The URL can be used to link to this page

010599 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 1999 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT BUSINESS 4. PUBLIC HEARING * 4.1 Case 98-23/28 Request for a Variance to the Noise Ordinance, 8201 54th Avenue North, CNH Architects * 4.2 Case 98-24 Request for Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Restaurant at Midland Shopping Center, a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive- Through Window and Outdoor Dining, and a Variance to the Sign Code for a Pylon Sign, 2703-2769 Winnetka Avenue North, Engelsma Limited Partnership/Kraus-Anderson Realty/Taco Bell 4.3 Case 98-16 Consideration An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.035 by Reducing the Lot Area Size Requirement for Two Family Dwellings, City of New Hope, Petitioner 4.4 Case 97-26 Consideration of An Ordinance Amending Chapter Six of the New Hope City Code by Establishing Regulations for Courtesy Benches on Public Rights-of- Way, City of New Hope, Petitioner 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: Thursday, January 14 at 8 a.m. (if necessary) 5.2 Report of Codes & Standards Committee - Next Meeting: Thursday, January 21 at 7 a.m. (if necessary) 5.3 Report of Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - No Meeting Scheduled 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Miscellaneous Issues 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of December 1, 1998. 7.2 Review of City Council Minutes of November 23 and December 14 1998. 7.3 Review of EDA Minutes of December 14, 1998. 8. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS 10. 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 us~ ~e Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3, The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. A. If the Planning'Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 98-28 Request: Request for a Variance to the Noise Ordinance Location: 8201 54th Avenue North PID No.: 07-118-21-11-0002 Zoning: I-1, Limited Industrial Zoning District Petitioner: CNH Architects Report Date: December 30, 1998 Meeting Date: January 5, 1999 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to the noise ordinance, pursuant to Sections 9.42, 9.423 and 9.427 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. At the October Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a fence height variance to construct a 10-foot soundwall/noise barrier in front of the warehouse located at 8201 54th Avenue. Before that application proceeded to the City Council, the .petitioner requested that the application be tabled so that they could consider further noise mitigation measures. The petitioner has determined through noise analysis studies that even if the soundwall is constructed they may still occasionally be in violation of the City's noise ordinance, as it relates to that property. The petitioner does not desire to construct the soundwall if they will still be in violation of the noise ordinance and, therefore, they are requesting a variance to the noise ordinance in conjunction with the construction of the soundwall. They desire that both the fence height variance request and the noise ordinance variance request be considered simultaneously by the City Council. 3. Per the Planner's report, CNH Architects has submitted a request for a variance to allow daytime noise standards to be extended into the nighttime hours. The subject site is the 54~" Avenue warehouse located at 8201 54th Avenue North. The property is zoned I-1, Limited Industrial, and is adjacent to R-l, Single Family Residential. There is neither a transitional zone nor physical features to buffer the adjoining residential district from the subject site. 4. The noise variance is in conjunction with a previous variance request to construct a sound barrier fence that would exceed the maximum height allowed. The initial fence height application was tabled at the first City Council meeting in October 1998 to allow the applicant time to consider upgrading the noise control efforts. The applicant wishes to modify the previous application to include the above mentioned variance, and have both applications before the City Council as a single request. 5. This request is for a variance from Section 9.423 - Receiving Land Use Standards of the City of New Hope Code of Ordinances, regarding the maximum noise levels by receiving land use districts. The Code indicates the following for R-1 Districts: A. Daytime (7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.) noise levels shall not exceed 65 dBA at L10* and 60 dBA at L50**. B. Nighttime (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.) noise levels Shall not exceed 55 dBA at L10* and 50 dBA at L50**. '*L10 is defined as the sound level, expressed in decibels (dBA) which is exceeded ten percent of the time for a one-hour period, as specified in the current standards, S1.4, of the American National Standards Institute, which are hereby adopted by reference, and using test procedures approved by the noise control officer. **L50 is defined as the sound level similarly expressed and measured which is exceeded 50 r~*,cent of the time for a one-hour period. Presently, the owner claims that the site cannot be put to reasonable use as a 24-hour warehousing facility because of the noise created by the semi truck traffic in and out of the loading area during the nighttime hours of operation; As a result, the applicant would like to establish the daytime noise level as the 24-hour standard, therefore, noise levels shall not exceed 65 dBA at L10 and 60 dBA at L50. 6. Staff and the neighborhood are generally supportive of the request, as the building owner wants to improve the historical neighborhood trucking noise problem by installing a sound barrier wall between the industrial use and residential use. The owner is requesting that the nighttime noise standard be raised to the daytime maximum in exchange for the noise wall investment. This would allow tenants to use the property 24 hours a day without constant city noise code violations. Normal enforcement procedure would apply above the modified standard, if complaints result. 7. The existing office/warehouse building contains 369,000 square feet, and is located on a parcel that contains 13 acres. The' proposed sound wall would have a length of 505 feet on 54th Avenue on the north side of the building and 64 feet on the northwest corner of the property, for a total of 569 linear feet. 8. Surrounding land uses to the east, south, and west are all I-1 office/warehouse and R-1 single family homes and Begin Park are located north of the site across 54th Avenue. 9. The property is located in Planning District #8 of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, which includes a specific concern about the noise and land use compatibility along this block, with a second caution about the condition and appearance of this building. Another basic principle of the new Comprehensive Plan is to encourage private investment, maintenance, and upgrading of all properties. This application is intended to return the site to full use and reduce problems for nearby residents. 10. The petitioner has submitted the attached narrative "in connection with the application of The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company ("NML") for a variance from the provisions of City Ordinance 9.423 pertaining to maximum noise levels by receiving land use districts. NML is requesting that this application be considered, concurrently if possible, with its pending application (City Case 98- 23) relating to a variance in the fence height requirement to allow construction of a 10-foot sound barrier fence. Case 98-23 was tabled at the first Council meeting in October 1998. NML seeks to modify its application with respect to Case 98-23 by adding additional sound mitigating measures to the wall currently approved by city staff and the Planning Commission. It is the request of NML to have both applications considered before the City Council as a single request. That is, NML will only proceed to build a sound barrier fence (assuming approval by City Council) if the noise ordinance variance is approved." 11. The petitioner states that the subject property is zoned I-1 and is adjacent to an R-1 Zoning District with single family residences and a city park directly across 54th Avenue from the site. A transitional zoning district does not exist, nor is there a topographical feature buffering the residential district from the subject property. These facts create exceptional circumstances, not caused by NML, which cause an undue hardship and which warrants a variance. 12. The petitioner states that NML is requesting a variance from the nighttime maximum noise levels imposed on the subject property per City Ordinance 9.423 to the existing permitted daytime level. The maximum noise levels for daytime under the ordinance restricts to an L10 of 65 dBA and an L50 of 60 dBA. The ordinance restricts nighttime sound levels to an L10 of 55 dBA and L50 of 50 dBA. The proposed variance is necessary to allow the building to reasonably be used for the purpose for which it was built. Planning Case 98-28 Page 2 12/30/98 ~-"~The petitioner states that the subject ordinance (9.427(2)) requires the following information in ,,.. jconnection with a variance request: The dates during which the variance is proposed: Every day of the week commencing on the effective date of approval. Location of the noise source: North side of 54th Avenue Distribution Center. · Times of operation: Twenty-four hours a day. · Nature of noise source: Trucking operations relating to warehousing/light manufacturing activities. · Reasons why variance is sought: Outlined below. Steps taken to minimize the noise level: Outlined below. 14. The petitioner states that the owner desires to have a productive facility, used for warehousing functions by one or more tenants as per the building's original design. This would involve semi trailer trucks entering the site for loading and backing into the north facing docks. The trucks would either unhook the trailer and leave the site or wait until the trailer is loaded to depart. This process is concentrated mainly during the daytime hours, however, the warehousing companies do require nighttime operations. Without the possibility of nighttime use, the marketability of the subject property is severely limited. 15. The petitioner further states that it is the desire of NML to be a good corporate neighbor and responsible property owner within the New Hope community. 'At the same time, it is important to have a productive, leasable building. To this end, NML has hired CNH Architects and Mr. Rick Van Doeren of Midwest Acoustics to analyze options to improve the conditions for the neighbors and the owner. CNH has reviewed the options and has determined that there is not enough room on any other building side to relocate the loading docks. Consequently, CNH recommended that a sound wall be built along the property line fronting on the docks as well as around the northwest corner of the subject property in order to separate the dock operations from the neighborhood both acoustically and visually. This wall has now been designed to be a 9 dBA acoustical barrier. 16. The petitioner's correspondence states that NML has held two neighborhood meetings to discuss the current situation and proposals. The current efforts of NML will address many of the issues including blocking views to the dock area, adding significant year round landscaping, blocking the vehicle headlights and significantly reducing the noise reaching the residents. NML will also work with its tenants t© reduce unnecessary truck idling which was an important issue for several residents. 17. Noise Analysis. The petitioner states that to evalUate the actual noise levels on the site, Mr. Van Doeren completed an acoustical study of the subject property. The attached summary report lists the scientific data Mr. Van Doeren gathered as coordinated with the City. The table indicates that currently, without the barrier wal!, daytime levels are not exceeded at the residential zone property line (location #2) unless trucks are moving around the yard at a mid RPM (62 dBA) for more than 30 minutes per hour. Nighttime levels are exceeded by both mid and Iow RPM truck operation and thus limits the current moving and idling to 6 minutes total per hour. The proposed wall, by reducing the sound level by 9 dBA, will result in no sustained sound from the average truck over either of the daytime levels. In fact, the average truck exceeds the nighttime L50 level only while operating at mid RPM allowing up to 30 minutes of such operation. It is important to note that these levels discussed above are for average trucks. Also indicated in the report is the standard deviation value of approximately 3 dBA for the data. This standard deviation value is defined as the range above and below average that would include 68 percent of all trucks. This means that 34 percent of the trucks statistically would measure from the average dBA listed on the table to 3 dBA louder than the average. In addition, 16 percent of the trucks would be more than 3 dBA Planning Case 98-28 Page 3 1'2/30/98 over the average truck sound level indicated. Consequently, approximately one quarter of the tru?-~ will be above 55 dBA for mid RPM operation, the current nighttime L10 maximum noise level. Even .,th a 9 dBA wall, this would put NML and/or its tenants at risk of violating the current ordinance. As stated above, this creates an unreasonable hardship in the rental and usage of the building. 18. The petitioner states that, in Summary, the proposed wall will be a benefit to the neighborhood, the City, and the building owner by improving acoustics, landscaping, neighborhood image, building image and property values. The wall will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood~ Unfortunately, the wall is not able to reduce the noise to a level that would allow for a reasonable use of the subject property which lacks a zoning buffer to the single family homes. Consequently, we are asking that the daytime levels be extended through the night which is still 5 dBA lower than if there was a buffer zoning district. PROCESS 1. The noise ordinance is not part of the Zoning Code, however, it does contain a variance application procedure and process. In the attached November 10 correspondence from the City Attorney, the City Attorney stated that the City Council did have the authority to grant such a variance under certain 'circumstances. 2. The ordinance essentially requires any person seeking a variance to file an application with the noise 'control officer. The Building Official is the noise control officer. If the noise control officer finds that substantial controversy exists regarding the proposed variance, the application is to be referred to the City Manager, whO has 10 days to make a determination as to whether the variance shall be granted. 3. Due to the Planning Commission's involvement with this property on the fence height variance application and due to the concerns of the neighborhood about the ongoing and future use of this property, staff recommended to the petitioner that the Zoning Code variance process be utilized for this noise variance application. The petitioner has agreed to this process and the City Manager has referred this application to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. 4. The noise ordinance requires that property owners within 500 feet of the property be notified of the public hearing and the affected property owners have been notified. ANALYSIS 1. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioners and additional data and plans were presented as a result of the meeting, as follows: The following items and attachments are in response to the recommendations presented to NML and its representatives at the December 17 Design & Review meeting: Item #3 - Product data for sound blanket and revised wall details · Attached are product data sheets from IIIbruck Industrial Acoustic Products for SONEXcurtain QA series acoustical blankets. NML is proposing to use item QFA-11 which is a silicon coated fiberglass cloth faced blanket with 2" fiberglass infill. This blanket has the'same acoustical characteristics as the QFA, 10 shown on the table, indicating an NRC rating of .85. · Also attached are copies of the updated sheet SC3 showing the acoustical blankets added to detail HI/SC3 and the additional detail Cl/SC3 which shows the detailing of the Wall at locations where the wood is attached to the south face of the precast concrete posts. Item #-4 - Revised landscaping plan matching driveway layout of site plan · Attached are copies of the updated landscape plan. This was previously submitted to the City on September 9 with the last Planning Commission update before the tabling of the request. Planning Case 98-28 Page 4 12/30/98 Item #5 - Before and after continuous noise monitoring As discussed, NML agrees to pay for testing to evaluate the actual acoustical performance of the noise wall by using 24-hour continuous monitoring before and after the construction of the wall. This will be as coordinated with the noise control officer and reviewed by NML's acoustical consultant. Mr. Rick Van Doer'en. Item #6 - Proposed noise wall construction schedule' · Attached is a proposed schedule for the sound wall construction and related work, assuming variance approval. This is a preliminary schedule based on information from a proposed bidding contractor. A final schedule will be submitted to the City upon award of a contract. Item #7 - Noise wall and landscaping maintenance, interior tenant floor plan · The building owner, NML, will be responsible for exterior maintenance including the sound wall and landscaping items regardless of whether the building be single or multi-tenant. · The attached plan 1/SC4 shows the current floor plan. This will likely change as the building is fully leased or as tenants change in the future. Plans for any future tenant remodeling work will be submitted for a building permit at that time. Item #8 - Educational letter for tenant operations · NML and its leasing agent are preparing operational guidelines for all tenants that will be attached to the tenants' leases. These guidelines will encourage practices that will avoid unnecessary nighttime noise. NML agrees to provide the City with a copy of these guidelines. 2. Per the Planner's report, the property contains an existing one-story brick office/warehouse building. The loading area to the warehouse is located on the north side of the building, facing the residential area across the street. The noise is created from trucks entering the loading area, maneuvering into position, idling, and unloading. 3. A noise study was conducted by Midwest Acoustics and Electronics, Inc. to analyze the site noise production and determine the most effective means of reducing that noise. One of the factors for tabling the fence height variance application was so that the applicant could review the final report produced by Midwest Acoustics and Electronics, Inc. 4. The following measures have been proposed by the applicant to reduce the noise received by the adjacent residential district: A. Installation of a 9dBA sound barrier fence. B. Eliminate idling by utilizing the truck "plug-ins," which will keep them warm when it is cold. C. Post signs informing drivers that engines must be turned off while unloading. 5. Even with these measures being taken to reduce noise, there will be intermittent times when noise levels will exceed the maximum standards established by the City. To accommodate 24-hour operation of the warehouse, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow daytime noise standards to be extended through nighttime. 6. Per the Planner's report, a noise standard variance cannot be granted unless the following criteria have been met: "Variance Standards. In approving or denying applications for a variance, the noise control officer or the appeal authority may approve a variance application only with a finding that full compliance with the requirements of this section would constitute an unreasonable hardship on the applicant, on other persons, or the community. In determining whether to grant or deny the application, the noise control Planning Case 98-28 Page 5 12/30/98 officer or the appeal authority shall balance the hardship to the applicant against the adverse imp.~t on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected, the adverse impact on property and ~ iJons affected, and any other adverse effects of granting the variance." 7. Hardship. Because the property was developed in 1966 by United Hardware, provisions which restrict loading bays from beihg located at the front of a building had not been addressed yet. This resulted in the property being a legal non-conformity. Any new development would not be allowed this type of arrangement. The design of the 9 dBA sound barrier fence would do the following for the adjoining neighborhood: A. Enhance visual character of the neighborhood by separating the industrial use from the adjoining residential use. B. Reduce daytime noise. C. Provide noise reduction of 9 dBA, which would reduce nighttime noise levels below 65 dBA and allow for 24-hour operation of the warehouse. 8. Neighborhood Meeting. The applicant held two neighborhood meetings to present their proposal to concerned residents and to address the concerns expressed by those in attendance. At the second meeting, the applicant indicated that, if the noise standard variance was not granted, construction of the sound barrier would not be financially logical. The reasons being, the barrier would be necessary to reduce nighttime noise, but not to the point of being in strict compliance. The daytime standards will not be exceeded, therefore, no need for the sound barrier fence. The residents agreed that some mitigation would be better than no mitigation at all. No variance would result in the loss of an audio and visual barrier between the two uses and may potentially harm future property values in the neighborhood. 