construct a pond for both properties. Because the proposed pond serves both properties equally, the costs for the pond construction could be shared by the properties equally. It is more efficient to construct the ponds to the full size as part of this project. If the pond was constructed to a size to serve the Public Works property only, the pond costs could be reduced to approximately $20,000. We will attempt to review the total project estimate more closely prior to the Council meeting on June 26th. cc: Mark Hanson 2335 ~/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311 Of~o / l m m~..4 __~! NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA PUBLIC WORKS STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS SITE PLAN Boone Avenue North ----- COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 6o26-00 Development & Planmn.c Department Item No. Kirk McDonald By: Director B?: 8.5 DISCUSSION REGARDING BIDS RECEIVED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CITY OF NEW HOPE ILLIMUNATED PYLON SIGN WiTH ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER TO BE LOCATED AT 8100 42N~ AVENUE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 688) REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests to discuss with the Council the bids received for the construction of the illuminated pylon sign with electronic message center. Four bids were received, as noted under the Background section of this request. Staff is currently analyzing the bids with City consultants and the sign companies to insure that the bids are responsible and will meet all of the specifications. Staff will be presenting a recommendation at the Council meeting on Monday night. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE In the past, the City had a temporary agreement with Gethsemane Cemetery to locate a monument reader board sign on their property at 42nd and Xylon Avenues. The agreement gave the Cemetery the option of not renewing the lease and in 1999 the Cemetery notified the City that they did not desire to renew the lease. This is due in part to the road/entrance improvements made to the property in 1999 and due to the fact that they clearly want to identify the property as Gethsemane Cemetery. The Cemetery has been agreeable to working with the City on a reasonable timeline on the discontinuance of the use of the sign by the City. A representative of the Cemetery recently contacted the City Manager and indicated they do not desire to ~urchase the sign from the City for their own use. BACKGROUND City staff contacted the sign contractor who constructed the sign for United Methodist Church on Highway 55 in Golden Valley to get concept plans and estimates and Lawrence Sign provided information that the Council reviewed at the April 17 City Council work session. The general direction given was to proceed with plans for a twin pole, illuminated pylon sign, with an electronic message center. Staff proceeded to work with Lawrence Sign who assisted with the drafting of general specifications so that bids could be solicited from several sign companies. (cont'd. ) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 6-26-00 At the May 22 Council meeting, the City Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized stoa, seek bids and the City Attorney prepared the appropriate contract documents. Estimated cost of the sign was approximately $50,000. Issues related to the specifications that staff reviewed with the Council included the following: · The final design of the logo format on the sign is to be approved by the City prior to the start of construction. · Electric and utility hook-up is to be coordinated with the City Engineer. · The message center to have red L.E.D. (lights) instead of amber because the red lights have better clarity in communicating messages on exterior signs. · No specific modification has been made to the sign design to accommodate outside group identification, such as the Lions. Staff had two thoughts on this: o Allow organizations to utilize the message center, itself, or o After bids have been received and the sign contractor selected, if the Council so desires, the City could work with the contractor to make adjustments in the sign design to accommodate other organizations (this may be at an additional cost). · The construction contract allows for the sign to be installed within eight weeks after a notice to proceed has been issued. · The height of the sign would be approximately 16 feet, with a width of 15 feet, and a depth of two feet. · The sign would have a 75 square foot illuminated main cabinet with the City logo and a two-foot wide L.E.D. cabinet with two lines of 8" letters. The message center would operate with a "POINT" software program, via a telephone line to the City Hall. Bids were solicited from seven major metro area sign companies. Bids were opened on June 15 and the following bids were received: Name of Bidder Bid Security Bid Amount Arrow Sign & Awning Co., inc. X $44,700 Lawrence Sign X $47,450 Signcrafters X $47,900 Attracta Sign X $50,865 The City Engineer has contacted the Iow bidder, Arrow Sign & Awning Co., Inc. and initially confirmed that they will meet the specifications. Arrow Sign has also agreed to provide a shop drawing of the reader board sign, which the City Engineer will review for compliance with the specification. Lawrence Sign has pointed out several areas in the specifications involving the electronic message center that they do not feel can be met by Arrow Sign and staff is working on verifying that Arrow will meet all the specification details. Staff is recommending that the contract for the construction of the City Electronic Reader Board Sign be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, subject to the following conditions: · Execute contract with City. · Meet all aspects of the specifications. · Provide final shop drawing for City Engineer approval. · Coordinate with City on final design of logo format and potential modification of sign design to accommodate other organizations. Staff will be making a recommendation on the bids at the Council meeting. Request for Action Page 3 6-26-00 P~_:.