9. En.qineer's Comments. The City Engineer reviewed the supplemental information related to the noise variance and sound wall and provided the following comments: A. The initial plans were reviewed and comments provided in October of this year. A copy of the comments is attached as many of the comments are still pertinent from an engineering perspective. B. Detail C1/SC3 addresses the concern relating to differences in fill elevations on either side of the wall. It is important that compacted, well-draining, granular fill be placed between the planks. C. Previously we had requested a grading and drainage plan to ensure property drainage away from the wall. We understand that the applicant may not produce a grading plan for the parking area as changes may be limited in this area. However, it is important to identify wall elevations as they relate to the parking lot and 54th Avenue. Detail Cl/SC3 indicates that a maximum soil differential of 2'-0" will be encountered. We recommended that a minimum slope of 1.0 percent be maintained from the base of the wall to the back of curb on 54th Avenue. It is recommended that a grading plan be produced to ensure that these criteria can be met. The landscape plan should be coordinated with the grading plan. 10. Staff is supportive of the variance request and feels that this may be the only way to put the building back into a reasonable use. It represents a potential win for the neighbors, the property owners, the tenants and the City. It maintains the integrity of the noise code and recognizes the landowners commitment to invest and consider neighborhood input. The neighbors in attendance at the neighborhood meetings supported the proposal. RECOMMENDATION Pending public input, staff recommends approval of a variance to the noise ordinance to establish the daytime L10 and L50 noise standards as the 24-hour standard, subject to the following conditions: Planning Case 98-28 Page 6 12/30/98 !~.._,The City Council approves the accompanying variance, which allows the height of the sound barrier ,.. .'ence to exceed the established eight feet. 2. The proposed sound barrier fence shall be constructed of brown treated wood materials with barriers on the front of the noise barrier side, to protect the sound reduction material from truck damage. 3. Submit technical data from manufacturer on the acoustical blanket to confirm an exterior use in a northern climate. 4. Submit a revised "SC-I" site plan with corrected scale: 1"=30'. 5. Submit signed plan or letter signed by a MN Engineer certifying structural design of the wall, at the time of application for a (soundwall) building permit, at least seven days before construction. 6. The applicant implement a loading area noise management plan,' which includes provisions of an electrical outlet to heat trucks without idling, posting "No Idling" signs in loading area along sound barrier fence and loading bay doors, and language in the lease that enforces the aforementioned provisions. 7. The applicant shall submit a written schedule for 1999 driveway closing and all components of wall construction, grading, and landscaping to the City. 8. The applicant provide 24-hour monitoring both before and after construction of the sound barrier fence to determine actual sound barrier performance, per stated agreement in December 24, 1998, Quinn Hutson letter. 9. Compliance with City Engineer recommendations. 10. No outdoor storage is included. 11. Development agreement be executed with the City and performance bond be provided for improvements and noise monitoring tests and analysis (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). Attachments: Zoning/Topo/Address Maps Property Survey Site Plan Site Section Elevation Floor Plan Landscape Plan Landscape Schedule Soundwall Details: Wall Section/Street Side Wall Section/Dock Side Typical Wall Elevation Typical Post & Connections Post Detail at Corner Post Detail at Offset Post Detail at Middle 12/11 Petitioner Correspondence & Midwest Acoustics Noise Analysis 12/24 Petitioner Correspondence and Attachments 12/16 Planner's Report 12/29 Planner's Report 12/29 City Engineer Comments 11/10 City Attorney Correspondence & Noise Ordinance Excerpts Miscellaneous Correspondence Comprehensive Plan Excerpt Application Log Planning Case 98-28 Page 7 12/30/98 ~ 55TH AVE. N. ~' - 54 TH. AVE. tUR( OF ~ N. ~t ST. AVE. N. HRIST ACRE PARK ZEACANO AV~. 7 AL TA/ACSM I_AND Tr/'LE SUt:7'I4Z'Y FOf¢. JBL COMPANIES ..... '-- ..... 1" ~- ~ .... :~__2: ..... ~'.: ........... ::.:_:.,:~,~ _ ,.,_:::..;..:..:r:,..?...:?__.;:z..G.._:..._..._;::. / -"-" ::'~ ::"~' "'-"2'- %?, ~ ,.. .- ....... .____ ~ , , ,~ -~ . ~ ,, . · . ,'. ,'"' , ,/ . , .... '/,,,.,//.-',,,..,..,',./,./.,/.)~.t"~. .' .... ..'. '~¢/..'.' ' .','. ' ''...' '..'.C.'.'/...//..(../.'///....'/./(:~1..¢..'/'..., .... ' ..... '. ~, ", ,' ,".' ,'.'. ' ,' .'. ' '- /.."/¢', '//.'~/.: ."////'/'./?,'/'/, · "'." ×," '.' ' /. '. ' "'."' "~.'~ ~. '.. ,""/,' .' ' . .: .".' ~ - -- ~" ' "/'"" "/"/'" · ." ". ~ ~ F-/,,",'" , , ~. I' '":':' ' J /,',. ,. ............. / '.-'.', I, ' " . ' "" '''( /'' ;'~ ' " '.' /",' .... '. *'"/"~/',','..'; .,.. .. . . ............./ ..... z. . ,..//..........'' '/,'/..'/,-"/.. _ . ... ., .'.....' ..... -..-/.. ',. ..... ,. /'/ ,(.. /,'z ,.////,,///~,/, ,: · ~ ..... ...,, ., ....--,-- - _~ .... . ............. , .... ~...:._..~::.::,~._ , ,?_-.,, ,.,:,o ~ / ","~:":'Z~q,,,., (fi. o V"V~/EA/:'OL/~. $~ PAUL ,41VD .SAUL r 57' MARIE' RAILROAD COMPANY) landscape schedule %,,,~- 10 AUSTRI-AN Pi[NE 6 ' BP_, Pinus nigra ~ 18 TEC[INY ARBORVITAE 8' b Thuja occidentalis 'Techny' ~ 11 SKYLINE I-IONEYLOCUST 4" BB Gleditsia triacanthos 'Skycole' 12 SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST 2~" BB Gleditsia triacanthos 'Skycole' .,--x 22 S[LADBLOW SERVICEBERRY/clump 6' BE Amelanchier canadensis [~ 93 BROADMOOR JUNIPER 18" Cont. Juniperus sabina 'Broadmoor' plant staggered doulbe row, 3ft.on center ~ 24 BOSTON IVY 2yr Cont Parthenocissus tricuspidata plant in threes, 8ft.apart I .Areas planted with SERVICEBERRY & ARBORVITAE shall be mulched with shredded wood, 6 "thick. Individual trees shall have a shredded wood mulch placed over the root zone, 6"thick. Care should be taken to keep mulch away from the bark of newly planted trees. ",,,,~ $ T ~"~" '~ P I N E S ~. o N ~ ~ = O C U ~"~-/ ~." x~" NOM. PO~T AND TYPId.,,AL WALL SEd, TI6::~',I @ STP, EEl- SlPt~ FLANKS i/,,.=r_~,. ~ .. " · ~...L . . .. 'FYPIE'AL WALL P'LEVATI~ / 2. xl~' TRE_AT'EP tSATTEN i~Ft~i~.AL ~Ik~ ~ ~ILS ~5t~ TO ~k ~. ~ TIE 0 I'~" '~ (4 - ~. e , ~?. ~/~" ~ ~ r-~' 7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITES04 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (612)431-4433 December 11, 1998 Mr. Doug Sandstad Building Official / Noise Control Officer City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: 54th Avenue Warehouse (formerly United Hardware) Noise Ordinance Variance Request Set forth below is the narrative submitted to you in connection with the application of The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company ("NML") for a variance from the provisions of City Ordinance 9.423 pertaining to maximum noise levels by receiving Land Use Districts. NML is requesting that this application be considered, concurrently if possible, with its pending application (City Case No. 98-23) relating to a variance in the fence height requirement to allow construction ora ten foot sound barrier fence. Case 98-23 was tabled at the first Council meeting in October, 1998. NML seeks to modify its application with respect to case 98-23 by adding additional sound mitigating measures to the wall currently approved by city staff and the Planning Commission. It is the request of NML to have both applications considered before the City Council as a single request. That is, NML will only proceed to build a sound barrier fence (assuming approval by City Council) if the noise ordinance variance is approved. The Subject Property is a 350,000 square foot warehouse built in 1966 by United Hardware. The Subject Property currently is owned by NMI,. The Subject Property is zoned I-1 arid is adjacent to an R- 1 zoning district with single family residences and a city park directly across 54t~ Avenue from the site. A transitional zoning district does not exist, nor is there a topographical feature buffering the residential district from the Subject Property. These facts create exceptional circumstances, not caused by NML, which cause an undue hardship and which warrants a variance. NML is requesting a variance Eom the nighttime Maximum Noise Levels imposed on the Subject Property per City Ordinance 9.423 to the existing permitted daytime level. The maximum noise levels for daytime under the ordinance restricts to an L10 of 65 dBA and an LS0 of 60 dBA. The ordinance restricts nighttime sound levels to an L10 of 55 dBA and LS0 orS0 dBA. The proposed variance is necessary to allow the building to reasonably be used for the purpose for which it was built. The subject ordinance (9.427(2)) requires the following information in connection with a variance request: The dates during Which the variance is prop6sed: Every day of the week commencing on the effective date of approval. · Location of the noise source: North side of 54a Avenue Distribution Center. · Times of operation: Twenty-Four hours a day. Nature of noise source: Trucking operations relating to warehousing / light manufacturing activities. · Reasons why variance is sought: Outlined below. · Steps taken to minimize the noise level: Outlined below. The owner desires to have a productive facility, used for warehousing functions by one or more tenants as per the building's original design. This would involve semitrailer trucks entering the site for loading and backing imo the north facing docks. The trucks would either unhook the trailer and leave the site or wait until the trailer is loaded to depart. This process is concentrated mainly during the daytime hours; however, the warehousing companies do require nighttime operations. Without the possibility of nighttime use, the marketability of the Subject Property is severely limited. It is the desire of NML to be a good corporate neighbor and responsible property owner within the New Hope community. At the same time, it is important to have a productive, leasable building. To this end, NML has hired CNH Architects and Mr. Rick Van Doeren of Midwest Acoustics to analyze options to improve the conditions for the neighbors and the owner. CNI-I has reviewed the options and has determined that there is not enough room on any other building side to relocate the loading docks. Consequently, CNH recommended that a sound wall be built along the property line froming on the docks as well as around the northwest comer of the Subject Property in order to separate the dock operations from the neighborhood both acoustically and visually. This wall has now been designed to be a 9 dBA acoustical barrier and is currently before the City Council for approval. NML has held two neishborhood meetings to discuss the current situation and proposals. Several residents attended as well as yourself. The current efforts of NML will address many of the issues including blocking views to the dock area, adding significant year round landscaping blocking the vehicle headlights and significenfly reducing the noise reaching the residents. NML will also work with its tenants to reduce unneex'ssao' mack idlin8 which was an important issue for several residents. To evaluate the actual noise levels on the site, Mr. Van Doeren completed an acoustical study of the Subject Property. The attached Sunmm~ Report lists the scientifi, c data Mr. Van Doeren gathered as coordinated with your office. The table indicates that currently, without the barrier wail, daytime levels are not exceeded at the residential zone property line (location//2) unless trucks are moving around the yard at a mid RPM (62 dBA) for more than 30 minutes per hour. Nighttime levels are exceeded by both mid and low RPM mack operation and thus limits the current moving and idling to6 minutes total ~er hour. The proposed wail, by reducing the sound level by 9 dBA, will result in no sustained sou~ad from the average truck over either of the daytime levels. In fact, the average truck exceeds the nighttime LS0 level only while operating at mid RPM allowing up to 30 minutes of such operation. It is important to note that these levels discussed above are for average trucks. Also indicated in the report is the standard deviation value of approximately 3 dBA t'or the data. This standard deviation value is defined as the range above and below average that would include 68% of all trucks. This means that 34% of the trucks statistically would measure from the average dBA listed on the table to 3 dBA loader than the average. In addition, 16% of the trucks would be more'than 3 dBA over the average truck sound level indicated. Consequently, approximately one quarter of the trucks will be above 55 dBA for mid R.PM operation, the current nighttime L10 Maximum Noise Level. Even with a 9 dBA wall, this would put NML and / or its tenants at risk of violating the.current ordinance. As stated above, this creates an unreasonable hardship in the rental and usage of this building. In summary, the proposed wall will be a benefit to the neighborhood, the city, and the building owner by improving acoustics, landscaping, neighborhood image, building image and property values. The wall will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Unfortunately, the wall is not able to reduce the noise to a level that would allow for a reasonable use of the Subject Property which lacks a zoning buffer to the single family homes. Consequently, we are asking tha~ the daytime levels be extended through the night which is still 5 dBA lower than if there was a buffer zoning district. Finally, please note that New Hope City Attorney, Steven Sondrall, is aware of the possibility of this Application. In a letter dated November 10, 1998, to Community Development Director Kirk McDonald, Mr. Sondrall addressed wh~her the City had the authority to grant a variance. Mr. Sondrall responded that the City Council had the authority to grant such a variance under certain circumstances. Mr. Sondrall did not address the process for variance approval as outlined in section 9.427 of the City Ordinance. The process requires the Noise Control Oi~cer to take certain action, and if necessary refer the matter to the City Manager. The City manager has l0 days to make a determination. Thereat~er an aggrieved party may appeal the City manager's decision to the City Council. It is our understanding that this application will be processed in accordance with current ordinance provisions, yet as requested above, NML is seeking concurrent review of both applications by the Council. Please advise us on how the City intends to proceed. Resp~ed on behalf of The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, CNH Architec~ Inc. Reg. No.: 21234 '. Midwest Acoustics and Electronics, [nc 7300 France Avenue South, Suite 201 Edina, MN 55435 (612) 897-1814, (800) 544--5311 To: CNH Architects, Inc. December 11, 1998 7300 West 147"` Street, Suite 504 Apple Valley, MN 55124 Attention: Mr. Quirm Hntson From: Rick Van Doeren Re: Summary of observed data and analysis regarding noise from truck distribution operations at Northwestern Mutual Life (NML) Warehouse on 54"` Ave. No. in New Hope, MN. Project Status Noise level measurements have been taken at three neighborhood noise sites close to the NML warehouse. Site 1 is at the northeast comer of 54"' Ave. and Yukon and Site 2 is at the northeast comer of 54" Ave. and Xylon -- both are nominally 185 feet north of the north wall of the NML warehouse. Sites 1 and 2 are representative of points on the nearest residential property line to the north (as referred to in the New Hope noise ordinance). The warehouse docks are located on the north wall. Site 3 is located on the east side of Xylon, directly oppotite the south side of the driveway of the home at 5411 Xylon (the third home north of 54"` Ave). Noise level measurements consisting of ten minute samples were taken on 11/6/98 (1:25 pm to 2:20 pm), on 11/8/98 (11:20 pinto 12:30 amon 11/9/98), on 11/12/98 (12:35 pinto 2:01 pm) and 11/12/98 (10:00 pinto 11:51 pm). On 11/12/98, between 10 pm and 11 pm, ~*_~_ were taken at Site 2 for normal arr/val and departure activity, plus "test" truck activity, moving parallel to 546 Ave. in the yard and backing in to a dock. After 11 pm on 11/12/98, regular ten minute samples were taken at the noise sites. Data were recorded on a DAT recorder and then played back to a statisticalanalyzer and a stripchan recorder. On-site notes and calibrations showed excellent a/geement between on-site observations and the recorded dat~ The recorded data have been statistically analyzed and specific truck 'and other noise events have been utilized for the purpose of predicting potential exceedance of the New Hope noise ordinance. Noise barrier wall performance has been e~dmatec[ The observed dam and the analFt~ are ~ below. Observed Ambient Noise LIO, LJO, and LgO Statistics The New Hope noise ordinance sets llmit~ to noi~ in term$ of the L10 and L50 (the Awt noise levels exceeded for ten percent and fifty percent of a one hour measurement period, respectively). The term Awt is defined in the Minnesota Noise Standards and is a common way to weight the frequency spectnun of noise for the purposes of setting statutory limits for noise. The Midwest Acoustics observ~ons were for ten minute samples. The L90 is a generally accepted indicator of the overall baseline noise at the particular time of the measurement. Table 1 gives the ob~rv~ L10, L50, and L90 statistics, together with the New Hope noise limits. In Table 1, the d~*_~ that indicates an exceedance of the New Hope Limits (as defined in the noise ordinance) are shown in an emphasized font. The New Hope limits were not exceeded at Site 3. At Site 1 (fifteen feet from the north curb of 54'~ Ave.) and Site · 2 (eighteen feet from the north curb of 54e' Ave.), the daytime LI0 limits were exceeded for four of the samples, largely due to passby traffic on 54"` Ave., although yard trucks did contribute in two of the cases. The two nighttime L I0 exceedances at Sites 1 and 2 were due to a tram in one sample, and to yard trucks and passbys in the second sample. The two nighttime LS0 exceedances at Sites I and 2 were clue to idling yard trucks or tractors. Page 2, Memorandum to CNH Architects, inc. from M/dwest Acoustics, December 11, 1998 Table 1. Observed LIO, L$O, and LgO ambient noise statistics at the noise measurement sites. Day of Noise Site Date Weet< End Time LIO L..~O LgO 1 11/6/98 Friday 2:1 7 PM day . 65.8 53.0 50.3 1 11/1~ Thursday 1:38 PM day 67.3 53.8 49.3 2 11/6/96 Friday 1:55 PM day 62.8 58.3 56.5 2 11/6/98 Friday 2:C5 PM day 65.5 57,5 55.8 2 11/1~ Thursday 1 2:49 PM day 65.3 47.3 43.8 3 11/6~8 Fdday 1:40 PM day 56.5 52.8 51.0 3 11/12/S6 Thursday 1:08 PM day 54.5 48.0 44.3 New HOl~ Limits Daytime (7 am. 10 pm) 65.0 60.0 none 1 11/9/96 Monday 12:22 AM night 45.0 44.3 43.3 1 11/I 2/96 Thursday 11:27 PM night 58.3 ~3.$ 50.8 2 11/9,98 Monday 1 2:08 AM night 65.3 42.3 39.5 2 11/1 2/96 Thursday 11:43 PM night 53.8 $2.B 52.0 3 11/8/98 Sunday 11:43 PM night 46.0 38.5 38.8 3 11/1 2/96 Thursday 11:10 PM night E~).5 44.3 42.0 New Hope Limits Nighttime (10 pm to 7 am) 65.0 50.0 none Observed Noise Source Data In addition to the ambient noise characteristics of the area, it was a goal t° determine the characteristics of the warehouse noise sources in order to make reasonable engineering estimates of what to expect relative to the noise limits defined in the New Hope noise ordinance. These noise source characteristics were determined by selecting specific truck noise events for which reasonable distance information existed that would allow normalization to a fifty-foot distance. Based on these data, predictions could then be made of potential noise levels at other distances. Impulsive noise events such as loading impacts and air brake releases were also of interest. Also, noise levels of other sources in the area [trains (locomotive, cars, and horn), car passbys on 54th Ave., and plane flyovers] are given for the sake of comparison and completeness. Table :2 g~ves the aver~ed noise source data for truck passbys on 54"' Ave. and for yard truck activity (mid-rpm and low-rpm noise levels are identified to distin~g~ between the two major noise levels observed). Mid-rpm yard truck activity seems to be predominantly associated with movement of a truck from an entry g~Ue to the place where it begins to back mm a dock. The low-rpm noise level seems to be associated with slow backin~ into a dock and with pauses in movement accompanied by idlin~ One of the parameters of interest was the approximate time pettem followed by trucks entering and leaving the yard. The amounl~ of data on these patterns is limited. [t is assumed that idlin~ trucks are not present, in accord with the New Hope noise ordinance. Truck departures seem to require little time, something on the order of 15 seconds or less to move from the dock to an exit gate. Truck entry and docking requires more time and varies quite a bit from truck to truck. What seems to be a reasonable basis for estimati~ the potential for exceeding the New Hope noise limits is to select the following time parameters for a truck round trip - into and out of the yard: one minute at the mid-rpm noise level, and two minutes at the low-rpm noise level Page 3, Memorandum to CNI-[ Architects, Inc. from Midwest Acoustics, December 11, 1998 Table 2, below, g~ves the noise levels (SPL is the sound pressure level, or noise level) of the various sources. Table 2. Summary of observed noise data, NML warehouse, 54~' Ave. No., New Hope, MN. Estimated Awt SPL at Site 2 Awt approx. 135 ft north of trucks SPL NO 9 dBA Trucks on 54th ave, approx. 30 rnph Ban'ier Barrier Average of trucks on 54th Ave. No., at 50 feet 75.8 Standard deviation of 54th Ave. No. moving truck data 4.6 Trucks in yard, mid. rpm, good sense of distance Average of mid-rpm trucks moving in yard, at 50 feet 70.4 62 53 Standard deviation of truck yard area mid-rpm truck data 3,2 Trucks in yard, iow rpm, good sense of distance Average of Iow rpm trucks in yard. at 50 feet 84.2 56 47 Standard deviation of truck yard area Iow rpm truck data 1 Air brake and impact loading DAT DAT Mess Noise SPt. dBA COMMENTS tape record Site Source at $0' NML1 4 2 air brake 79,1 eastern yard area NML1 5 2 impact-loading 84,1 ?.'??.distance NML1 5 2 air brake 82.6 ?,'7? Distance NML3 8 3 truck doily'? 81.1 ?? Scraping dolly NML3 9 2 impact-loading 78.1 ??? Distance NML4 11 1 air brake 82.4 used closest yard NML4 10 3 impact-loading 79,9 used closest docks Average of impact4oading and air brake noise at 50 feet 81.0 72 60 Standard deviat/on of impact4oading & air brake noise. 50 tt 2.1 Note: a 9 dBA harder for tn~cks will gna at least a 12 dBA reduct/on for air brake and loading impact noise. Aufomobilel mt 54th Ave. No., 30 mph PaSted speed Cars on 54th Ave. Eastbound, all records, normal ddving, 50It 69.5 dBA Time over 55 dBA at Loc 2, approx. 6-8 seconds for cars. either direction on 54th ave. no. Otmerved noise levels, sources not related to NML warehmme or 54th Ave. No. Train IocomcRive at Site 2 greater than 70 dBA Train horn at Site 2 nominally 68 dBA Train cars at Site 2 nominally 54 dBA Train cars at Site I nominally 56 dBA Plane flyover at Site 3 nominally 68 dBA Simplified Model Assumptions and Uncertainties The puqx~ of creating a noise model is to provide a basis for judgement on the issues of a variance by all parties involved. The model itself would provide an estimate of the potential for exceedance or non-exceedance of the New Hope noi~ ordinanm L10 (the Awt noise level exceeded for ti minut~ out of one hour) and the L$0 (the Awt noise level exceeded for 30 minutes out of one hour). In addition, the model would provide a way to evaluate the benefits of a noise bm'der wall nominally 100 feet north of the north wall of the NMI, warehouse. In order to provide these estimates, the model must be based both on the physics of sound and on simplifying assumptions. A~sumptions The first assumption is that all trucks are "average" trucks as determined by the actual data measured on-s;te in New Hope. As indicated in table 2, the average noise level is accompanied by a standard deviation. The standard · deviation is a measure of the extent to which actual trucks might be expected to deviate from the average. implications of the standard deviation are discussed under "uncertainties". Page 4, Memorandum to CNH Architects, Inc. from Midwest Acoustics, December 11, 1998 The second assumption is that the trucks of concern all enter and operate in a zone of the yard approximately 50 feet north of the warehouse, and within a distance range of the nearest property line point such that it is reasonable to use the estimated truck noise level for a distance of 135 feet. The third assumption is that the time Pattern of the truck noise is the following: for a truck round trip - into and out of the yard: one minute at the mid-rpm noise level, and two minutes at the low-rpm noise level The fourth assumption is that, for the case of a barrier present, the sound is being propagated over a section of the barrier at least fifty feet from a gap. The frith assumption is based on calculated barrier performance for the nearest property line to the north and is that a barrier providing a 9 dBA insertion loss can be realized for trucks within the warehouse yard. This barrier will be solid (no holes or cracks) with a surface density of at least 4 pounds per square foot. It will have a top elevation of at least 928 feet and will have to be at least 60 percent covered on the warehouse side of the wall by an acoustical absorbing material having a high degree of acoustical absorption. It is assumed that the topographical contours on the City of New Hope topographical maps are accurate. For locations that have direct line-of-sight to a noise source, the hamer will provide little or no reduction of the noise from that source. Uncertainties The truck noise data used here represent a limited number of samples of data. The data have been reduced using engineering estimates based on distance zones in which trucks were operating at the time of specific noise observations. An error analysis has not been performed. We believe the data are reasonable and consistent with the actual observed levels, and it must be remembered that this was a limited engineering study, and NOT a detailed scientific research project. The standard deviation of the noise level data for a distance of fifty feet provides an indication of the approximate percentage of trucks that will exceed the observed average noise levels. If the distribution of truck noise levels were a "normal statistical distribution", then approximately 16 percent would exceed the average plus one standard deviation. For a standard deviation of 3 dB, this means that roughly 16 percent will be noisier than 3 dB above the average. Also, for a 3 dBA standard deviation, based on the normal statistical distribution, approximately 25 percent will be at least 2 dBA louder than the averase. In addition to the expected variations from the averaie based on statistics, the truck spectra were not identical. Some trucks will have a monger low frequency contribution to the overall noise level than other trucks. This means that a barrier that will provide a 9 dBA. reduction for a "typical" truck spectrum will not provide that mUCh reduction for a track with a stron$ Iow frequency component. The difference could be on the order of 2 dBA- a detailed study has not been made ~f this aspect. Because there need to be entries and exits, use of a barrier wall means that there must be ~ in the barrier wall. Trucks within the warehouse yard that have line-of-sight to a property line point through these gaps will have essentially no reduction of noise level. When two or more trucks are operali~ at the same time, the total noise level will be increased. If two average trucks are present, the noise level will be 3 dBA greater than for one truck, ff three are present, the noise level will be 5 dBA greater than for one track, ff four are present, the noise level will be six dBA greater than for one truck. The estimates of bamer performance utili~,.e cominorlly accepted approaches, and the effects of reflections between the warehouse building and the barrier have been estimated using results published in the noise control literature. Our estimates are intended to be reali~call7 conservative, and they remain esamates. Bamer performance will · depend on the location and height of the noise source and the presence of non-absorbing flat surfaces such as truck trailers that will reflect sound more strongly than an absorbing barrier. Page 5, Memorandum to CNH Architects, [nc. from Midwest Acoustics, December l l, t99g In summary, some trucks V~ll exceed the average, some will have a frequency spectrum that will reduce the effectiveness of a barrier wall for that truck, and, in some cases, there will be direct line-of-sight from a truck to a property line point. Analysis and Conclusions The following apply to the nearest property line to the north, nominally at the location of Site 2, or other sites at a similar distance north of the warehouse. The analysis and conclusions are based on the observed data, together with the assumptions listed in the "simplified model" discussion. To exceed the LI0 limit, the noise level must be over the limit for a total of 6 minutes or more in a one hour period. To exceed the LS0 limit, the noise level must be over the limit for a total of 30 minutes or more in a one hour period. The uncertainties discussed previously should be kept in mind regarding these conclusions for "average" trucks and a "9 dBA" barrier wall. No Barrier At Site 2, for the "average" truck, mid-rpm SPL = 62 dBA (one minute per truck round trip) and low-rpm SPL = 56 dBA (two minutes per truck round trip). The daytime L 10 standard of 65 dBA will not be exceeded for single trucks. The daytime LS0 standard of 60 dBA will be exceeded for nominally twenty to thirty average single trucks in a one hour period, depending on overlap. The nighttime L10 standard of 55 dBA. will be exceeded by two average single tracks per hour. The nighttime L$0 standard of 50 dBA will be exceeded by ten average single trucks per hour. These conclusions will not be changed by having more than one truck operating simultaneously. The daytime L i 0 standard of 65 dBA will be exceeded by six events per hour of two average trucks operating simultaneously. The daytime LS0 standard of 60 dBA will be exceeded for nominally twenty to thirty events per hour of two average trucks operating simultaneously, depending on event overlap. With a,9 dBA Barrier At Site 2, for the "average" truck plus a "9 dBA" barrier wall, mid-rpm SPL = 53 dBA (one minute per truck round trip) and low-t'pm SPL = 47 dBA (two minutes per truck round trip). The daytime L10 and L$0 standard~ will not be exceeded by any number of single average trucks, and probably would not be exceeded by any reasonably likely combination of trucks operating simultaneously. The nighttime LI0 standard of 55 dBA will not be exceeded by average singte trucks. The nighttime LS0 standard of 50 dBA will be exceeded by nominally twenty to thirty average single trucks per hour, depending on overlap. The nighttime LI0 standard of 55 dBA would be exceeded by nominally six events per hour of two average trucks operating simultaneou,~ly. The nighttime LS0 standard of 50 dBA would be exceeded by nominally ten events per Impulsive noise due to loading im,nacts and to ail brake releases would be reduced on the order 12 dBA or more by the "9 dB A" (for trucks) barrier wall. Events taldng place in an entry/exit gap in the barrier would not be reduced by the effect of the ban/er. Such events would include scraping of the front trailer supports ("dolly scraping") or air brake releases. l>age 6, Memorandum to CNH Architects, Inc. from Midwest Acoustics, December 11, 1998 Final Comments Based on average truc!~ and achievement of a 9 dBA or better barrier wall, conformity with the noise ordinance by truck activity in the NWL warehouse yard would be expected. However, it must be borne in mind that some trucks will be louder than the average. Also, the barrier performance will be less than 9 dBA for some trucks. So, even though the average truck data shows probable conformance with the New Hope noise ordinance, ~trict conformaace under all possible scenarios would be questionable. It may be to the advantage of all parties concerned to consider the benefits of some degree of variance from the New Hope noise ordinance. A~ter you and all other concerned panics' have reviewed this memorandum, please advise us regarding report formats, additional details, etc. that would be useful and helpful in the process of evaluating ways to best get a win- win resolution of this situation. As you know, creation of a detailed report that eommumeates clearly requires time, so the more advance notice of the need for such a report, the better we will be able to aSsist you and your clients. Thank you for your business. Please call with any questions. RichardE. Van Doeren I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, President SPECIFICATION. OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY i~'IE UNDER HY ID;?,EOT SUPERVISION col:ny: Mr. JeffreyLarson, IBL Companies AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED 7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (612) 431-44.33 December 24, 1998 Mr. Doug Sandstad Building Official / NoiSe Control Officer City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, M2q 55428 Re: 54th Avenue Warehouse (formerly United Hardware) Noise Ordinance VarianCe Request- Design & Review Meeting Response The following items and attachments are in response to the recommendations presented to The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company CNML) and its representatives at the December 17, 1998, Design and Review Meeting at the City of New Hope. Item #3 - Product data for sound blanket and revised wall details · Attached are product data sheets fi.om lllbruck Industrial Acoustic Products for SONEXcurtain QA series acoustical blankets. NML is proposing to use item QFA-11 which is a silicon coated fiberglass cloth faced blanket with 2" fiberglass i~fill. This blanket has the same acoustical characteristics as the QFA-10 shown on the table, indicating a NRC rating of.85. · Also attached are 10 copies of the updated sheet SC3 showing the acoustical blankets added to detail H1/SC3 and the additional detail C1/SC3 which shows the detailing of the wall at locations where the wood is attached to the south face of the precast concrete posts. Item g4 - Revised landscaping plan matching driveway layout of site plan · Attached are 10 copies of the updated landscape plan. This was previously submitted to the City of New Hope on September 9, 1998, with the last Planning Commission update before the tabling of the request. Item #5 - Before and after continuous noise monitoring · As discussed, NML agrees to pay for testing to evaluate the actual acoustical performance of the noise wall by using 24 hour continuous monitoring before and after the construction of the wall. This will be as coordinated 'with the New Hope Noise Control Officer and reviewed by NML's acoustical consultant, Mr. Rick Van Doeren. H:L~7~6~02~DESlON & KEVIEW R~$IWZ)NSF. DCW3 m #6 - Proposed noise wall construction schedule · Attached is a proposed schedule for the sound wall construction and related work, assuming variance approval. This is a preliminary schedule based on information from a proposed bidding contractor. A final si:hedule will be submitted to the City of New Hope upon award of a contract. Item #7 - Noise wall and landscaping maintenance, interior tenant floor plan · The building owner, NML, will be responsible for exterior maintenance including the sound wall and landscaping items regardless of whether the building be single or multi-tenant. · The attached plan 1/SC4 shows the current floor plan. This will likely change as the building is' fully leased or as tenants change in the future. Plans for any future tenant remodeling work will be submitted for a building permit at that time. Item #8 - Educational letter f°r tenant operations NML and its leasing agent are preparing operational guidelines for all tenants that will be attached to the tenants' leases. These guidelines Will encourage practices that will avoid unnecessary nighttime noise. NML agrees to provide the New Hope staffwith a copy of these guidelines. If you need additional information or have any questions regarding this submittal, please feel free to contact me. Respectfully su mitted on behalf of The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, CNH Architects, Inc. Reg. No.: 21234 \~TE~6VY2~DE$1ON &, R.EXr[E~ RESPONSE.DOC 12/23/1BSB lS:22 612-4B7-3040 PAGE Bi illbruN[ SONEXcurtain QATM SPecifications Manufach~red by United Proce~, Inc. IONIxeufl~IB QATM (QUILTED ABSORBERI panels are TYPICAL APPUCATIONS ~ne newesl addition to l~e SONEX product Fine. They combine · Fabricated wilh edges finished and grommets at top the best fealures of Ihe FIBER-FREE wilhec® material with the as sound absorption wall panels advantages of acoustical curtain systems. Impressive acoustical· sound absorption overhead baffles performances, rugged construction and the availability Of · suitable for a variety of environments custom cobrs, fabric facings and sizes make SONEXcurtain QN" · available in 48" wide rolls, far large applications ~e perfect solution far your fiber free acoustical applications. SONIXcuflaln QATM Pmdud, Speclfleatlea~ Core Material: Single c~ c~ble layer quil~ open ceil willlec'~ Facing Material: Standard: Vinyl - Coated - Fabric JGray, VVhile, Tan, Black) "' Oplional: Hi-temp silicone.coated-fabric Semd aide,ellen eeeffleleal~ o~' decorative clolh fabric Type B Mounting ASTM C423-90 In diomond-quiltor straight..sti~h paltem lSHz 2SOHz .5COHzIKHz 2KHz 4KHz ~ Density: 07 lb./cubic ~t. QA-1 .09 .28 .74 58 38 2.5 .50 Flammibility: Under testing QA-2 .14 55 .96 73 .36 2.5 .6.5 lq- ilibq k Industrial Acoustic Products Nee, Smd Amu~ 3800 Washir,gmn Ave 1'4 · Minneapolis, MN .55412 · Telebx (612) 521-563(? · Telephone 24~0 ~ Cir. e' : .4ez-4.444, e., 4,z-eo40 Bulletin SS-lQ6 ~ FEATURES: ' Superior sound absorption ~.W'idevariety of facings, colon, NRC ratings to 1.05 stitch paflerns · Maximum durability, long life span · Used in Architectural, Commercial, ~ · Class 1 flammability rated OEM & Industrial applications 612-497-4464, FAX 612-497-3040 12/23/1998 15:22 512-457-3048 PAGE 03 Producl Informill'ion: Mm:lei Quilted fiberglass Absm'bers Nominal Quilted ,'~'"~ No. Product Description Thickness Roll Width Roll Le (~FA-1 Single layer fiberglass, one side faced with VCFC, opposite side faCed with NFS 1 inch 48 inches 50 feel' QFA-2 Single Ia/er fiberglass, one side faced with SCFCo ol~posife side faced with NPS I inch 48 inches 50 feet QFA-3 Single layer fiberg~s, both sides faCed with NPS I inch 48 inChes 50 feet QFA-4 Single tayer fib·glass, both sides faced with VCFC t inch 48 inches SO feet lid , QF~-S Single Ia/er fiberglass, both sides faced with SCFC T inch 48 inches 50 fear QFA-6 Single layer fl'berglass, one side faced with VCFC, opp~te side faced with SCFC . t inch 48 inches 50 feet OFA.7 Double layer fiberglass, one side faCed wi~ VCFC, opposite side faced with NPS 2 inches 48 inches 25 feet QFA-8 Double layer fiberglass, one side faced with SCFC, opposite side faced with NPS 2 inches 48 inches 25 feet QFA-9 Double layer fiberglass, both sides faced with NFS 2 inches 48 inches 25 tee! ~' QFA-IO Double layer fiberglass, both sides faCed with VCFC 2 inches 48 inches 25 feet ' QFA-I I Oauble [aye fiberglass, both sides faced with SCFC 2 inches 48 inches 25 feet QFA-12 Double layer fib·glass, one side faced with VCFC, , opposite side faced with SCFC 2 inches 48 inches 25 feet QFA-14 Qtmdruple layer fibeglass, one side faced with VCFC, apposite side Led with NPS 4 inches 48 inches 25 feel' , QFA-20 Quadruple layer fiberglass, both sides faced with VCFC 4 inches 48 inches 2 QFA-22 Quadruple layer fiberglass, beth sides faced with SCFC 4 inches 48 inches 25 feet ~' Vinld Co·ted Fiberg~s Cloth (VCFC)- Standard Iomine~ facings, special size panels end die cut components. · Booking Strength (warp and fill): 1 SO lb./in, and 100 Ib./qn. 4, Tear Strength (warp and fill): 8lb. and 7lb. respectively · Continuous Service Temperature Limils: -20°F to 180°F Oisf~buted ay · Moisture Permeability: O.S Perms · Cdor:. Gray, White, Ton, Block, (spec~l colors ~llable upon request) ~ Aooumlm · Othe:. Passes UL-t 81 Heat Aging Test 24~0 ~ Cir. NE ,$ilkono Coated Fiberglass Cloth (SCFC)- OptiOnal High Temperature e12..497-44e4, F, AJ( Breaking S~ength (wa~ and fill): 60 Ib./k and SS.lb./in. TM Sl~ength (warp and fill): SIb. and SIb. respectively · Continuous Service Temperature Limits:-90% ro 550°F · Moisture Permeabilily: 0.5 Peres · Color. Gray Nonwa~en porous Saim Fabric (NFS)- Backing : Comgasifion: 100% nonwave~ n~oa Engineering Sdufions ~ Noise Control Fabric Weight:. 0.7 oz. pa square yard United Process, Inc. · Tear Strength (warp and fill): 6 lb. and 5 lb. resgecfi'~l~ 279 S~ver Street · Tamp·rotate Limit:. Continuous exposure to 40001: Agawam, Fiberglass Belting Tel: (413) 789-1770 FAX: (413) 789-2248 · .moil: soles~:~oundseol.com e, 2 fb,/w.J...de~, 4-~ microns. · Therrrml R Rating: 1' th. R :4, 2 th R:8 ht~://www.soundsed.com Ouilied Fibe[olass Absorbers [OFR] Sound SeaF ~ Fi~ ~ are tim ~fe, high ~ff~e ac~al ~ ~kpA ~ are u~ ~ r~e ~verbemnt [~) akflome ina/eq~p~ are be s~n~, ~ d~n~, m~t Sound Rbsm'ptiofl Nail Panels and Overhead Ceilino Boffles e Reduce reve[berofion e Add sound absorption to envifonmen! 0 Lowe~ noise levels e Tone room, turn' hard reflec?ive surfaces into soft, sound absorptive surfaces Roll Goods · In 25'm 50' lencj~h ' · Stondard width 48', custom widths ovoilable · A,,~oileble with finished edges Ix~,Jnd and'~ sewn, o[ wilh unbound edges Sound Rbsorpriofl Liner · Treat buildings, rooms o~ exisfing enclosure e Reduces sound levels in interior of sltuclure RCOUSHCiII Data: · Glue.on backings ar mechanical [asteners oveiloble Sound Absoq:fio. Dom ~ No. Nominal eFk..! linch Flammiibilil'q RilHnos: ~F~.2 linch ~,'~clel Numbe~ Spread Densily Ckea 2 inches Vinykoemd4ibeq~loss~felh faced: I I ~ 2 i~xhes QFA-1,QFA. JO, QFA4,QFA.14 QFA-TQFA.20 17'66122"25! ]~AJ~L-~ 5ilicons~ootsd~ibe~s~-dofh fixad: ~ Absorption CoeffkienIs- Sabin/Unif Qf:A..10 ~af'ftes 2' x 4', 2' Ih ,:tommobili~ Testing per ASI',~ E-84: 'Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials" ~cous~:el Tes~n9 Pet ~STM C¢23-77, C423..81, landscape schedule Pinu~ nlgra ?huja occidentalis '?~hny' .... / ........... nolso barrier % _~~l ~~~~~~ygr park 54TH AVENUE WAREHOUSE I o n d s c o p e p I ~ n EtDON lO{Et[N 7300 WEST 147'TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (612) 431-4433 'MEMORANDUM: PROJECT: 54ta Avenue Warehouse - NML COMM NO: 9776-02 DATE: December 24, 1998 Preliminary Sound Wall Construction Schedule Bidding January 15 to February 1 Award Contract February 1 to February 15 Shop Drawing and Precast Manufacturing February 15 to April 1 Construction of Wall and Landscaping April 1 to June 15 1 The above schedule is based on currently predicted product lead times and favorable weather conditions. This schedule is subject to change upon award of the construction contract. \~T~X"'I%e776X02XMM-05.DOg PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Troy D. Hagen DATE: 16 December 1998 RE: New Hope - 54th Avenue Warehouse - Noise Variance FILE NO.: 131.01 - 98.15 BACKGROUND CNH Architects has submitted a request for a variance to allow daytime noise standards to be extended into the nighttime hours. The subject site is the 54th Avenue Warehouse located at 8201 54th Avenue North. The property is zoned I-1, Limited Industrial and is adjacent to R-l, Single Family Residential. There is not transitional zone nor topographical features to buffer the residential district from the subject site. The noise variance is in conjunction will a previous variance request to construct a sound barrier fence that would exceed the maximum height allowed. This application was tabled at the first City Council Meeting in October, 1998. The applicant wishes to modify the previous application to include the above mentioned variance, and have both application before the City Council as a single request. This report will address the variance from Section 9.423 of the City of New Hope Code of Ordinances regarding the maximum noise levels by receiving land use districts. The Code indicates the following for R-1 District: 1. Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) noise levels shall not exceed 65 dBA at · L10* and 60 dBA at L50**. 2, Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) noise levels shall not exceed 55 dBA at L10* and 50 dBA at L50**. * L10 is defined as the sound level, expressed in decibels (dBA) which is exceeded ten percent of the time for a one-hour period, as specified in the current standards, S1.4, of the American National Standards Institute, which are hereby adopted by 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 E-MAiL NAC@ WlNTErNET.COM I reference, and using test procedures approved by the noise control officer. ** L50 is defined as the sound level similarly expressed and measured which is exceeded 50 percent of the time for a one-hour period. The applicant would like'to establish the daytime noise level as the 24-hour standard, therefore, noise levels shall not exceed 65 dBA at L10 and 60 dBA at L5O. Presently, the owner claims that the site cannot be put to reasonable use as a warehousing facility because of the noise created by the semi truck traffic in and out of the loading area during the nighttime hours of operation. Attached for reference: Exhibit A: Analysis of Fence Height Variance Exhibit B: Noise Analysis by Midwest Acoustics and Electronics, Inc. ANALYSIS The property contains an existing 1-story brick office/warehouse building. The loading area to the warehouse is located on the north side of the building, facing the residential area across the street. The noise is created from trucks entering the loading area, maneuvering into position, idling, and unloading. There are, however, signs posted' that tell drivers that engines must be turned off while unloading. Because it is difficult to force this every time, drivers often leave the engines running. Starting a diesel wastes a lot of fuel, and starting a cold engine is difficult and wastes even more fuel. Management of the facility has expressed willingness to continue enforcing the "engine off" policy, but they maintain that it will be difficult. One of the factors for tabling the fence height variance application was so that the applicant could review the final report conducted by Midwest Acoustics and Electronics, Inc. This report shall review and analyze the findings within that report. A variance cannot be granted un less the following criteria have be met: 1. ~Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property cannot be put to a reaso, nable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an .undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The applicant has already indicated that a sound barrier would supply the only mechanism to reduce the sound from the site to the adjacent neighborhoods (loading bay relocation and loading bay enclosure have been eliminated.due to feasibility and cost); The report by Mr. Van Doeren indicates that although the average truck noise may comply with nighttime standards, strict compliance with the ordinance may be questionable. With this in mind, probable surpassing of the noise ordinance would restrict the 24-hour operation at the warehouse to 15 hours (7.a.m. to 10 p~m.). If the variance for noise is not granted, the applicant has indicated that construction of the sound barrier would not be financially logical, The reason being, the barrier would be necessary to reduce nighttime noise, but not to the point of being in strict compliance. The daytime standards will not be exceeded, therefore no need to the sound barrier fence. This would result in the loss of a visual barrier between the two uses and may potentially harm future property values in the neighborhood. Because the property was developed in 1966 by United Warehouse, provisions which restdct loading bays from being located at the front of a building had not been addressed yet. Any new development would not be allowed this type of arrangement. The design of the sound barrier would add to the visual character of the neighborhood by separating the industrial use from the residential use. Midwest Acoustics & Electronics, Inc. Noise Report. The complete analysis of the study is attached for reference. RECOMMENDATION This is not a typical zoning variance. This variance is from another City Code requirement and its outcome will influence the adjoining neighborhood. It is a policy decision to be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. If the Planning Commission finds that the criteda for approving a variance have been satisfied and were to approve the variance to establish the daytime L10 and L50 noise standards as the 24-hour standard, we recommend the following conditions: 1. The Planning Commission approves the accompanying variance, which allows the height of the sound barrier fence to exceed the established eight feet. 2. The applicant shall demonstrate that increasing the height of the sound barrier fence to perhaps twelve feet would not further reduce the decibels received by the neighborhood. 3. The landscaping and screening of the fence, which was submitted in fence application, is implemented to adds to the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood. cc: Ouinn S. Hutson Doug $ondrall COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Troy D. Hagen / Alan Brixius DATE: 29 December 1998 RE: New Hope - 54th Avenue Warehouse - Noise Variance FILE NO.: 131.01 - 98.15 BACKGROUND CNH Architects has submitted a request for a variance 'to allow daytime noise standards to be extended into the nighttime hours. The subject site is the 54th Avenue Warehouse located at 8201 54th Avenue North. The property is zoned I-1, Limited Industrial and is adjacent to R-l, Single Family Residential. There is neither a transitional zone nor physical features to buffer the adjoining residential district from the subject site. The noise variance is in conjunction with a previous variance request to construct a sound barrier fence that would exceed the maximum height allowed (Exhibit A). The initial fence height application was tabled at the first City Council Meetingin October, 1998 to allow the applicant to consider upgrading the noise control efforts. The applicant wishes to modify the previous application to include the above mentioned variance, and have both application before the City Council as a single request. This report will address the variance from Section 9.423 - Receiving Land Use Standards, of the City of New Hope Code of Ordinances, regarding the maximum noise levels by receiving land use districts. The Code indicates the following for R-1 District: 1.Daytime (7 a.m. - 10 p.m.) noise levels shall not exceed 65 dBA at L10* and 60 dBA at L50**. 2. Nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) noise levels shall not exceed 55 dBA at L10* and 50 dBA at L50*'". * ll 0 is defined as the sound level, expressed in decibels (dBA) which is exceeded 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 6 ~ 2-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET.COM ten percent of the time for a one-hour pedod, as specified in the current standards, S1.4, of the Amedcan National Standards Institute, which are hereby adopted by reference, and using test procedures approved by the noise control officer. ** !~50 is defined as the sound level similarly expressed and measured which is exceeded 50 percent of the time for a one-hour pedod. Presently, the owner claims that the site cannot be put to reasonable use as a 24-hour warehousing facility because of the noise created by the semi truck traffic in and out of the loading area during the nighttime hours of operation. As a result, the applicant would like to establish the daytime noise level as the 24-hour standard, therefore, noise levels shall not exceed 65 dBA at L10 and 60 dBA at LS0. Attached for reference: Exhibit A: Planning Report - Fence Height Variance Exhibit B: Noise Analysis by Midwest Acoustics and Electronics, Inc. ANALYSIS The property contains an existing 1-story brick office/warehouse building. The loading area to the warehouse is located on the north side of the building, facing the residential area across the street. The noise is created from trucks entering the loading area, maneuvering into position, idling, and unloading. A noise study was conducted by Midwest Acoustics and Electronics, Inc. to analyze site noise production and determine the most effective means of reducing that noise. One of the factors for tabling the fence height variance application was so that the applicant could review the final report produced by Midwest Acoustics and Electronics, inc. This report is included with this report as Exhibit B. The following a measures have been proposed by the applicant to reduce the noise received by the adjacent residential district: 1. Installation of a 9-decibel sound barrier fence. 2. Eliminate idling by utilizing the truck "plug-ins", which will keep them warm when it is cold. 3. Post signs informing drivers that engines must be turned off while unloading. Even with these measures being taken to reduce noise, there will be intermittent times when noise levels will exceed the maximum standards established by the City. To accommodate 24-hour operation of the warehouse, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow daytime noise standards to be extended through nighttime. A noise standard variance cannot be granted unless the following criteria have be met: Variance Standards. In approving or denying applications for a variance, the noise control officer or the appeal authority may approve a vadance application only with a finding that full compliance with the requirements of this section would constitute an unreasonable hardship on the applicant, on other persons, or the community. In determining whether to grant of deny the application, the noise control officer or the appeal authority shaft balance the hardship to the applicant against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected, the adverse impact on property and persons affected, and any other adverse effects of granting the variance. Hardship. Because the property was developed in 1966 by United Warehouse, provisions which restrict loading bays from being located at the front of a building had not been addressed yet. This resulted in the property being a legal non-conformity. Any new development would not be allowed this type of arrangement. The design of the nine decibel sound barrier fence would do the following for the adjoining neighborhood: 1. Enhance visual character of the neighborhood by separating the industrial use from the adjoining residential use. 2. Reduce daytime noise. 3. Provide noise reduction of nine decibels, which would reduce nighttime noise levels below 65 dBA and allow for 24-hour operation of the warehouse. Neighborhood Meeting. The applicant held two neighborhood meetings to present their proposal to concerned residents and to address the concerns expressed by those in attendance. At the second meeting, the applicant indicated that, if the noise standard variance was not granted, construction of the sound barrier would not be financially logical. The reason being, the barrier Would be necessary to reduce nighttime noise, but not to the point of being in strict compliance. The daytime standards will not be exceeded, therefore no need for the sound barrier fence. The residents agreed that some mitigation would be better than no mitigation at all. No variance would result in the loss of an audio and visual barrier between the two uses and may potentially harm future property values in the neighborhood. 3 RECOMMENDATION This is not a typical zoning variance. This variance is from another City Code requirement and its outcome.will influence the adjoining neighborhood. It is a policy decision to be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. If the Planning Commission finds that the criteria for approving a variance have been satisfied and were to approve the variance to establish the daytime L10 and L50 noise standards as the 24-hour standard, we recommend the following conditions: 1. The Planning Commission approves the accompanying variance, which allows the height of the sound barrier fence to exceed the established eight feet. 2. The proposed sound barrier fence shall be constructed of brown treated WOod materials with barriers on in front of the noise barrier side, to protect the sound reduction material from truck damage. 3. The landscaping and screening of the fence, which was submitted in fence height application, is implemented to adds to the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood. 4. The applicant implement a Loading Area Noise Management Plan, which includes provisions of electrical outlet to heat trucks without idling, posting "No Idling" signs in loading area along sound barrier fence and loading bay doors, and language in the lease that enforces the aforementioned provisions. 5. The applicant provide 24-hour monitoring both before and after construction of the sound barrier fence to determine actual sound barrier performance. 6. The applicant shall submit a written schedule for 1999 driveway closing and all components of wall construction, grading, and landscaping to the City. cc: Quinn S. Hutson Doug Sondrall 4 BONESTRO0 ROSENE ANDERL[K '~ 6516361311 12/29/98 11'29 ~ :04/05 N0:446 ' ~ RlC~ ~ Foiler, P~ e IJavld O, L ~knT,~, ~'C MEMO ~: Ki~ Mc~n~d, Commu~ ~vel~ment C~inator ~OM: Vin~ V~der T~ . ~~: 8201 ~= Avenue We have =view~ ~e su~n~ info~ ~l~ing to the sound wall. following commen= ~ provi~ A c~y of ~e ~~ b ~ ~ ~y of ~ co~ ~ still ~nent 3. ~ ~vio~ly we h~ ~u~ · ~ng ~d ~nage pl~ m ensure pm~r ~na~ away ~m ~ w~ We ~d ~ ~e ~iic~t may not p~c~ lm ~d ~e ~ A~ ~un~. We ~~ ~t~ned from ~e b~ of ~o~on~ ~ a ~ing pl~ ~ you have ~y q~fions mg~ing ~ co~en=, pl~ c~l M~ or myself. 2335 ~Vest Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 · Fax: 612-636-1311 BONESTRO0 ROSENE ANDERLZK '~ 6516361311 12/29/98 11:29 [~ '05/05 N0:446 Bonestroo ~ Ai;~i~ ~M;:~ a. ~f~d PE · Kert~ A. (Jnt~,n FC · R~eet R. ~feff~. PG. · TO: Kirk M~n~d, Co--unity ~vel~ment C~ffiin~or ~OM: Vincc V~der T~ DA~: ~to~r 1, 1998 S~~: 8201 54~ Argue No~ We have reviewed ~ sub~ pl~s ~d p~d si~ im~vemen~ ~ &ey ~la~ m &e Noi~ W~I. ~e following ~n~ ~ pmvi~ t~ No. 2 ~n8 m ~ p~e. ~ ~ of w~l is m ~ ~ in a non-f~ coat,on. ~ ~r wo~, &e So~ m~ ~ ~ ~ s~ heist on ~ si~ of ~e away from ~e ~ over ~. " 3. ~e soil m~t slo~ away ~m ~e w~l for pm~r d~n~e. B~d on &is ~te~ ~d &e pmvio~ d~d fill ~m~nt, a ~in8 plan should ~ sub,trod. ~e ~tion of ~n~ must ~ ~di~ed on ~h si~s of ~e w~l. O~g, ~ving, ~d s~ w~r ~ene ~cludin~ ~we~ ~d sw~es · e d~n~ pl~. 5. ~aving ~e exi~g west en~ce ~ 11~ ~ ~e ~nmr mt~e is ~o~ended. ~is would I~ to ~m e~ient ~c p~ on &e lot. ~is ~ leav~ ~e driveway in a cl~r ~i~nt w~ a si~ ~eL Y~on Avenue. 6. ~e setb~k ~~n~ for &e ~1 from ~blic fight~f-way sh~! comply wi~ City ~uimmen~. ~veway ~ ~v~ con~c~on in public ~t~f-way ................ F%i 6 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paui, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 · 12-636-1311 JENSEN SWANSO & $ONDR.M L, P.A. Attorneys At Law 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 " : BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1999 TELEPHONE (612) 424-8811 · TEL£FAX (612) 493-5193 CrORDON L..[ENSEN* WILLIAM G. SWANSON STEVEN A, SONDRALL MARTIN P. MALECHA c. ^LoE,~ ~ARSON* November lo'^, 1998 OF COUNSEL Lo~Ns Q. BRYN~ST^D Kirk McDonald Community Developmem Director City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Sound Variance Request/8201 54ta Avenue North Our File No. 99.29823 Dear Kirk: This letter is in follow-up to our recent meeting with the property owner of 8201 54'" Avenue North. Basically, we discussed at the meeting various proposals to alleviate the night time noise which impacts surrounding residential land uses from truck traffic at the site. Specifically, there are approximately ten to twelve residential sites on 54'" Avenue North and Xylon Avenue North which are impacted from noise generated from the site. The property owner explained the "noise deadening" aspects of noise walls or fences that could be used at the site. They are now contemplating constructing a "nine decibel" wall or fence as opposed to the "4 decibel" fence previously considered. It is my understanding the cost for the 9 decibel version is $250,000.00. The enclosed loading bay they originally proposed would cost approximately $2,000,000.00. Therefore, from a cost perspective, the sound wall or fence is obviously the owner's desired choice to remedy the problem. Unfortunately, the property owner's sound engineer has concluded the "9 decibel" fence may not sufficiently reduce noise levels at the site to fully comply with our Code. As a result, the property owner has questioned whether a VARIANCE from our sound ordinance ~ provided in New Hope Code Section 9.427 is possible? The purpose of this letter i~ to answer the question regarding the variance. \ I have had an opportunity to review our Code and State law regarding a variance to noise standards. The variance question can be answered affirmatively if the New Hope City Council makes f'mdings that strict conformity with the noise rules would cau,~ undue hardship, would be unreasonable, impractical or not feasible under the circumstances, based on reasous of exceptional circums~ces relating to the property. If the Council were to make such a f'mding, it could also condition the variance a~ it sees fit, including · R~ ~ ~, S~=i-'i, prescribed time limitations for the prevention, control or abatement of noise pollution so Cemfie~ By .~,~,, s~, ~' as to comply with the intent of the State law and City Code. A~ociauon ~ulified ADR November 10, 1998 Page 2 Basically, the City's rioise controls incorporate the standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (see New Hope Code Section 9.423(1) and Minnesota Rules Section 7030.0040). We are dealing with noise standards that measure sound levels for either six minutes during a one hour period (L. 10) or thirty minutes in a one hour period (L-50). The numbers set out in parentheses express a percentage of noise each hour: hence, 10% of an hour equals 6 minutes, and 50% of an hour equals 30 minutes. In other words, noise levels in excess of 55 decibels cannot be generated at the site during any continuous six minute interval per hour. Likewise, noise exceeding 50 decibels cannot be generated during any continuous thirty minute period during an hour. It is my understanding that even with the 9 decibel sound wall, noise from the site may still be in the high 50 to low 60 decibel range. Therefore, the night time noise levels may be exceeded, despite the fence. As a result, the property owner is requesting a variance from said levels. New Hope City Code Section 9.427, Minn. Stat. Section 116.07(5) and Minnesota Rules Section 7030.0080 permit a variance from these noise levels. As previously indicated, the variance must be based on exceptional circumstances so that strict conformity with the noise standards will cause the petitioner undue hardship. New Hope Code Section 9.427(5) indicates a noise variance may be approved if there is a finding that full compliance with the requirements of the noise standards would comtitute an unreasonable hardship on the applicant. In determining whether to grant or deny the variance application, the City Council must balance the hardship to the applicant against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the persom affected, the adverse impact on property and persons affected, and any other adverse affects of granting the variance. In applying the variance standard, the question would seem to be the ability of the property owner to make a reasonable use of his industrially zoned property versus the residential property owners' rights to a quiet night time atmosphere within their neighborhood. I will defer to the City Building Official to explain the difference between noises generated at a 50 to 55 decibel level versus a 58 to 63 decibel level. We have been told that 5 decibeis is a significant increase in noise volume. Therefore, it becomes a balancing test under our own variance standard as to the extent of use the industrial property owner can make of said property versus the amount of noise the surrounding neighbors must endure in excess of the maximum limits to permit the industrial use to continue. In conclusion, the City does have the authority to grant a variance from its noise standards in this case. However, the variance must be based on the principal of undue hardship to the applicant as balanced or weighed against the adverse impact to the surrounding community based on the extent of the variance granted. If you have any other questions or comments regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. y yours, Steven A. Sondrall ?~ge ! Cit?~fon/Title Rule_ /030.0040, NOISE STANDARDS. *24344 Minnesota Rules, part 7030.0040 MINNESOTA RULES POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AIR QUALITY DIVISION CHAPTER 7030. NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL GENERALLY Current with amendments adopted through September 2, 1997 7030'0040 NOISE STANDARDS. Subpart 1. Scope. These standards describe the limiting levels of sound established on the basis of present knowledge for the preservation of public health and welfare. These standards are consistent with speech, sleep, annoyance, and hearing conservation requirements for receivers within areas grouped according to land activities by the noise area classification (NAC) system established in part 7030.0050. However, these standards do not, by themselves, identify the limiting levels of impulsive noise needed for the preservation of public health and welfare. Noise standards in subpart 2 apply to all sources. Subp. 2. Noise standards. Noise Area Classification Daytime Nighttime L sub50 L subl0 L sub50 L subl0 1 60 65 50 55 2 65 70 65 70 3 75 80 75 80 Statutory/luthority: MS s 116.07 subd~ 2,4 History: 11 SR 43; 18 SR 614 Copyright (c) West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works Page 1 Citation/Title ~ Rule 7030. 0080, VARIANCE.: - 'J *24351 Minnesota Rules, part 7030.0080 MINNESOTA RULES POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AIR QUALITY DIVISION CHAPTER 7030. NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL GENERALLY Current with amendments adopted through September 2, 1997 7030.0080 VARIANCE. If, upon written application of the responsible person, the agency finds that by reason of exceptional circumstances strict conformity with any provisions of any noise rule would cause undue hardship, would be unreasonable, impractical, or not feasible under the circumstances, the agency may permit a variance upon the conditions and within the time limitations as it may prescribe for the prevention, control, or abatement of noise pollution in harmony with the intent of the state and any applicable federal laws. Statutory Authority: MS s 116. 