~,DING The City Manager and Finance Director are recommending that the reader board sign be funded from the following sources: $15,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 18,000 $48,00O Hennepin Recycling Group Water Utility Fund Sewer Utility Fund Central Garage General Fund Unallocated Budget ATTACHMENTS · Bids · City Engineer Correspondence · Specifications · Contract - f I I I 2 Line Red 8" Character LED Front Elevation ii · Side Ga&: "D° i COUNCIL II REQUF~T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Development Community Development & Planning 6-26-00 Item No. Susan Henry EhJ':Community Development Specialist MOTION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FOR 4864 FLAG AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #678) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting the Council approve a development concept for the vacant lot located at 4864 Fiag Avenue North. BACKGROUND In May, the City closed on the purchase of the vacant lot at 4864 Flag Avenue for $16,000 from willing sellers. The lot at 4864 Flag Avenue North measures 11,250 square feet and is currently zoned single family. The property is surrounded by single-family to the east, west, and south; and industrial and park property is situated to the north. The lot will require piling installation prior to development, similar to the tot at 8808 41st Avenue North. However, an identified footprint/development is necessary before the piling installation can proceed. Staff recommends the City move forward with a single-family housing development. Some members of the Council have mentioned another Habitat project is the preferred type of development for the site. As you know, the City was successful in collaborating with Habitat for a new construction project at 8808 41 st Avenue North, which is currently underway. One advantage to this scenario is the City could fix the soils with pilings, and then pass the property on to Habitat, who will develop the property. If the Council desires to proceed with another Habitat project, 'the first step staff would take would be to approach Habitat to find out if they have an interest in the location. If they do have an interest in the location, staff would proceed to work on a Development Agreement with them, similar to the 41st Avenue project, that identifies the responsibilities of each party. Another development option is a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) scattered site new construction on the site. With this scenario, the City would be more directly involved with the development (i.e. choose the house plan, builder, etc.). The City does have funding in the amount of $28,905 set aside with the CHDO for a project at this site, including a $15,000 second mortgage, $3,905 development fee and $10,000 grant. If the funding is not.utilized at the Flag Avenue site, it could be shifted to another project. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: RFA-O01 .~quest for Action Page 2 6-26-00 A third option would be the City could fix the soils with pilings, and then put out a Request for Proposals for the lot, with minimum set criteria for the development (i.e. number of bedrooms, maximum sale price, etc.). FUNDING There are Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds available to pay for acquisition and piling installation for the development scenarios mentioned above. If a CHDO project, the new construction costs will be paid for from the proceeds from the sale of the home. ATTACHMENTS · Site Map Ti ............... :. i ~ ' ATHLETIC - ,.. ',.. ' i ~ i ', FIELD ., ~., .~ .. , : . ~ . . - ........... , ......... .. A service to clients of the lawfirm of Kennedy & Graven http://www, kennedy-graven, eom NE CA SE ON 60-DA Y RULE: Court takes strict view The Demolition Landfill ease Recently the Court of Appeals handed down a decision interpreting the 60-day statute. The Court held that a conditional use permit application for a landfill in Duluth was deemed approved because the City did not properly act within the deadline. The Court's decision focused on a part of the 60-day statute: the provision that requires that written reasons for the City's den/al be given by the City in writing "at the time that it denies the request." The Court indicated that this provision will be interpreted literally. If the City decides to deny an application, the reasons for the decision must be given at the same meeting at which the City den/es the application. A two-step approval process which many cities were using will apparently not be acceptable. Under that approach, cities gave a conceptual approval or denial at one meeting, and then adopted findings supporting the decision at a later meeting. Two alternatives How can cities comply with the 60-day rule in light of the latest guidance from the Court? There are two alternatives. First, the City Council or Planning Commission may have the staff prepare alternative sets of findings, with one set supporting approval of the application and one set supporting