07 subds 2, 4 History: 11 SR 43; 18 SR 614 Copyright (c) West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works Page 1 Citz "on/Title MSA'= 116.07, Powers and duties * 19132 (3) included a requirement tO implement the elements as a condition of the issued or renewed permit. Subd. 5. Variances. The pollution control agency may grant variances from its rules as provided in section 14.05, subdivision 4, in order to avoid undue hardship and to promote the effective and reasonable application and enforcement of laws, rules, and standards for prevention, abatement and control of water, air, noise, and land pollution. The variance rules shall provide for notice and opportunity for hearing before a variance is granted. A local government unit authorized by contract with the pollution control agency pursuant to section 116.05 to exercise administrative powers under this chapter may grant variances at~er notice and public hearing from any ordinance, rule, or standard for prevention, abatement, or control of water, air, noise and land pollution, adopted pursuant to said administrative powers and under the provisions of this chapter. Subd. 6. Pollution control agency; exercise of powers. In exercising all its powers the pollution control agency shall give due consideration to the establishment, maintenance, operation and expansion of business, commerce, trade, industry, traffic, and other economic factors and other material matters affecting the feasibility and practicability of any proposed action, including, but not limited to, the burden on a municipality of any tax which may result therefrom, and shall take or provide for such action as may be reasonable, feasible, and practical under the circumstances. Subd. 7. Counties; processing of applications for animal lot permits. Any Minnesota county board may, by resolution, with approval of the pollution control agency, assume responsibility for processing applications for permits required by the pollution control agency under this section for livestock feedlots, poultry lots or other animal lots. The responsibility for permit application processing, if assumed by a county, may be delegated by the county board to any appropriate county officer or employee. (a) For the purposes of this subdivision, the term "processing" includes: (1) the distribution to applicants of forms provided by the pollution control agency; (2) the receipt and examination of completed application forms, and the certification, in writing, to the pollution control agency either that the animal lot facility for which a permit is sought by an applicant will comply with applicable rules and standards, or, iftbe facility will not comply, the respects in which a variance would be required for the issuance of a permit; and Copyright (c) ~t Group 1998 No claim'to original U.S. Govt. works 9.&23 ,~.&t&, 9.425, 9.426 (1) (2) MaXimum Noise Levels b~ aeceivin~ Land Use Districts. No person shall operate or cause or permit to be operated any source o£ noise in such a manner as to create a noise level exceeding the limit set in Table I for the receiving land use category specified when measured at or within the property line of the receiving land use, -. ?able l, Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use Districts Day Night (7 a,m. - (10 p.m, - lO p.m.) 7 a.m. ) Land Vas Districts L10 LS0 R-l, R-2, R-3, R-4~ R"5, R"0 65 60 55 50 B-l, B-2~ B-3, B-4 70 65 70 65 l-l~ I"2 80 75 80 75 The limits of the most restrictive district shall apply at the boundaries between d£fferent land use categories. The determination of land use shall be by its zoned designation. Exemptions. The levels prescribed in (1) above do not apply to noise 'originating on public street and alleys, but such noise shall be subject to other applicable ~ubsections o£ this section. 9.424 Air Circulation Devices. No person shall permanently install or place any air circulation device, except a window air conditioning unit, in any outdoor location until the noise control officer determines that the device in that location will co~ply with the maximum noise level standards prescribe~ above and issues a per. At for the installation. The noise produced by any window unA~ and by any e~iating air circulation device shall be attenuated by means deemed appropriate by the no£se control officer, lncluding~ bu~ mot limited to~ relocation of such device~ if the noise results in or contributes to a violation of the maximum noise level standards. 9.425 Exception for Emergency ~ork. Noise created exclusively in the performance of emergency work to preserve the. public health, safe~¥, or welfare, or in the performance o£ emergency work necessary to restore a public service or eliminate a public hazard shall be exempt from ~he provisions of this section. Any ~erson responsible for such emergency ~ork shall take all reasonable actions to min£mize the amount of noise. 9.426 Po~ers and Duties of Noise Control Officer. (1) Administerin~ Officer. The noise con~rol"'progr~m established by this section shall be administered by the noise control officer, ~ho shall be appointed by the city manage~. (2) Testin~ Procedures. The noise control officer shall adopt guideli'nes as approved by the city manager establishing the ~est procedures and instrumentation to be used in enforcing the no£se standards of this section. A copy of such guidelines shall be kep~ on file in the office of the noise control officer and shall be available to the public for reference during office hours. 9-32 07268/* {3) Studies.. The noise controlofficer shall conduc~:~uch research, mon~ltg, and other studies related to sound as &re necessary or useful in enforcing this section end reducing noise in the and inspections in accordance with"laws as required in &pp~y~ng the requirements of ~his Code. .' (4~ ~o£se ~m~act Statements. The noise control officer may require any person applying to the City for a change in zoning classification or a permit or license for any structure, operation, process, installation, or alteration, or project that may be considered a potential noise source to submit a noise impact s~atement on a form prescribed by the officer. The noise control officer shall evaluate each such statement and make appropriate recommendations to the building official and City Council authorized to take the action or approve the license or permit applied for. (5) Other Po~ers and Duties, ~he noise control officer shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as are reasonable and necessary ~o enforce (~) Police Depar~ent Enforcement..~ The Police De~ent shal~ participate in the enforc~efl~ of this section to the extent au~oriz~ by %he noise control officer, with the approval of the City Manager. .,. ~ .,,~: .. 9.427 varia,ces ..... '.~ .' , ~ (1) Authority. The noise control officer shall have authority, consistent with this subsection, ~o. grant variances from the requirements of any subsection.of.this section. " (2) Application. Any person seeking a variance shall file an application with the noise control officer on a form prescri~d by the officer. The application shall state the dates during which the variance is pro~sed, the location of the noise source and times of operation, the nature of the noise source, reasons why the variance is sought, steps ~ken to minimize the noise level, and such o~her infor~tioa as is required by the noise control officer. If the application Is for a variance of more than three days, the noise control officer shall give ~iled notice of the requested variance to all property owners and residents within 500 fee~ of the noise source. Any ~rson claiming to ~ adversely affected by the variance applied for may, within 10 days of ~iling of the notice, file a statement with ~e noise control officer in support of ~e claim. (3) Action on Application. If the noise control officer finds that mubs~a~iaL coa=roversy exists regarding the pro~sed variance, the application and written statement received shall be referred to the City Manager, who shall have 10 days to ~ke a determination as ~o whether the variance shall ~ granted. (4) ~. If either the applicant or a protestor is aggrieved by the decision of the City Manager, the decision may be appealed as provided in Chapter 1. · 9-33 072684. (5) Variance Standards. In approving or denying applications for a variance,' the no£se control officer or the appea~ autho~ity m&y approve a variance application only with a finding that full compl£ance with the requ£rementl of this section would constitute -. an.'unreasonable hardship on the &ppllcan~, on other persons, or the community. In dete~mining vhether to grant or deny the applicat~on, the noise control officer or the appeal authority impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected, the adverse impact on property and persons, affected, and any other adverse effects of granting the variance. (6) Condition. The variance may be granted subject to cond£tions, including a time limit, all of which shall be clearly stated. 9.428 Enforcement. Notice of Certain Violations. When the noise control officer determines tha~ a noise exceeds the maximum sound level permitted under this Code, he or she shall give written notice of.the violation to the owner or occupant of the premises where the noise originates and order such person to correct or remove each specified violation within such reasonable time as is prescribed in the notice. The failure to remove or correct any such violation within the time so prescribed constitutes a violation of this sec=ion. The noise contro~ officer shall be deemed to be a ps=son under the jurisdiction of the Director of Protective Inspections within the purview of Chapter 11, authorized to issue tickets ~or the violation of the provisions of this section. Criminal Pe,alties. Any violation of this section involving the o~eration of a mo=or vehicle is a petty misdemeanor. Every person who violates any other provision of this o=d£nance is guilty of a misdemeanor. Each act of violation and each day a violation occurs or continues constitutes a separate o~fense. (Ord. 81-10) " 9-34 07268~, ~-., WALSTEN, WALSTON & TE SLAA, P.A. '~ Attorneys at Law Bloomington Mendota Heights 1000 Northland Plaza. 200 Dakota Financial Center 3800 West 80th Street 1060 Dakota Drive Bloomington, MN 55431 Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Telephone: (612) 896-3799 James R. Walston Telephone: (651) 905-7000 Fax: (612) 896-3717 Reply to Mendota Heights Fax: (651) 405-3775 December 21, 1998 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION and FIRST CLASS MAIL Mr. Kirk McDonald Community Development Director City of Ne~v Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: City of New Hope Planning Case No. 98-23 Variance 54th Avenue Distribution Center Our File No. 315-005 Dear Mr. McDonald: Pursuant to your request, please be advised that Northwestern Mutual Life Insuran6e Company consents to the City's proposal to process the noise variance application by public hearing at the Planning Commission level and City Council review thereafter provided: 1. The mailed notice to affected property owners and residents conforms with the requirements of City Ordinance 9.427(2) (i.e., notice to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the noise source, rather than 350 feet); 2. The noise control officer takes action on the application pursuant to City Ordinance 9.427(3); and 3. The City Manager formally refers this matter to City staff to process through the Planning Commission and the City Council as provided in Chapter One of the City Ordinance. It is my opinion that items 2 and 3 above may occur simultaneously with item 1 in order to expedite reviexv of this matter. Mr. Kirk McDonald December 21, 1998 Page 2 If you have any questions or if you need further clarification of the property owners position in this regard, please advise immediately. Sincerely, ~.. James R~ston JRW:rlt cc via fax: Mr. Ron Shuster Mr. Jeff Larson Mr. Steven Sondrall Mr. Doug Sandstad 4401XylonAvenue North CiO/Hall: 612-531.5100 CiO/Hall Fax: 612-531-5136 New Hope, Minnesota 55428.4898 Police: 612.531-5170 Police Fax: 612.531.5174 · Public Works: 612-533.4823 Public Works Fax: 612.533.7650 TDD: 612-531-5109 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612.531-5175 December 17, 1998 Mr. James Walston Mr. Jeffrey Larson, President Attorney at Law JBL Companies 1060 Dakota Drive, Suite 200 1380 Corporate Center Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Eagan, MN 55121 Subject: Request for a Vadance in the Fence Height Requirement to Allow Construction of a 10-Foot Sound Barrier/Fence, Planning Case 98-23, and Follow-Up to November 5 Meeting Dear Messrs. Walston and Larson: ~' The purpose of this letter is to confirm that the New Hope City Council tabled your planning case for the height variance for the sound barrier/fence until the January 11, 1999, Council meeting. The City is in receipt of your planning application for a vadance to the noise ordinance, which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on 'January 5. The City Council will consider both the variance to the noise ordinance and the height vadance for the sound barrier/fence at its January .11 meeting. If you have any other questions, please contact me at 531-5119. Kirk McDonald Director of Community Development cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official " Scoff Dornfeld, General Inspector Valede Leone, City Clerk Planning Case File 98-23 Family Styled City ~ For Family Living WALSTEN, WALSTON & TE SLAA, P.A. ~ Attorneys at Law Bloomington Mendota Heights 1000 Northland Plaza 200 Dakota Financial Center 3800 West 80~ Street 1060 Dakota Drive Bloomington, MN 55431 Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Telephone: (612) 896-3799 James R. Walston Telephone: (651) 905-7000 Fax: (612) 896-3717 Reply to Mendota Heights Fax: (651) 405-3775 December 4, 1998 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION and FIRST CLASS MAIL Mr. Kirk McDonald Community Development Director City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: City of New Hope Planning Case No. 98-23 Variance th 54 Avenue Distribution Center Our File No. 315-005 Dear Mr. McDonald: The New Hope City Council tabled the above-referenced variance request to alloTM construction of a ten foot noise barrier at the 54th Avenue Distribution Center. This item has been rescheduled a few times since then, and is now rescheduled for the December 14, 1998 City Council meeting. On behalf of the property owner, we request further tabling of this matter consistent with our discussions over the last few weeks. We anticipate that this matter can move forward with the property owner's application for a noise ordinance variance, which will be submitted to Mr:.Sandsted by the end of next week. We have conducted informal neighborhood meetings and have received sound engineering reports to support the variance application. Please advise the City Council on the status of this matter. Pursuant to your request, representatives of the owner will attend the December 14th City Council meeting. Finally, be advised that with respect to applicant's pending height variance application (Case No. 98-23), the requirements of Minn. Stat. Sec. 15.99 are waived for the pending Mr. Kirk McDonald December 4, 1998 Page 2 application only, and for a time period equal to the time the applicant has requested this matter to be tabled. Sincerely, Walston JRW:rlt cc via fax: Mr. Ron Shuster, Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. Mr. Jeff Larson, JBL Companies Mr. Quinn S. Hutson, CNH Architects 4401Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 612-531-5100 City Hall Fax:~ ~ ~531.5136 New Hope,. Minnesota 55428-4898 Police: 612.531-5170 Police Fax: 612-531.5174 Public Works: 612-533-4823Public Works Fax: 612.533.7650 ... TDD: 612-531.5109 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612.531.5175 November 13, 1998 Mr. James Walston Mr. Jeffrey Larson, President Attorney at Law ~ JBL Companies 1060 Dakota Ddve, Suite 200 . 1380 Corporate Center Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Eagan, MN 55121 Subject: Request for a Vadance in the Fence Height Requirement to Allow Construction of a 10-Foot Sound Barrier/Fence, Planning Case 98-23, and Follow-Up to November 5 Meeting Dear Messrs. Walston and Larson: Per your request, the New Hope City Council tabled your planning case until the December 14 Council meeting to allow you additional time to revise plans for the construction of a 10-foot sound barderlfence. The Council requested that the property owner take steps to continue to imprOve the appearance of the building and alleviate noise issues in the meantime by requesting that the tenant 'keep the overhead- doors shut and move the trailers to the side of the building instead of leaving them parked in front of the building. If you Want this issue discussed by the City Council on December 14, please submit revised plans to the City by Fdday, December 4, so that staff can distribute the plans for review and assemble the information for the Council packet. I would also request that the prOperty owner or a representative be present at the December 14 meeting to answer questions, regardless of whether the request moves forward or is again tabled. In follow-up to our meeting on November 5, please find the City Attorney's opinion oUtlined in the attached correspondence. I have shared his opinion as to the process that should be followed with the Building Official and Planning Consultant and we are in agreement with his recommendation. Please review the correspondence and determine how you want to proceed. If you have any other questions, please contact me at 531-5119. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald ~' Director of Community Development cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Scott Dornfeld, General Inspector Valede Lecne, City Clerk Planning Case File 98-23 Family Styled City ~ For Family Livinf '"~JV ~ V~V~- JBL rom pan les 1380 Corporate Center Curve - Eagan, Minnesota 55121 cC~_?.~ercial Real Estate Services, Inc. Phone (651 686-0212 Fax/651) 686-6113 November 16, 1998 Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Neighbors: I represent the owner of the 54th Avenue Distribution Center, formally known as the United Hardware building, which has been your neighbor over the past 30 years. In that time, since it is a warehouse, you've had to deal with noisy trucks and bright lights. The property owner desires to improve the property and reduce the impact on your neighborhood. With that in mind, we would like to share our plans with you to improve the building and the neighborhood. You are invited to a neighborhood meeting on Tuesday November 24, 1998 at 6:30 p.m. at the City Hall. At this meeting we will share with you our plan for the proposed building improvements, which include construction of a large, heavily landscaped sound reduction wall to be located on 54th Avenue. This first neighborhood meeting will be followed up with another meeting on Tuesday December 8th, where we will share final plans to submit to the city for approval. Please attend the meetings on Tuesday November 24, 1998 and Tuesday December 8, 1998. Your input is ve~ important. Thank you for working with us towards building a great neighborhood community. Sincerely, JJeffrey B. Larson cc: City of New Hope JAMES R. WalStON ~ October 23, 1998 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION and FIRST CLASS MAIL Mr. Kirk McDonald Community Dev. Director City of New Hope 4401 Zylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: City of New Hope Planning Case No. 98-23 Variance 54t~ Avenue Distribution Center Our File No. 315-005 Dear Mr. McDonald: The New Hope City Council tabled the above-referenced variance request to allow construction of a ten foot noise barrier at the 54th Avenue Dislribution Center. The matter was rescheduled to November 9ta to allow the applicant time to re-evaluate the feasibility of existing construction plans in relation to engineering studies and City ordinances. On behalf of the property owner, we request further tabling of this matter consistent with our discussion with you October 19, 1998. We anticipate that this matter can move forward witha modified proposal which would enhance the noise mitigation as soon as: 1. Additional engineering studies are finalized; 2. We meet with City staff and consultants regarding a noise ordinance variance; 3. An application requesting City approval of the Amended Proposal is submitted; and 4. A neighborhood meeting prior to any City meetings is noticed and conducted. It is anticipated that the items referenced above could be accomplished within four to six weeks. Thereafter, a modified proposal could be submitted for Planning Commission review. Please' advise the City Council accordingly on the status of this matter~ Let me know if you need a representative to attend the November 9th City Council meeting. Suite 200 · Dakota Financial Center 1060 Dakota Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 Telephone 651.905.7000 , Facsimile 651.405.3775 · E-mail walstonlaw@mn.state.net Mr. Kirk McDonald October 23, 1998 Page 2 Finally, be advised that with respect to applicants pending height variance application (Case No. 98-23), the requirements of Minn. Stat. Sec. 15.99 are waived for the pending application only, and for a time period equal to the time the applicant has requested this matter to be tabled. We' 10ok forward to formulating an equitable long-term resolution of this matter. Sincerely, JAMES IL WALSTON ATTORNEY~ IRW:rlt cc via fax: Mr. Ron Shuster, Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. Mr. Jeff Larson, JBL Companies Mr. Quirm S. Hutson, CNH Architects Community Perspectives District 8 District 8 represents an industrial area between Boone and Winnetka Avenue. District 8 Issues · Noise and land use compatibility issues between the industrial land uses and residential land use to the north. · The condition and appearance of the industrial building on 54th Avenue. District 10 DistriCt 10 consists primarily of a single family land use, however, there is some medium density residential and industrial land uses in the northeast corner of this planning district. The New Hope Public Works Capital Improvement Plan identifies infrastructure improvements between 47th Avenue and 50th AvenUe in the year 2000. City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update Planning Tactics 32 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 Applicator Address by City that required expires expires of under application Phone information extension extension was missing or waiver . 98-28 Quinn Hutson 12/11/98 2~9~99 4/10/99 CNH Architects 7300 West 147t~ Street, #504 Apple Valley 55124 431-4433 Jeff Larson JBL Companies 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan 55121 686-0212 Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. A Assign each application a number. B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). C. List the date the City received the application. D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in B~× G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver. I. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H) J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT ~lanning Case: 98-24 Request: Request for Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Restaurant at Midland Shopping Center, a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Window and Outdoor Dining, and a Variance to the Sign Code for a Pylon Sign Location: 2703 - 2769 Winnetka Avenue North PID No.: 19-118-21-44-0066 Zoning: B-4, Community Business Zoning District Petitioner: Engelsma LP/Kraus-Anderson (owner) ApPlicant: Taco Bell Report Date: December 30, 1998 Meeting Date: January 5, 1998 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit to allow a restaurant at Midland Shopping Center, a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through window and outdoor dining, and a Variance to the Sign Code for a pylon sign, pursuant to Sections 4.032(2)(e), 4.124(3)(j), 4.21, 4.19, 4.125(8), and 3.48 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. In October of 1998, Border Foods, Inc. (Franchisee for Taco Bell) submitted plans for the proposed construction of a new building at the northeast corner of Midland Shopping Center, which included the removal of the old bank building and constructing a new free-standing restaurant in that location. At that time, the petitioner requested that their request be tabled so that revised plans could be developed in response to Hennepin County's objections to moving the existing curb cut on Winnetka Avenue. Residents adjacent to the shopping center also voiced concerns about the plan. The request was tabled again at the November and December Planning Commission meetings, per the petitioner's request. 3. The petitioner has now submitted revised plans for consideration that propose the redevelopment of the existing bank building with a drive-through window instead of the demolition of the building and construction of a new free-standing building. The petitioner states that "following significant residential opposition to the original plan, representatives of Border Foods and Kraus-Anderson, the owner of Midland Shopping Center, reviewed alternative plans and determined that the proposed redevelopment of the existing bank building is the alternative which meets the criteria of both the landlord and tenant. We also feel that this proposal will respond to the concerns identified by the residents in their comments on the previous plan." 4. The specific planning/zoning requests for the revised plans are as follows: A. Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development to change the Midland Shopping Center site plan (this includes site and building plan review/approval). B. Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-through window. C. Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor dining. D. Variance to the Sign Code to allow an additional pylon sign on the property. 5. The shopping center is located on a parcel that contains 7.58 acres and the existing shoppin?~-'~mter building contains approximately 69,000 square feet. Specific site summary data is as follows: Gross Lot Area: 330,355 square feet Gross Shopping Center Area: 69,427 square feet Gross Proposed Taco Bell Area: 3,093 square feet Net Lot Area: 258,791 square feet Parking Stalls Required: 14 stalls Parking Stalls Provided 17 stalls 6. The shopping center is located in a B-4, Community Business Zoning District and surrounding land uses include R-O office across Winnetka Avenue to the east, the muffler shop, Medicine Lake Road and Golden Valley to the south, R-O nursing home and R-3 apartments to the west, and R-O/PUD dentist office and R-2 duplexes to the north adjacent to the proposed restaurant. 7. The property is located in Planning District #18 of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, which sites a concern about the viability of Midland Shopping Center due to the vacancy rates. A basic principle of the Comprehensive Plan Update is to encourage private investment, maintenance and upgrading of all properties. This private redevelopment would be an economic boost to the center and vicinity. 8. This project will involve private water and sewer main revisions. A redesign of the northern parking lot to utilize the existing drive-through lane eliminates any~change to the curb cut on Winnetka. Trucking will continue around the north and west (rear) of the site, with a reasonable separation between the drive- through lane and the north property line. 9. The topography of the site is fiat at a 910-foot elevation, except for the' northwest corner of the lot, which has a steep bank rising to the existing residential land to the north and is at a 928-foot elevation. With this new plan, green areas will be increased along the north lot line and adjacent to the front (south) of the proposed restaurant. 10. Property owners within 350' of the request have been re-notified about the revised plans, including the City of Golden Valley. The petitioners are planning to conduct a neighborhood meeting on Monday, January 4, at the City Hall to present the revised plans. Staff have received several calls from businesses in the area supporting the proposal. ANALYSIS CUP/PUD 1. The site is zoned B-4, Community Business District. A CUP/PUD is required to alter the site plan of the Midland Shopping Center. A restaurant is a permitted use in this District. A drive-through service window and outdoor dining require conditional use permits. 2. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the conditional use is to be allowed, the City may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite for consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health, and safety, i 3. Other general criteria to be considered when determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit include: Planning Case 98-24 Page 2 12/30/98 A. ComPrehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies ~ and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official Comprehensive Municipal '- Plan of the City. B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the Code. D. NO Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. E. Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts: 1. In Business Districts (B-l, B-2, B-3, B-4): a. Traffic. The proposed use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. b. Nearby Residences. Adjacent residentially zoned land will not be adversely affected because of traffic generation, noise, glare, or other nuisance characteristics. c. Effect on Other Businesses. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of unduly heavy non- shopping traffic or general unsightliness. 4. The Zoning Code allows drive-through service windows for convenience food establishments by conditional use permit if the following criteria are satisfied: (a) Stacking. Not less than 180 feet of segregated automobile stacking lane must be provided for the service window (180 feet is shown on the plan). (b) Traffic Control. The stacking lane and its access must be designed to control traffic in a manner to protect the buildings and green area on the site (this is done). (c) Use of Street. No part of the public street or boulevard may be used for stacking or automobiles (none is planned); (d) Noise. The stacking lane, order board intercom and window placement shall be designed and located in such a manner as to minimize automobile and communication noises, emissions and headlight glare onto adjacent premises, particularly residential premises, and to maximize maneuverability of vehicles on the site. (The redesign of the drive-up window order board location has reduced the likelihood of noise complaints, since they are not blocked by the building.) (e) Hours. Hours of operation shall be limited as necessary to minimize the effect of nuisance factors such as traffic, noise and glare. (The petitioner is proposing hours of 10:00 a.m. to midnight, Monday - Thursday, and 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday,) Hours of operation on Sunday need to be clarified. 5. The Zoning Code allows outdoor dining as an accessory use for restaurants, drive-in, and convenience food establishments, under a conditional use permit, subject to a number of conditions, as outlined in "Exhibit A." Insufficient plans have been submitted to review conformance with these conditions, as no restaurant floor plans or detailed outdoor dining plans have been provided. Sufficient plans addressing the conditions in the code must be submitted and approved before the outdoor dining use is utilized. SITE PLAN REVIEW 1. Appropriate City staff met to review the plans and the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and were supportive of the plans. Major issues discussed included landscaping, improving Planning Case 98-24 Page 3 12/30/98 traffic circulation and green area, drainage issues, trash enclosure, deliveries, irrigation, h,~'"s of operation, signage, and exterior building materials. Revised plans were submitted as a result ,~ the meeting. 2. The revised plans include the following details: A. Parking. Based on the following analysis, staff and the Planning Consultant believe adequate parking has been provided. A floor plan has not been submitted for the restaurant, therefore, staff cannot determine the exact number of parking stalls required. However, the floor plan submitted for the previous Taco Bell site plan required 31 parking stalls. Because the restaurant can share parking with the rest of the Midland Shopping Center, staff has reviewed total parking stalls required and provided for the shopping center. The applicant has submitted a tenant lease and site plan that indicates that presently the shopping center provides 474 parking stalls. Based upon 31 stalls for Taco Bell, 30 stalls for Kinhdo (the only other restaurant), and 6 stalls per 1,000 square feet for other tenants or potential tenants, the shopping center would require 454 total stalls. Construction of the Taco Bell drive-through lane and trash enclosure would require the removal of 43 existing parking stalls. The site plan provides 24 replacement stalls. Therefore, the total number of parking stalls required at the shopping center is approximately 454 and the total number provided would be 455. Two ADA parking stalls are identified on the site plan, with one being located directly in front of the restaurant and one to the west of the restaurant. B. Vehicular Circulation. In review of the previously submitted site plan City staff and the Design & Review Committee recommended the relocation of the curb cut serving Taco Bell. Hennepin County did not approve this change because the existing driveway is located directly opposite the Terra Linda Drive. The proposed vehicular circulation may provide the best flow possible considering the constraints of an existing building and driveway. Drive aisles are compliant with 24 to 30 feet of width and contain painted directional arrows. C. Service Window. Code requires not less than 180 feet of segregated automobile stacking lane for the service window. The site plan is compliant with approximately 180 feet of stacking space. The service window menu boards are oriented away from the adjoining residential properties, mitigating noise concerns. D. Curbin,q. Curbing surrounds the parking and drive areas to direct traffic and control parking. E. Loadinq. A loading zone of sufficient size has been indicated on the north side of the building. The loading zone will be marked with white diagonal striping. F. Refuse Stora.qe. A refuse enclosure is proposed for the west side of the shopping center at the rear of the building. This is not a convenient location, but the location has the advantages of not directing the refuse enclosure towards a residential area and not encroaching upon the drive aisle on the north side of the building. The enclosure would be made of concrete block to match the existing building and have a cedar gate. These are appropriate materials. The Building Official does not feel that this is a practical location for a restaurant which produces significant garbage and recycling and is requesting that it be relocated adjacent to the tenant space. G. Building Materials. The building elevations show a new EIFS exterior with new awnings. The windows and existing brick and stucco'around the windows will remain. These are acceptable materials. H. Fencing. A board on board fence that is six feet in height is proposed along the north property line to provide screening for the residential property to the north. The fence will have shrubs in front of it and pine trees behind it. Planning Case 98-24 Page 4 12/30/98 I. Liclhtin.~ No exterior wall lights are labeled on the exterior building elevations. An exterior lighting / ": plan should be submitted. Two poles with mounted lights are proposed on the north property line '-- that will match exterior flood lights around the Midland Shopping Center. All site lighting is less than one foot-candle at adjacent property lines. J. Landscaping. The petitioner.has provided the following landscape schedule: SHRUBS: AW 43 Anthony Waterer Spirea Spiraea X bumalda 'Anthony 15" Ht. Cont. Waterer' SJ 31 Skandia Juniper Jun'iperus,,sabina 'skandia' 5 Gal, cont. EL 29 Dwarf Korean Lilac Syri,nga meyeri 'Palibin' 18" Ht. COnt. EH 13 Emerald Mound Honeysuckle Lonicera xylosteum 'Emerald 18" Ht. Cont. Mound' WE 10 Dwarf Burning Bush Euonymus alatus 'Compactus' 36" Ht. right. TREES: RL 2 Redmond Linden Tilia americana 'Redmond' 6-7' Dial MM WP 5 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus 12-14" Hr. MM TA 1 Techny Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis 'Techny' 6' Ht. B&B A total of 8 trees and 126 shrubs will be planted on the site, with the majority of the plantings on the east side of the restaurant around the drive-through aisle. Per the Planner's report, the proposed white pine trees are stated as having a height of 12-14 inches. This should be revised to 12-14 feet. The plant types and sizes, other than for the white pine, are appropriate and an irrigation system will be installed. Two linden trees and four white pine trees are proposed on the north side of the property line to provide screening for the adjacent property owners. The applicant must have an agreement with the adjacent property owner that grants permission to plant on the adjacent property and states that the adjacent property owner will be responsible for the maintenance of the trees. A six-fOot high board on board fence is also located along the north property line for additional screening. Kraus-Anderson Realty Company, the owner of the Midland Shopping Center, is responsible for landscape maintenance of the shopping center site. The site plan provides two sodded areas in conjunction with a new parking design on the south side of the building. This design reduces runoff, increases green area, increases available parking spaces, and improves parking convenience and safety adjacent to the building front. K. Outdoor Dining. Outdoor dining is proposed on the south side of the building in an area paved with concrete. The proposed dining area is screened from residential areas and appears to conform to size, surfacing, lighting, and pedestrian circulation requirements. At the time that an outdoor dining use is pursued, an outdoor dining plan must be submitted that complies with Section 4.125(8) of the Zonir~g Ordinance. L. Sprinkler Protection. Fire sprinklers for the north wing of the shopping center must be installed within 12 months because the Fire Lane 'will be removed. Eighty-seven percent of the shopping center is currently fire sprinkled, the Fire Department wants to receive a commitment that this expansion will result in 100 percent fire sprinkling of the building within the next 12 months. M. Signs. The applicant has proposed a ground sign 30 feet in height and 93 square feet in size. In the previously submitted site plan, the restaurant was a free-standing satellite site and was allowed to have a free-standing sign. In the current site plan, however, the restaurant is contained within the Planning Case 98-24 Page 5 12/30/98 shopping center; therefore, an individual tenant ground sign is not allowed and a variaj:~? is required if the Planning Commission finds that an individual tenant sign is appropriate. .~ign identifying Taco Bell may be added to the Midland Sh~opping Center ground sign provided that the total area is not more than 200 square feet and not more than 30 feet in height. The applicant is also proposing two wall signs, one on the east side and one on the south side of the building. These wall signs are compliant. N. The City Engineer reviewed the submitted plans and proposed site improvements as they relate to the Midland Shopping Center and Taco Bell and provided the following comments: 1. The landscape plan includes a proposed storm sewer line "to be designed and approved by the City Engineer." It is recommended that a grading and drainage plan be prepared to include this and other information. The plan should include proposed elevations and drainage patterns. Pavement and curb slopes must reflect adequate grades to drain. The size, slopes, and inverts of proposed storm sewers and structures must be indicated. 2. In general, the site drains from west to east to existing catch basins and storm sewer at the east edge of the Midland Center parking lot. Additional storm sewer is recommended. The first segment of storm sewer will serve the area east of the shopping center and west of the Taco Bell drive-through lane. This storm sewer is shown in concept on the landscape plan. The inlet capacity of the catch'basin must be capable of serving a five-year storm event. An overflow route must be identified to prevent flooding in the event of a major storm event or a plugged catch basin. The second segment would serve runoff from the north side of the shopping center. A drainage area of approximately two acres contributes flow to the north side of the shopping center. The runoff will have to cross the drive-through lane and the Winnetka Avenue driveway to reach the existing catch basins. It would be beneficial to capture the runoff in a storm sewer prior to the driveway crossings. If storm sewer is not extended to this area, appropriate swales would have to be constructed to accommodate the runoff. 3. The proposed Taco Bell restaurant will utilize the existing sanitary sewer and water services. It is recommended that the developer and the City review the sizes and condition of these services. The plans should reflect changes if modifications to the services are required. 4. Site Details: Curb details I and 7 are not acceptable for curb lines that are required to carry storm water. Typical curb requirements are reflected by detail 4. 5. The project site limits should be modified to account for storm sewer, parking lot/seating area, and trash enclosure construction. The limits of pavement removal should be identified on the site plan or a removal plan. The construction area must be protected from a safety and an erosion/debris control standpoint. Winnetka Avenue and adjacent parking lots shall remain free of construction materials including soil and construction debris. 6. The Winnetka Avenue driveway will stay in its current location per the requirements of the County. The driveway widths and curb radii as shown on the plans are adequate to permit delivery vehicle access to the north side of the shopping center. The proposed parking/striping configuration on the north side of the building is not conducive to two-way traffic, particularly with a delivery vehicle occupying the loading zone. The City and/or developer may consider eliminating the three parallel parking stalls along the north property line. O. Deliveries. The petitioner has indicated that food deliveries will be made by Ameriserve, from their Plymouth location. Frequency will be three times per week. The only other delivery will be bulk CO2 Planning Case 98-24 Page 6 12/30/98 .... for the drink system even/two weeks. The petitioner indicated they. would work with Ameriser~e to schedule deliveries sometime between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. P. Hours of Operation. The petitioner has indicated that they anticipate hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to Midnight, Monday - Thursday, and 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday. Although they have other units within the metropolitan Twin Cities that operate later hours, their analysis of this location is that the hours identified above are appropriate at this time. Hours of operation should be discussed by the Commission. Q. Sound and Liqht. The petitioner has indicated that they will be employing a visual order confirmation board which will allow the customer to visually check the order that they have placed thus reducing the need for extended communication between the speaker and the car. In addition, the landscaping plan has been designed to block virtually all light emanating from the building and any drive-through traffic as well as provide a sound buffer to the residential units adjacent to the shopping center. R. Odor. The petitioner has indicated that the food preparation system requires minimal on-site cooking. Because of this procedure, the restaurants do not emit cooking odors. S. Security. The petitioner has indicated that they follow Taco Bell Corp. recommended security procedures at all of their restaurants. They use a video camera security system in the restaurants. T. Snow Storage. A snow storage plan should be submitted for the Midland Shopping Center showing how snow from the Taco Bell area will be removed and/or stored. 3. The petitioner has indicated that they have made every effort to accommodate the concerns of the City and the local residents and that they are prepared to respond to any additional issues that might be identified relating to this project. 4. City staff and consultants believe that the proposed development provides a good redevelopment opportunity, is compatible with existing zoning, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff also agree that the revised plans address a number of the previous issues raised. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend approval of a CUP/PUD to alter the Midland Shopping Center site plan, a CUP for oetdoor dining, and a CUP for a drive-through window, subject to the following conditions: 1. An exterior lighting plan must be submitted. 2. The landscape plan should be revised to state that the white pine trees will range from 12-14 feet in height. 3. The applicant must receive permission from the property owner to the north to plant on the owner's property and have an agreement that the adjacent property owner will be responsible for maintenance of the trees. 4. Submit letter stating that fire sprinklers for the north wing of the shopping center will be installed within 12 months because the Fire Lane will be removed. 5. A snow storage plan should be submitted for the Midland Shopping Center showing how snow from the Taco Bell area will be removed and/or stored. 6. Submit revised plans with new trash enclosure location. 7. At the time that an outdoor dining use is pursued, an outdoor dining plan must be submitted that complies with Section 4.125(8) of the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Submit grading/drainage plan and address all recommendations of City Engineer, including curb details, storm sewer extension, and parking spaces. ~_ Planning Case 98-24 Page 7 12/30/98 9. Hours of operation for the drive-through window may be restricted if the Planning Commission arc-,City Council feel it necessary. 10. A Taco Bell ground sign is not allowed unless a variance is granted. An identification sign for Taco Bell may be added to the Midland Shopping Center ground sign if the total sign area does not exceed 200 square feet. The Commission may also want to comment as to whether they would support a text amendment on this issue. 11, The applicant Shall enter into a development agreement outlining the standard and time frame of development and providing an appropriate financial security (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). Attachments: Zoning/Address/Topo Maps Property Survey Site Data Site Plan Site Summary Landscape Plan Landscape Schedule Section Elevation Fence Detail Site Details Trash Enclosure Planter & Traffic Arrows Elevations East Elevation - South Elevation Petitioner Correspondence Site Details Parking Data Building Official "Exhibit A" Outdoor Dining Planner's Report Engineer's Comments Survey of Adjacent Property Application Log Planning Case 98-24 Page 8 12/30/98 NORTH ; -"1 ..... ~;.~--~.. ............. ~05.1 X ". ~ g<~.7 x / , '"x,,, ..... ? ~ ~ ,~"~ ~ ""~ ., ~2.~. ....~. ,.' ; 911.1 ~ .2 NORTH , A NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA T 118 N - R 21 E SE 1/4. DEC 19 THE PROPERTY CONTNNS 5,T,~.555 SQUARE FEET OR 7.58 ACRES. Aa per Notional Ftood Ineumnoe Pro,ram FlOOd lemoranoe Rote Mae Community Penel No. 270177 0002 B the property ~ ~ Zone C (Ama of Mlflimo~ floodln~). Saki Rate Map m~ a~ effective dam of dammry 2. 1981. i ,mnl I t I ' ': . /_ ~,2 ? .... ., !? !I , :1 ~ :'~m ~--I :I :. I I ' ; ;"';'"' ;" '"";';;i i : ,! t I- !il]t~ i:!.tll:i I ·: ~[ Jill :Il Ill :: Ill !:l l:i ',':~ ': i:i: h Il l[ Il 1t !1 II; l, il! i ! 1'i I ; II ltl . I IFil :!:!l: :Ill ~:' :l '~ ~1 i ~i::l:::~, ' :II ii , ~ ]Ill il I :: ! :Jill ::::, i[ii! ' .::-,,l,,,:,,,:::::.,, ~, ~,,l.,,,,,, : ,,,,. . ,.: ,. .-- · ..... i .l [ I[ ,! [11.1 l:ll I!11! Ill iill:, :::il:,~.,il,ll,h :l,l[ : : ,I ~ ,~l I , I: i ,:,! : I ~l~i~ iii ~, ,~ l:l[:,,,!,i,l:ii' II ilJllll ','"': ":': ' ,I ~,, ,::,:,,,,': l:li~[J:i[!:ll ~:!! I ~l[~[ '.,', ... ,,.. ,.,.,,..,, .,. : I ~ I Ill ..... [ i,l . : ,I, ~' : I ,:! ,,~:t'l ~,:.,:,::...,.: :: ' *',: ': r:: ~ [~' · ,: , i~ ,:: ~ ,, : ~'~' .i,.1,'1 i l:J ,i SIT[ PLAN .... ~ , I "~°~' "": "'li ili i:~ ~1 II ~fll ]l~J' t j I · _ I!:I '-'S ' DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE SITE SUMMARY GROSS LOT AREA: 330,355 S.F. GROSS SHOPPING CENTER AREA: 69,427 S.F. GROSS PROPOSED TACO BELL AREA: 3,093 S.F. NET LOT AREA: 258,791 S.F. PARKING STALLS REQ'D: 14 PARKING STALLS PROVIDED: 17 ........................... ( ::-- ~N~ AVENUE ....... .. =*..-'~.J~-- .~,~.,1~,%.,~ .... O~-'"t~'~ ....... .............. ~: .............. ...... ............................. · ,' ...... / FOR R~ ONLY 6.4.93 ~fi[IMl~ ~NDSCAPE P~N NOT FOR CONSmUCnON ~,.,:~ - - ~ L1 EX. CONCRETE WALK EDGER, TYPICAL. PROJECT-.~ AND APP LIMITS ~.,, CITY ENGINEER. MATCH EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN ? .;K MULCH OVER HT BOARO 0 BOARD FENCE --- TACO BELL INUNE APPROXIMATE FFE.: 908 ~ TACO BELL SOO SOD . B . --' DOUBLE SWING CHAIN UNK ~ ~-~. CAT[ 2' O.D. CALV. PIPE X 2'-8' CONC. rrG.- - WELDED CONS'r. ,~/ 9X SEE: SECTION '~' FOR Al)Off. CA. 2' CHAIN UNK FABRIC DESIGN INFO. - X S" X 1/4.' T.S. & ALUU. PRfVACY SL4TS W/ 5' X 5' X 1/4' CAP PLAT[ PAINT INSIDE TO [MarnED 12' INTO FOOTING BLDG.- EPOXY PENT SOU0 W/CONCR~'T[ PAiR McKtNNEY T4B,T781 EINGF'~ EA. CAT[ OR E(XJAL 48' 0.¢. UNK CAT[ WA~L FTG. DIA, A.B: 14' x 2' (SF_E SECT1ON 'A') VERT., BOLT TO r.s. W/ACORN NUT ON OUTSIO~ 6' THK. P.C.C. PAD W/ 6'x6'-1.4.Xl. W.W.F. Off 6' AGG. ~ & 12' WIDE X 8' X 16" C,M.U. COLUMt FTG. AROUND PI~RIM~rE'R OF SLAB W/ $OUD GROUTED CELLS 5'x S'x 1/~' T.S. e~S CO~nNUOUS rHR¢ EMBEOED 12' COLUMN AND INTO FOOTING W, lET0 FOOTING. 3' HOOK k~5 HORIZONTAL 6N~S MI0. HGT., TIE TO VI~I'. ELEVATION dAMB DET. DOUBLE ENCLOSURE -- 2'xS'x16' SOLID cMU CAP SOLID CIdU C~ NOTE: / ~ STUCCO MAY 9E OU~ / /~ 115 HOE[Z. BAR · TOP (1YP.) GROUT ALL ~F c.~4.u. ~s sPLn' ./ // nE TO tS ~ a~S co~-s FACE ~t.OCK, SLUMP ~/ .,~ ~5 ~ · 4~ D.C. CONT. THRU il§ BARS rr~;1T,4 J ~ -, 8'X 6'X 16' C.M.U COLUMN ~ WAU. W/ 0Ue.-O-WALL ~EV~W SECOEO C0U~ISr_ X 5' X ~/4' T.S ~ I STUCCO & PENT TO EMBE:DDEZ) lET0 ~ MATCH 8U~.~XNG. FOOTING ~2'. ArrACE [ ~*']/i ~ t5 HO~Z. e~a ·uto. HGT. M~AL 0AT[S TO aOTH ~ ~ m t5 yea'. a~ ('rYP.) ~ ~ 6" THI<. P.C.C. SLA~ ON r~= 6- THK. P.¢.C. SLAB ON J. ~ ~ · ~ NOTE: ,, eo~roM L ~'--~' L FOO~NGs SHALL EXT[ND ~8' L ~'-,~' L '1 '1 MINIMUU BELOW ADJACENT '1 FINISH GRADE./SURF<E OR BELOW FROST DEPTHS PER LOCAL COOES SEE SOILS REPORT for ANY ADomoeaL SECTION 'A' o~s~ c~m~k SECTION CMU TRASH ENCLOSURE w/ CHAIN UNK mm ,.T.,. RLT~_ FABRIC ('TYP_AR' OR 'POLY FILTER X') ~- --PAVL~I~I' 011dl~N~C EEFTR 1'0 THIS 4.' CONC. CURS ~ PAVE'~ENT ELEVA~O~ AR'r~ ~ WALK / REFlm TO (s~z sm'. L-~) F~ 1' RADIUS SURFAk, CURB - 2 PER -r 8"x0'-l,4xl.4 W.'#,Ir. 1. ALL ClJI~ING TO I~ TOP & I)OTTOU 2000 P.SJ. · 28 DAY 4' SANO BASE P.¢.C. TYP. 2, PROVll)£ EXPANSION 1 1/?' PERFORATI'3) JOINTS · 90'-0" 0.¢, P.V.C. ~'--~' LO~ P~ECAST ~ ~ CON~. WHE. ELSTOP W THEU I (2) ~,4 BA,~S CONT. LAN E.~ j 5'-9 LONO ~ PA~KINO SURF'AC[ I~ ~ E~SE: AS SPECIFIED ~ (:Z) ~4 ~mS mRU DIAMLrTE~ GUARD :~::~r WHEELSTOP & PVMT. CONC. PAVEMENT, US EPOXY BONDING AGE CONCR[TE lh~lEl~ ffroP ~/~..,.-o. P.V.C. SENSOR LOOP FOE JAjiPr r EXT~EIO~ WALL T1ME. R WrlH 1' CONDUIT BUILOINO TO 4X4 d-BOX. WIRE: MESH TO I~ CUT 12" CLEAR O~ LOOP 6" CONCRETE j.~--~ 1 1 CURB DETNL 0 D/T WOW. 3/,,'.,'-o' PNNTED TRAFRC ARROWS ,.,.,. oN 12' eoe CONC. CUES · OR~ / I II /'/ / ~ PAVIDdE:NT [1.['VATIONS /THRU LANE: ~~J/// / ~ l'O THIS POIm. From: Douglas W. Sinctar 551-776-4818 To: Doug Sar~stact (Business Fax) Date: ~t~le: 1:44:40 PM Page .3 of :3 MEMORA NDUM DATE: December 24, 1998 TO: City Council/Planning Commission - City of New Hope FROM: Border Foods, Inc. RE: Application for Development of Taco Bell Restaurant - Midland Shopping Center- New Hope, MN This memo will serve to communicate the plans of Border Foods, Inc. (Franchisee for Taco Bell) in the development of a Taco Bell restaurant at the Midland Shopping Center. We have previously proposed the construction of a new building, removing the old bank building and constructing on that location. Following significant residential opposition to that plan, representatives of Border Foods and Kraus-Anderson, the owner of Midland Shopping Center, reviewed alternative plans and determined that the attached proposed redevelopment of the existing bank building is the alternative which meets the cdteda of both the Landlord and Tenant. We also feel that this proposal will respond to the concerns identified by the residents in their comments on the previous plan. Specifically, the following issues have been raised by either the city staff or the residents: Deliveries - Our food deliveries will be made by Amedserve, from their Plymouth location. Frequency will be three times per week. The only other delivery will be bulk CO2 for the drink system every two weeks. We will work with Arnedserve to schedule our delivery sometime between the hours of 7; AM and 9 PM. Hours of Operation - We anticipate hours of operation from 10 AM to Midnight, Monday -Thursday, and 10 AM to 2 AM, Fdday and Saturday. Although we have other units within the metropolitan Twin Cities that operate later hours, our analysis of this location is that the hours identified above are appropriate at this time. Seating - In accordance with the conversation at the Design Review Committee, there will be provision for outside seating in the landscaped area proposed in front of the Taco Bell (former bank building) unit. s W. S~r~aJr ~51-77~-461~ To: Doug ~and~ad (B~sine~ Fax) Date: ~me; 1:44:40 PM ;3age 2 of 3 Sound and Light - We will be employing a visual order confirmation board which will allow the customer to visually check the order that they have placed thus reducing the need for extended communication between the speaker and the car. In addition, the landscaping plan has been designed to block virtually all light emanating from the building and any drive-thru traffic as well as provide a sound buffer to the residential units adjacent to the shopping center. Odor- Our food preparation system requires minimal on site cooking. Because of this procedure, our restaurants do not emit cooking odors. Security - We follow Taco Bell Corp. recommended secudty procedures at all of our restaurants. We use a video camera security system in our restaurants. Drainage - the proposed newly constructed landSCaped area in front of the existing northern building will serve as drainage for that area of the property with additional surface drainage along the westerly edge of the drive-thru extension around the southerly end of the drive-thru and to the curbing adjacent to Winnetka and to the existing drainage manholes. We have made every effort to accommodate the concems of the city and the local residents. We are prepared to respond to any additional issues that might be identified relating to this project, We respectfully request the approval Of the City of New Hope of this proposal. I -25/32' ii t I' 79-13/32" OAH VARIES SCALE: 1/4"=1 '-0" "~'-":" Everbrite · * *%-°*," -, IdenfiW Systems Division ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS: SIGN SPECIFICATIONS: LAMPS: TACO: (2)F24T12 Design 50 HO SERVICING: Remove front face (1)F48T12 Design 50 HO wEIGHT: TACO BELL (leffers) CRATED: 75Ihs. BELL: (1) F18T12 Design 50 HO MINt BELL (logo) CRATED: 651bs. (1) FTU6/60 Sign White HO MINI BELL: (4) F24T12 Design 50 HO BALLASTS: TACO: (1)51-7411vlc:gnetek ..."' ......... - BELU (1)51-742 Magnatek MINI BELL: (1)51-741 Magnatek UNELOAD: TOTAL (1) 15 Amp @ 120v circuit TACO: 1.35Amps · ,,L_._ .~,~ ' '.~ Violet- Match L8-7917 Spraylaf .... ; ~...?.~ . - ..... ~...~Concrete ~','.'."' i YelIow- Match Spray[at L8-7836 ANCHORBOLT ..... ,'* , .. · ~ Electrical ~:::=~; & CONDUIT ~ Magenta- M~ch Sprdylaf L8-7937 SE~ING ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS: · FoundGtion wffh four . (4) 3/4" x 8" onchor // ~ 3" , 3" ."; ?' B~sePlate ~MPS: (4)FSOT] 2 CW/HO bolts by Generol ~/4- ~: .... BAL~STS: (]) G,E. 5G3gS9 Confroofor LINELOAD: 2,9 Amp FRON~ OF S',GN (1)]5 Amp Q ]20v circuit SERVICING: Face hinged at top WEIGHT: 360 lbs, (crated) Violet- Match Sprayfat L8-7917 Menu .~-~-- ~:...-:- ~ ~7'~i Board ¢"~' :Z:;'L""".,..; Yellow- Match Spraylat L8-7836 ~ Magenta- MatCh SpraYl~ L8-7937 .Spea~ker ' k 3'6" ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS: 5~ ~MPS: (1)U9-36T12 CW/HO 1 BAL~STS: (1) G.E, 6G3909 i LINELOAD: ,75 Amp (1)15 Amp Q 120v circUit Locate Speaker Stand WEIGHT: 75lbs, (crated) .~. ANCHOR BOLT PLAN · NOTE: Conduit required Iow voltage speaker · Foundation with four (4) 1/2" x 8" anchor bolts by general contractor .- Concrete FRONT Videf- Match Spraylaf L8-7917 ~.,_,:.:?.!_~/~:,;,}j Yellow- Match Scraytat L8-7836 ~ Magonta- Match SDrcr/lc~' L8-7937 EL[CTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS: .. ~MPS:(1 )~U9/60T12 Sign White HO "U" lamp BAL~STS: (1)Si-601 Magnetek LINELOAD: 1.35 Amp (1)15 Amp ~ 120v circuit 19-1/2" SERVICE: Slide face out ~ ', WEIGHT: 50lbs. (crated) * .:~ ~' :. .'"- SCALE: 1"=1 '-0" -, T · . Everbrite · 'z~..'.'. Identi~ Systems Division DIRECTIONAL SIGN COPY 3" COPY P~ng ~ 2 ~ 1~0 I~ 4 ~ ~ I ,~ 1 .~ 7.2 ? V~ ~ 2 10 ~ ~M 1,~ 1.~ 7~ 1~1s v~ e,sti Lets It W~ 1,1~ 1.11 ~ Omd C~. 1 ~ 1.2 25 F~m I~ G~ ~ 0.72 ~ T~ B~ 2,1~ 2.1~ 10,68 T~I: 6e,eM 89.0es 3~D26 Midland Shopping Center Parking Stall Assessment JS-Sep-98 Prope._rty Name __ . Square Feet Pad(big Stalls Slalls per 1,0o0 SF Tenaitts Oak Park Plaze, Blaine g5,779 481 5.02 Aoe Hardware, Jubilee Foods, Sr~ Dnig, Star IJquor, Video Upd~e Rairlx)w Village, Blaine 130,700 6.53 4.99 Rainbow Foods, Drug Emporium, M~rahall's Colonial Square, Wayzata 84,368 476 5.04 Lurid's, Rexall Drag, Dunn Bros. COlfee Ridgedaie FeMival, MinnMonka t19,392 526 4.4 Olfice Max, Schmllt Muaic, Toys I~ Ua Spodmart Plaza, Mlnnatonka 66,150 300 4.54 Audio King. Ettan Nlen, Spodmmt - Exhibit A 4.125 (8)(a) - (k) 8) Outdoor Oininq, Accessory. Outdoor dining as an accessory use for restaurants, drive-in, and convenience food establishments, under a conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: (a) The applicant be reduired to submit a site plan and other 0ertinent information demonstrating the location and type of all taP]es, refuse receptacles, and wait stations. (b) .Access to the dining area be provided only via the Principal building if the dining area is a full service restaurant, including table waiting service. (c) The size of the dining area is restricted to thirty (30) percent of the total customer floor area within the principal structure, (d) The dining area is screened From view from adjacent residential uses in accordance with Section 4,033(3)(b) of this Code, (e) All lighting be hooded and directed away from adjacent residential uses in accordance with Section 4.033(5) of this Code. (f) The applicant demonstrates that pedestrian circulation is not disrupted as a result of the outdoor dining area by providing the following: (i) Outdoor. dining area shall be segregated from through pedestrian circulation by means of temporary Fencing, bol]ards, ropes, plantings, or other methods, and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Council. (ii) Minimum clear passage zone for pedestrians at the perimeter of the cafe shall be at least five (5) feet without interference from parked motor vehicles, boi]ard$, trees, trsegates, curbs, stairways, trash receptacles, street lights, parking meters, or the like. (iii) Overstory canopy of trees, umbrellas or other structures extending into the pedestrian clear passage zone or pedestrian aisle shell have a minimum clearance of seven (7) ?est above sidewalk. (g) The dining area is surfaced with concrete, bituminous or decorative paver to provide a clean, attractive, and functional surface. (h) A minimum width of thirty-six (36) inches shall be provided within aisles of the outdoor dining area. (i) Storage of furniture shall not be permitted on the sidewalk between November 1 and March 31. Sidewalk furniture that is immovable or permanently fixed or attached to the sidewalk shall not be subject to the storage prohibition of this section. However, any immovable or permanently fixed or attached furniture must be approved as part of the sits ~lan aDp]ication provided for by §4.125(8)(a) of this Code. (j) No outside bar or cooking facility shall be established, only wait staCions shell be allowed. (k] Additional off-street parking shall be required pursuant ~o the requirements set forth in §4.036 of this Code based on the additional seating area provided by the outdoor dining area. 4-69B 072684 4.[25 (8)(1) - (n) (1) Refuse containers are provided ?or sel?-service outdoor dining areas. Such containers shall be placed in a manner which does not disrupt pedestrian circulation, and must be designed to prevent spillage and blowing litter. m) The operation is subject to approval of the City Sanitarian and compliance with any written provisions he or she requires. n) Rooftop dining facilities shall be permitted provided they meet all applicable conditions as listed herein and in addition: (i) Provide permanent walls of fencing around the periphery of the dining area at a minimum height of ~2 inches to ensure the safety of persons/property. (ii) Any permanent structures, including divider walls, trellis work, etc. be included as part of the building upon which they are located and are subject to the building height ]imitations as specified in Section ~.033(1) of this Code. (iii) The submitted plans for a rooftop dining facility as we]] as the building upon which the proposed outdoor dining is occur is subject to review Dy the City Building Inspector. Me/She will determine whether %he building is structurally capable of handling the additional weight of persons and equipment. (Ord. 92-5) ~-69C 07268~ NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS · '~1~ INC COMMUNITY PLAN N NO DESIGN - MARKET RESEA~cH PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Cynthia Putz-Yang / Alan Brixius DATE: December 29, 1998 RE: New Hope - Taco Bell Site Plan CUP FILE NO: 131.01 - 98.14 BACKGROUND Kraus-Anderson Realty Company has requested approval for a Taco Bell with a drive- through window that would occupy approximately 3,100 square feet of the Midland Shopping Center. The applicant withdrew a previous plan for the Taco Bell that involved demolition of a portion of the existing building and construction of a new building. The applicant has submitted revised plans based on comments from the Development Review Meeting that was held December 16t~. City staff believes that this is a good redevelopment opportunity that will add new interest and vitality to the Midland Shopping Center. The Shopping Center is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. The Taco Bell would be located in the northeastern portion of the Shopping Center. The following approvals are necessary for this project to proceed: 1. CUP PUD to change the Midland Shopping Center site plan. 2. CUP to allow outdoor dining. 3. CUP to allow a drive-through window. Attached for reference: ' Exhibit a - Site Location Exhibit B -Site Survey Exhibit C - Preliminary Site Plan Exhibit D - Preliminary Landscape Plan Exhibit E - Exterior Elevations Exhibit F - Memorandum from Developer 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC~ WINTERNET.COM RECOMMENDATION Our office believes that the proposed development provides a good redevelopment opportunity, is compatible with existing zoning, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We therefore recommend approval of a CUP PUD to alter the Midland Shopping Center site plan, a CUP for outdoor dining, and a CUP for a drive-through window subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage and utility concerns shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. A Tac° Bell ground sign is not allowed unless a variance is granted. An identification sign for Taco Bell may be added to the Midland Shopping Center ground sign is the total sign area does not.exceed 200 square feet. 3. An exterior lighting plan must be submitted. 4. The landscape plan should be revised to state that the white pine trees will range from 12 to 14 feet in height. 5. The applicant must receive permission from the property owner to the north to plant on the owner's property and have an agreement that the adjacent property owner will be responsible for maintenance of the trees. 6. Fire sprinklers for the north wing of the shopping center must be installed within 12 months because the Fire Lane will be removed. 7. At the time that an outdoor dining use is pursued, an outdoor dining plan must be submitted that complies with Section 4.125 (8) of the Zoning Ordinance. 8. A snow storage Plan should be submitted for the Midland Shopping Center showing how snow from the Taco Bell area will be removed and/or stored. 9. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement outlining the standard and time frame of development and providing an appropriate financial security. ISSUES Land Use. The site is zoned B-4, Community Business District. A CUP PUD is required to alter the site plan of the Midland Shopping Center. A restaurant is a permitted use in this District. A drive-through service window and outdoor dining require conditional use permits. 2 Parking. Based on the following analysis, we believe adequate parking has be."-" provided. A floor plan has not been submitted for the restaurant; therefore, we cannot determine the exact number of parking stalls required. However, the floor plan submitted for the previous Taco Bell site plan required 31 parking stalls. Because the restaurant can share parking with the rest of the Midland Shopping Center, we have reviewed total parking stalls required and provided for the Shopping Center. The applicant has submitted a tenant lease and site plan that indicates that presently the Shopping Center provides 474 parking stalls. Based upon 31 stalls for Taco Bell, 30 stalls for Kinhdo (the only other restaurant), and 6 stalls per 1,000 square feet for other tenants Or potential tenants, the Shopping Center would require 454 total stalls. Construction of the Taco Bell drive-through lane and trash enclosure would require the removal of 43 existing parking stalls. The site plan provides 24 replacement stalls. Therefore, the total number of parking stalls required at the Shopping Center is approximately 454 and the total number provided would be 455. Vehicular Circulation. In review of the previously submitted site plan, City staff and the Design Review Board recommended the relocation of the curb cut serving Taco Bell. Hennepin County did not approve this change because the existing driveway is located directly opposite the Terra Linda Drive. The proposed vehicular circulation may provide the best flow possible considering the constraints of an existing building and driveway. Drive aisles are compliant with 24 to 30 feet of width and contain painted directional arrows. Service Window. Code requires not less than 180 feet of segregated automobile stacking lane for the service window. The site plan is compliant with approximately 180 feet of stacking space. The service window menu boards are oriented away from the adjoining residential properties, mitigating noise concerns. See Exhibit F for the hours of operation. Curbing. Curbing surrounds the parking and drive areas to direct traffic and control parking. Grading, Drainage and Utilities. The direction of Water flow is indicated on the landscape plan. A catch basin is proposed on the west side of the drive-through lane. Existing catch basins will also be utilized. Drainage and utility concerns shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer Loading. A loading zone of sufficient size has been indicated on the north side of the building. The loading zone will be marked with white diagonal striping. Refuse Storage. A refuse enclosure is proposed for the east side of the shopping center. This is not a convenient location, but the location has the advantages of not directing the refuse enclosure towards a residential area and not encroaching upon the drive aisle on 3 the north side of the building. The enClosure would be made of concrete block to match the existing building and have a cedar gate. These are appropriate materials. Building Materials. The building eleVations show a new EIFS exterior with new awnings. The windows and existing brick and stucco around the windows will remain. These are acceptable materials. Fencing. A board on board fence that is six feet in height is proposed along the north property line to provide screening for the residential property to the north. The fence will have shrubs in front of it and pine trees behind it. Signs. The applicant has proposed a ground sign 30 feet in height and 93 square feet in size. In the previously submitted site plan, the restaurant was a freestanding satellite site and was allowed to have a freestanding sign. In the current site plan, however, the restaurant is contained within the shopping center; therefore, an individual tenant ground sign is not allowed. A variance may be pursued if the Planning Commission finds that an individual tenant sign is appropriate. A sign identifying Taco Bell may be added to the Midland Shopping Center ground sign provided that the total area is not more than 200 square feet and not more than 30 feet in height. The applicant is also proposing two wall signs, one on the east side and one on the south side of the building. These wall signs are compliant. Lighting. No exterior wall lights are labeled on the exterior building elevations. An exterior lighting plan should be submitted. Two poles with mounted lights are proposed that will match exterior flood lights around the Midland Shopping Center. All site lighting is less than one footcandle at adjacent property lines. Landscaping. The proposed white pine trees are stated as having a height of 12 to 14 inches. This should be revised to 12 to 14 feet. The plant types and sizes, other than for the white pine, are appropriate and an irrigation system will be installed. Two linden trees and four white pine trees are proposed on the north side of the property line to provide screening for the adjacent property owner. The applicant must have an agreement with the adjacent property owner that grants permission to plant on the adjacent property and states that the adjacent property owner will be responsible for the maintenance of the trees. A six foot high board on board fence is also located along the north property line for additional screening. KraUs-Anderson Realty Company, the owner of the Midland Shopping Center, is responsible for landscape maintenance of the shopping center site. The site plan provides two sodded areas in conjunction with a new parking design on the south side of the building. This design reduces runoff, increases green area, increases available parking spaces, and improves parking convenience and safety adjacent to the building front. 