denial. At the meeting, the body may want to take a brief recess if necessary to give the city staff or attorney an opportunity to integrate into the appropriate findings any additional grounds for the decision based on evidence presented at the meeting. Under a second approach, the City Council would adopt a resolution directing the staff or city attorney to prepare findings denying the application. The Council would avoid making any motion actually denying the application at that time. At a later meeting, the City Council would deny the application and adopt the findings. In this way, the City would not actually deny the application until the findings were prepared. More information on the Demolition Landfill case and on the 60-day rule is available on the Kennedy & Graven website (u?,vw.kennedv-m'aven.com). If you have questions, contact your city attorney, or contact Karen Cole at 612/337-9212 or kcole~kennedy-graven.com. For additional information on t/sis Alert, co.tact t/se attorney at the d/rect dial number listed. KRC-181093vl KG400-35 Page 4 --~"'~e 10, 2000 Z.B. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. Because the board had little or no evidence before it, it could not grant a variance to Wameke. State law provided variances should be granted only if strict application of the regulation, because of the unusual characteristics of the property existing at the time of the enactment of the regulation, would result in peculiar and excep- tional practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardship. At the hearing, the board had no exhibits before it. The only evidence was the unswom testimony of Warneke and the mayor. During the proceedings, the board simply said the property had unusual circumstances. The board did not make the necessary findings sufficient to comply with state law. Specifically, although the board found the application of the zoning standard would produce hardship for Warneke, the board did not make any findings as to whether the hardship was undue, whether it was shared by other properties, whether the variance was a substantial detriment to other properties and the community, or whether the grounds for granting the variance were based on demonstrable and exceptional hardship, as opposed to convenience or profit. The board was required to make these findings before it could grant a variance. Citation: City of Battle Creek v. Madison County Board of Adjustment, Nebraska Court of Appeals, No. A-99-053 (2000). see also: Barrett v. City of Bellevue, 495 N. W. 2d 646 (1993). see also: Bowman v. City of York, 482 N.W. 2d 537 (1992). Variance-- Board finds poor condition of building creates undue hardship WISCONSIN (5/02/00) -- Raymond purchased the Virgin Timber Resort Lodge, a restaurant and bar partially extended over the bed of Moose Lake. After less than a year, Raymond substantially remodeled the structure. Al- though the lodge stood on the same area as the structure that had been there since approximately 1937, there was absolutely no resemblance to the previ- ous structure. A Sawyer County zoning administrator inspected Raymond's property while investigating a construction complaint. In his inspection report, the adminis- trator noted Raymond had added a second story and replaced almost every part of the exterior walls, roof, and a portion of the foundation. The administrator sent Raymond a copy of the report along with a letter. The letter told Raymond she was responsible for a number of violations of the county zoning ordinance. The letter also stated she should apply to the Sawyer County Board of Appeals for an after-the4act variance after fixing those zon- ing violations. Raymond applied for and received the variance. The board found Raymond's restructuring of the building was necessary to remedy an unnecessary hardship Z.B. June 10, 2000 -- Page 5 because the structure was "in such a deteriorated condition there was nothing to do but to reinforce the basic structure of the building in the manner as described." State law required counties to zone the shorelands of navigable waters. The standards required the promotion of "the efficient use, conservation, develop- ment, and protection of this state's water resources." In response to this law, the Sawyer County Zoning Ordinance was adopted. The ordinance stated structures had to be no less than 75 feet away from the ordinary high-water mark of any navigable water. There was no dispute Raymond's building did not conform to the county ordinance because it extended into the lakebed. Another section of the ordinance provided "No structural alteration, addi- tion, or repair to any ... nonconforming building or structure, over the life of the building or structure, shall exceed 50 percent of its current estimated fair market value unless it is permanently changed to conform to the requirements of the ordinance." However, the ordinance had exceptions allowing property owners to make further improvements to nonconforming buildings after ob- taining a variance from the board. The state sued, seeking review of the board's decision. The state claimed the board incorrectly applied the legal standard for what constituted an unnec- essary hardship. Under state law, the board had the power "to authorize on appeal in specific cases variances from the terms of the ordinance that will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hard- ship, and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done." The court reversed, concluding the board based its decision on an incorrect interpretation of the law. Raymond appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Thc board improperly granted Raymond a variance. An unnecessary hardship existed when thc property owner demonstrated he or she would have no reasonable use of his or her property without a variance. There was no indication Raymond had no reasonable usc of her property without a variance. The basis of her application was she had already rcstruc- tured the building and needed a variance to avoid violating thc improvement ordinance. Thc board's conclusion Raymond needed to make significant pairs to the building because it was in a deteriorated state was not a proper consideration for undue hardship. Citation: State v. Sawyer County Board of Appeals, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 3, No. 99-2406 (2000). see also: State v. Kenosha County Board of Adjustment, 577N. W. 2d 8]3 (1998). see also: Waukesha County v. Seitz, 409 N. W. 2d 403 (1987). Page 6 -- June 10, 2000 Z.B. Conditional Use -- Medical center wants to expand parking lot OHIO (5/05/00) -- Kettering Medical Center applied to the City of Kettering Board of Zoning Appeals for a modification to its existing conditional use. The application requested an expansion of a parking lot for the hospital. The board had a public hearing on the application and voted to approve the modification. Demirjian, a neighbor, appealed the decision to the Kettering City Council. The council held a public hearing and voted to sustain the board's decision. Demirjian sued, and the court ruled in favor of the hospital. Demirjian appealed, arguing the council did not consider the adverse im- pacts of the parking lot. DECISION: Affirmed. The hospital was entitled to expand its conditional use. The city ordinance stated conditional uses would be approved if "the pro- posed use will not have a significant negative effect on, and will not conflict with, adjacent uses." The resolution of the council approving the expansion specifically stated the council's decision that the expansion would not have a significant negative effect on, and would not conflict with, any adjacent uses. The language used by the council was identical to that in the ordinance. The Kettering City Planner testified he studied the proposed expansion and found it would cause no conflict and would not have a negative impact on the area. The proposed lot was 400 feet from the nearest residence, and the prop- erty was not adjacent to any residence. The hospital and a local church owned all of the property adjacent to the expansion site. The plan provided for extensive screening to create a physical and visual separation between the lot and the residential areas. Also, the expansion would not cause a change in the existing traffic patterns and would not significantly alter the topographical features of the site. The only testimony in opposition to the expansion was made by a local resident who said he could already see the lights of the hospital from his home. He did not state how the expansion would affect him. Citation: Demirjian v. City of Kettering, Court of Appeals ~' Ohio, 2nd App. Dist., Montgomery County, No. ! 7882 (2000). see also: Kisil v. Sandusk); 465 N.E. 2d 848 (1984). see also: Dudukovich t: Lorain Metropolitan Housing Authorit3; 389 N.E. 2d lll3 (1979). Ordinance ~ Man claims jnnkyard ordinance is actually zoning ordinance MISSOURI (5102/00) -- The City (>f Green Ridge sued Kreisel fi~r f:filing CLII the weeds and grass surrounding hisjunkyard, for permilling the pr{~trusitn~ PROJECT NO. 669 BULLETIN NO. I pI~OJI=CT BULLETIN 5550 Winnetka Avenue In April, the City of New Hope acquired the property at 5550 Winnetka Avenue for redevelopment purposes. Prior to its closing in 1999, this property was the home of the Donut Shop. The City purchased the property in order to facilitate future commercial redevelopment at the site. As part of the site preparation for redevelopment, the building and parking lot on site will be demolished this summer. The property will then be landbanked for development. The City is currently conducting an environmental assessment of the building to determine if any special precautions are necessary during the demolition. The City will prepare specifications for the demolition and the project will be opened up for public bids in July. In the meantime, the Police and Fire Departments will have access to the property for training exercises. It is expected that the City Council will award a demolition contract at its July 24 meeting, and the building will be demolished in August. The site restoration will be completed in the fall. At this time, the City has no set plan for the specific redevelopment of this property. The property will be landbanked until the preferred type of development is identified. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the property for future commercial redevelopment. In the future, the City will be requesting proposals from developers interested in the site. Input from adjacent property owners will be solicited by the City prior to redevelopment. Contact Persor~,~ If you have questions or concerns, please contact Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at 531-5119 or Doug Sandstad, Building Official, at 531-5122. The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents and business owners in the area that may be impacted by the redevelopment of this property. The City will keep you informed about any future activities that are to take place on the site. Thank you for your cooperation. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 6/7/2000 Project #675 Bulletin #1 PROJECT BULLETIN 5422 Winnetka Avenue North Overview In June 2000, the City of New Hope purchased the property at 5422 Winnetka Avenue North from a willing seller. The City purchased the property with the intent to clear the site and land bank the property for future redevelopment. In the near future, the City will determine if the house will be demolished or moved off the site to another location. The City will keep the neighborhood informed through project bulletins of future activities at the site. Site Upkeep The site will be maintained by the City and mowed on a weekly basis during the summer months. If you see suspicious activity on the site, please contact the New Hope Police Department at 763-531-5170 and report it. City Contacts If you have questions or concerns, please call Susan Henry, Community Development Specialist, at 763-531-5137, or Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, at 763-531-5119. The City appreciates the cooperation of all businesses and residents in the area that may be impacted by the construction during this project. Thank you for your cooperation. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 6/27/00 PROJECT NO. 662 BULLETIN #3 COOPER HIGH SCHOOL GYMNASIUM ADDITION AND TENNIS COURT PROJECT Back,qround The City of New Hope and the Robbinsdale Area School District began an exciting collaborative project at Cooper High School, 8230 47th Avenue North last winter. The City is providing funding up to a $3.25 million grant, primarily for the addition of two new gyms. The School District, in tum, is providing the City with priority use of the new gyms and tennis facilities during non-school times. Proiect Description Construction began in February for the 182-foot x 111-foot gymnasium addition at the north end of the existing Cooper High School gymnasium complex. The building addition will include two gymnasiums, storage rooms, concessions area, restrooms, and corridors. The main building entrance will be located on the west side of the building adjacent to the parking lot, which will be enlarged to provide more parking. The project also includes reconstruction of the five existing tennis courts and construction of two additional tennis courts immediately west of the five existing tennis courts, reconstruction of the sand volleyball court, reconstruction of the baseball field infield to address drainage problems, replacement of the baseball field backstops, installation of new scoreboards, and construction of a trail around the perimeter of the building and leading to the ballfields to improve access for persons with disabilities. Proiect Schedule The project construction schedule, subject to weather and other construction issues, is as follows: · Gymnasium roofing and flashing continues through early August. · Gymnasium exterior brick installation through early August. · Gymnasium window and door system installation through early August. · Building interior mechanical, electrical and architectural systems installation through mid-August. · Baseball infield area drainage modifications and backstop replacement in July and early August. · Site-work grading and turf restoration in August. Construction Hours/Cleanup Construction may occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Saturday. All work, including mobilization of equipment, will take place during these time periods. The contractor will periodically cleanup the site and remove debris. 6/30/0O COOPER HIGH SCHOOL GYMNASIUM ADDITION AND TENNIS COURT PROJECT Construction Traffic Contractor reports that the construction traffic will primarily utilize 47TM Avenue going to the Cooper High School main entrance, on the west side. Major deliveries that are scheduled for the next 30 days on this project include: · Building interior equipment and finish materials in July and August, · Tennis court pavement systems in July · Brick delivery ongoing in July · Removal of excess soil material in July Contacts · Contractor: the general contractor for the project is CM Construction Company of Burnsville, Minnesota. The office phone number is (952) 895-8223. School District: Robbinsdale Area Schools has a telephone number that provides a recorded message with the construction project schedule highlights as provided by the general contractor. You may also leave a message with questions or concerns pertaining to the project on that hotline number: 763-504-8988. City: if you have questions or concerns during the Cooper High School improvement project, please direct your calls to Shari French, Director of Parks & Recreation, at 763-531-5152 or Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at 763-531-5119. Future Bulletins These project bulletins are being provided to residents on behalf of the School District and the City of New Hope. Future bulletins will be sent to update you on the construction progress. Additional Cooper Hi,qh School Renovation Robbinsdale Area Schools has commenced a multi-year renovation of Cooper High School not involving City funding. The renovation project includes new mechanical systems for indoor air quality needs; plumbing system reconstruction, flooring and ceiling finish system replacement, exterior masonry repairs, a rooftop penthouse, and building additions for new mechanical systems. Several contractors are involved in the first phase of that renovation project. Information needs or questions associated with the Cooper High School renovation project should be directed to the School District's renovation project hotline number of 763-504-8988. City of New Hope 4401 Xyion Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428