4 Sprinkler Protection. Fire sprinklers for the north wing of the shopping cente~ must installed within 12 months because the Fire Lane will be removed. Outdoor Dining. Outdoor dining is proposed on the south side of the building in an area paved with concrete. The proposed dining area is screened from residential areas and appears to conform to size, surfacing, lighting, and pedestrian circulation requirements. At the time that an outdoor dining use is pursued, an outdoor dining plan must be submitted that.complies with Section 4.125 (8) of the Zoning Ordinance. Snow Storage. A snow storage plan should be submitted for the Midland Shopping Center showing how snow from the Taco Bell area will be removed and/or stored. CONCLUSION Our office believes that the proposed development provides a good redevelopment opportunity, is compatible with existing zoning, and is consiStent with the Comprehensive Plan. We therefore recommend approval of a CUP PUD to alter the Midland Shopping Center site plan, a CUP for outdoor dining, and a CUP for a drive-through window subject to the conditions found in the recommendation section of this report. pc: Doug Sandstad Mark Hanson 5 BONESTRO0 ROSENE ANDERL[K ~ 6516361311 12/29/98 11:29 [~ :02/05 N0:446 Engineers & Architects o,~.,,, sc. ,~,. ~,~-.,. w,,~ ~. ~t (,.u,. ~. ~,,*,~.. w, M. EMO TO: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Coordinator FROM: Vincc Vandet Top DATE: December 29, 1998 SUBJECT: Taco Bell Site Plan Out File No. 34-Cen E98-30 We have reviewed the submitted plans and proposed site improvements as they relate to the Midland Shoppin$ Center and Taco Bell. The following comments ~ provided: 1. The Landscape Plan includes a ptopmed stonn sewer linc "to be designed and approved by thc City Engineer". It is recommended that a grading and drainage plan be prepared to include this and other information. The plan should include proposed elev~ons and drainage patterns. Pavement and curb slopes must reflect adequate f~des to drain. The size, slopes, and inverts of proposed storm sewers and structures must be indicated. 2. ~n general, the site ~ from wear to east to existing catch basins and storm sewer at the east edge of the Midland Center parking lot. Additional storm sewer is reou~. The first segment of stern sewer will serve ~ ama east of the shopping center and wea~ of the Taco Bell drive thru lane. This storm sewer is shown in concept on the landscape plan. Thc inlet capacity of the catch basin must be capable of serving a five-year storm event. An overflow route must be identified to prevent flooding in the event of a major storm event et a plugged catch basin. The second segment wOUld ser~e runoff from the north side of the shopping center. A drainage ama of approximately 2 acres ¢ontribums flow to the north side of the shoppin8 center. The runoff will have to cros~ the drive thru lane and the Winnetka Avenue driveway to reach the existing catch basins. It would be beneficial to capture the runoff in & storm sewer prior to the driveway crossings. If storm sewer is not extended to ~ ama, appropriate swales would have to be constructed to accommodate the runoff. 2335 ~Vest Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 · Fax: 612-636-1311 80NESTRO0 ROSENE ANOERL~K '~6516361311 12/29/98 11:29~'03/05 N0:446 3. The proposed Taco Bell restaurant will utiil~ the existing sanitary sewer and water services. It is recommended that the developer and thc City review the sizes and condition of these services. The plans should reflect changes if modifications to the services are required'. 4. Site Details: Curb details I and 7 are not acceptable for curb lines that required to carry storm water, Typical curb requirements are reflected by detail 4. 5. The project site limits should be modified to account for storm sewer, parking lot/seating area, and trash enclosure construction. The limits of pavement removal should be identified on the site plan or a removal plan. The construction a~ea must be Protected from a safety and an erosion/debris control standpoint. Winnetka Avenue and adjacent parking lots shall remain free et' construction materials including soil and construction debris. 6. The Winnetka Avenue driveway will stay in its current location per the . requirements of the County, The driveway widths and curb radii as shown on the plans ate adequate to permit delivery vehicle access to the noah side of the shopping center. The proposed parking/striping confl$~utation on the north side of the building is not conducive to two-way traffic, part~:ularly with a delivery vehicle occupying the loading zone. The City and/or developer may consider eliminating the three parallel parking stalls along the north property line. It' you have questions regarding these comments, please call Mark or myself. cc: Mark Hanson FI C.4TE OF UI VEY ':'~ ',, ~'-. _~,,: .o,',E ;,,~,, .~,~-,.,,.-~.,, I~R,. ]:::),~Ul. WR. oI~.I,. ~F-NNE, PIIq COuN"r'Y,' MINN~,$0T~, I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that i am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State ~f Minnesota Date ,~'/,-&/~'~ Reg. No. /~~ ' Book 4Z Page ~3 Sec ! q T. I ! · R Z l 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 98-24 Engelsma Ltd Partnership 9/11/98 11/10/98 1/9/99 523 South 8"~ Street Minneapolis 55404 881-8186 Revised plans for rehab of 12/11/98 2/2/99 4/10/99 existing building Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. A. Assign each application a number. B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). C. List the date the City received the application. D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing If the City gives such notice, it must do so within' 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver. I. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the/' ticant before the time limit expires. CITY OF NEW HOPE ?' : PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 98-16 Request: Consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035 by Reducing the Lot Area Size Requirement for Two Family Dwellings Location: City-Wide Zoning: R-2, Single and Two Family Residential Zoning Districts Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: December 30, 1998 Meeting Date: January 5, 1999 UPDATE 1. The City is requesting consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035 by Reducing the Lot Area Size Requirement for Two Family Dwellings, pursuant to the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. This issue arose this summer when the City purchased a single-family home on Wisconsin Avenue, demolished the structure, and started considering options for redevelopment. Due to the fact that the property is located in an area designated by the Comprehensive Plan for R-2 zoning, one of the options the City has considered for the site is a zero-lot line twinhome. 31 Over the course of late summer and fall, the City has examined the lot area and width standards within the R-2 Zoning District for twinhomes. This evaluation was conducted to determine if some adjustment in the twinhome lot size would expand the City's opportunities for utilizing twinhomes as a scattered site redevelopment housing option. 4. The attached July 21 planning report outlines some of the background research associated with this study. This report noted two study objectives: A. Expand the opportunities to utilize twinhomes as a scattered site redevelopment housing option within New Hope. B. Maintain and protect the character of the City's existing single family neighborhoods. 5. The July report provides a comparison of New Hope's twinhome lot sizes with neighboring communities. This comparison revealed that New Hope's twinhome lot size of 7,000 square feet per unit was larger than neighboring communities. The result of this research was a recommendation to reduce the lot area per unit to 6,000 square feet. In reviewing this information with the Codes & Standards Committee, it was determined that an increase in lot width from 75 feet to 90 feet should accompany the proposal to reduce the twinhome lot size. 6. The Community Development Intern has also prepared the attached memo describing background information, discussions that have taken place with the Codes & Standards Committee, and an overall analysis of the code change. Please take time to review this information. 7. At a meeting held December 18, the latest revised ordinance was reviewed by the Codes & Standards Committee and the Committee recommended that the ordinance be forwarded to the entire Planning Commission for public hearing. Several minor changes have been made to the ordinance since December 18, as the City Attorney and Planner discovered that the proposed changes impacted several other sections of the Zoning Code. 8. A legal nOtice was placed in the official newspaper of the City stating that a public hearing would be held at the October 6 Planning Commission meeting. Due to the fact that the Codes & Standards Committee only reviewed this issue briefly in September, the public hearing was continued un~-.,the November Planning Commission meeting. Due to the fact that the Codes & Standards Committ~ not meet in October, the matter was continued from the November Planning Commission meeting to the December meeting. The Codes & Standards Committee met and discussed this issue at its November 24 meeting. They requested that staff complete additional research and bring this item back to the Committee for further discussion in December. Therefore, the issue was continued from the December to January meeting. This amendment would be effective on a city-wide basis, therefore, no legal notices were mailed to specific areas. Copies of this report were sent to the two property owners adjacent to the city-owned property at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue, due to their interest in this particular code amendment. ANALYSIS 1. Per the Community Development Intern's memo, the proposed code text amendment to change the R-2 zoning standards for twinhomes involves two components, lot size and lot width. The research done by staff and the Planning Consultant indicate that New Hope has unusually Iow requirements for lot width while maintaining higher than average lot size requirements. For the purposes of assisting future redevelopment efforts, both public and private, the Codes and Standards COmmittee recommends amending the zoning code to allow a twinhome to be bUilt upon a lot with 12,000 square feet and a width of 90 feet. 2. For the Codes & Standards Committee, the issue that raised the most concern was allowing twinhomes to be "crammed" onto smaller lots in the City. The Committee stressed the importance of maintaining the integrity and appearance of New Hope's residential neighborhoods. New Hope's current lot width requirements are much lower that neighboring cities, and it is lot width that gives the appearance of over utilizing a site. Using the lot at 5629 Wisconsin, for example, a home built on a 75 foot wide lot would be ten feet from both adjacent property lines. The Committee identified that the recommended 90 foot lot width was the smallest lot on which New Hope should allow a twinhome to be built. 3. In looking at the practicality of a 90 foot lot width requirement, it seems that this is reasonable considering the City's redevelopment goals. The surrounding communities average 95 feet for their lot width requirements. In order to set reasonable standards for New Hope, however, the City must also focus on its existing redevelopment areas. While other cities require lot widths of around 95 feet, the average lot width in New Hope's redevelopment areas averages 90 feet. Therefore, the Codes and Standards Committee decided to set the New Hope standard at a lot width that was reasonable taking into consideration the City's existing lot sizes. 4. The lot size requirement, based on a 90 foot wide lot, was recommended to be 12,000 square feet. New Hope's neighboring communities average lot sizes are between 12,000 and 13,000 square feet. The inventory of the City's redevelopment area indicates that New Hope's average lot sizes are around 13,300 square feet. The existing twinhomes in New Hope average a lot size of 12,960 square feet. In summary, New Hope's current requirement of 14,000 square feet for a twinhome far exceeds the standards of other communities, the existing twinhomes lot sizes, and the lot sizes of the City's redevelopment areas. A lot size requirement of 12,000 square feet would create more development possibilities in the City's target areas. 5. In most cases, this change will affect city projects in the targeted redevelopment areas. In November the Codes and Standards Committee identified that it is in fact the City that does most of the residential redevelopment projects in New Hope. If the City desired to build a twinhome in the targeted redevelopment areas, it would be required to rezone the property prior to building a new home, as is the case with the lot at 5629 Wisconsin. Thus, the City will retain the authority through the rezoning process to judge the appropriateness of a twinhome on a case-by-case basis. Planning Case 98-16 Page 2 12/30/98 6,. As the Planner's report indicates, these changes should accomplish the previous cited objectives in the ~following ways: A. The reduced lot area will allow a twinhome on a 12,000 square foot base lot expanding opportunities for scattered site redevelopment. B. The increased lot width is intended to prevent crowding a twinhome onto narrow lots. The recently constructed city twinhomes required minimum 80-foot lot width to accommodate the building and necessary setbacks. This indicated that the current 75-foot lot width was insufficient. Additionally, in conversation with residents along Wisconsin Avenue, their greatest concern was the street side appearance of the twinhome building. Weighing this information, the Codes & Standards Committee recommended a minimum lot width of 90 feet for twinhome units. C. Another protection for single family neighborhoods is the need to rezone properties from R-1 to R-2 to accommodate twinhome development. The rezoning process involves a public hearing at the Planning Commission and a final decision by the City Council. In recognizing the need for rezoning, it should be noted that the proposed lot area and width changes alone will allow twinhome development in areas currently zoned R-1. 7. In follow-up to the recommendations made by the Codes & Standards Committee at its December 18 meeting, the City Attorney has prepared the enclosed revised Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035 by Reducing the Lot Area Size Requirement for Two Family Dwellings for consideration at the January Planning Commission meeting. 8. The ordinance will now require a 90-foot lot width and a 12,000 square foot area requirement for two familY dwellings in the Ro2 Zoning District. After reviewing the ordinance in light of the proposed changes, both the City Attorney and the City Planner felt changes were necessary to 4.035(1) and (8) as well. Per the City Attorney's correspondence, the changes made to 4.035(1) establish a minimum 90-foot lot width for the R-2 and R-3 Zoning Districts. It was felt a change was necessary to R-3 to remain consistent with the proposed R-2 change. In other words, it didn't make sense to leave the R-3 District at a smaller minimum lot width than required in the R-2 District. As a result, both were increased to 90 feet. Regarding the change to 4.035(8)(b), a change was made to be consistent with the change to 4.035(2). In other words, the 7,000 square foot lot area minimum was reduced to 6,000 square feet in Section 4.035(8)(b) also. Further, Section 4.035(8) makes reference to quadraminiums. No reference to such a structure was made in 4.035(2). Therefore, quadraminiums have been included in 4.035(2) as it relates to minimum area requirements. 9. It is recommended that the City revise Section 4.035(2) of the New Hope City Code to reduce the lot size and increase the lot width requirements to 12,000 square feet and 90 feet, respectively. RECOMMENDATION The Codes & Standards Committee and staff recommend approval of the ordinance. Attachments: 12/29 City Attorney Correspondence Proposed Ordinance 12/29 Planning Consultant Report 12/24 Community Development Intern Memo 12/11 Codes & Standards Memo 11/19 Codes & Standards Memo 11/4 Planner's'Memo 7/21 Planner's Report Planning Case 98-16 Page 3 12/30/98 12/29/98 12: 4~ ]'S&S, ATTORNEYS -~ 5315136 NO. 889 P002 JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At/Law 8525 EDIN-I~OOK CROWinG, ~YIL 201 BROOKLYN PARK, MINNRAOTA 55443-1999 Tk'q-£PitONi: (61,2) 424-8811 ,, TIU.~',~'AX (412) 493..5193 Oomxm L, ~ Iv~rnn p. December 29, t998 Kirk McDonald Community Development Dir~tor City of New Hope 4~t01 X¥1on Avenue North New Ho~, MN 554~ Re: Or~ ~~g R-2 ~t S~e ~ F~ No.: Dear ~k: In follow up m the recommendariom made by the Codes and Siandards Commirlee at its December 18, 1998 m~d,ng, please find e~closed a revised Ordinane~ Amemfing New Hope City Code Section 4.035 by Reducing thc I~t Area Size Requirement for Two Family Dwellings for consideration at the lanuary planaMg c0mmi~ion meeting. The ordinance will now require a 90 foot lot width and a 12,000 acluare foot a~ea requirement for two f~mily dwellings in tl~ R-2 zoning district. After rcvicwlng the ordinance in light of the proposmt chmagea, both myself and the City Pla~mer felt Changes were neces,~l13r to 4.035(0 and (g) as well. The changes maci_~ to 4.035(1) establish a minirm,rrt ~}0 fOOt lot widlll for ti~ R-2 a$~ R-3 zoning djstr~ct$. ~t wa$ felt a change was neceas~ to didn't ~ sease to leave the R-3 distfigt at a smaller miniml~wi lot width than required in the R-2 district. As a result, both were increased to 90 f~et. Regarding the change to 4.03~(8)(b), a change was made to be consism~t with the ChanT to 4.035(2). ~ other words, the 7,000 square foot lot area m~Mmum was reduced to 6,000 square fegt in Section 4.035(8)0a) al~a. Ftu-ther, $~ction 4.035(8) maims r~{~l'~I/ce to quadraminiums. ! nodc~ that no reference to such a stnmmre was made in 4.035(2). Therefore, I also bare included quadramMium$ in 4.035(2) as it relatg$ t~ mhzimum area requirements. Law 12,/29~ 12:41 ]'SIS, ATTORNEYS '-> 53151:36 NO. 88~ P003 December 29, 1998 Page 2 Please con~act me if you have any other questions or comments regarding the proposed Changes. Very u'uly yours, Stev~n~~ $ondrall Enclosure cc; Valerie Leone Al Bri~us lP__.,'~,~8 12:41 ~T~°~S, RTT~¥S -> 5~151:~ NO. 889 P004 ORDINANCE NO. 99- AN ORDINANCE AM~.NDING NEW ItOPE CITY CODE SECTION 4.035 BY REDUCING THE LOT AREA SIZE REQ~ FOR TWO FAMII.Y DWELLINGS The City Council of the City of New Hope orating: Section 1. Section 4.035(1) "Purmse' of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (I) Purpose. This section identifies minirlllllll area aiK[ building size requirements to be provided for in each zoning district as listed in the table below: District Lot Area Lot Width B_uildJng Height R-1 9,500 scI. ff. 75 feet 21/z stories R-2 9,500 sq. ft. 7-5 90 fcet 2V~ stories R-3 10,000 sci. ft. 80 90 feet 3 stones R-4 15,000 sq. ft. 10/3 feet 4 stories R-5 15,000 sq. ft. 100 feet 4 stories R-0 15,000 ~. ft. 100 feet 3 stones B-1 10,000 sq. ft. 80 feet 2 storzeS B-2 1 acre 100 fcct 3 stones B-3 n/a n]a 3 stOrles B-~ n/a n]a 3 stones 1-1 1 acre 150 feet 3 stones 1-2 1 acre 100 feet 3 swnes Section 2. Section 4.035(2) "Lot Area Per Unit" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read ~s follows: (2) Lot &rea Per Unit. The lot area per n~it requirement for towuhouses, multiple family dwellings snd planued unit developments shall be calculated on the basis of the total area iu the project arid as corm-oiled by an individual and joint ownership. Other minimum areas are: Single Family 9,500 square feet Two FzmiIy 7,~30 6,000 square feet Townhouse/~ ~,000 square feet Multiple Family 3,000 square feet* Elderly Housing and/or Physically Handicapped 1,000 square feet · 4,000 square feet in a R-~ District. 1~9~c~8 1~:~1 ~S~S,ATTO~EYS -> 5~151~G N0.88~ Section 3. Section 4.035($)(b) "!Miulmum Area and Width" of ~e Hew Hope Code ~ hereby ~~ to read ~ follows: Minimm.,~ ~d Wide. ~e foHo~ ~e ~ini~,m u~t lot r~em~ts for doubl~ ~g~ow, ~&~m. or to~o~e subdiv~iom: Double Bungalo Qua~amininm Tow~ouse Lot Ar~ ~ 6,~ sq. a. 5,000 sq. ~. . S,0~ sq. ~t Wid~ 1/2 ~e b~e lot 50 a. 20 s~eet ~o~ge S~on 4, Eff~v¢ Dst,. T~ Ordinance sh~l be eff~tive upon i~ p~sage publication. Da~ ~ day of ,199~. W. Pemr Enck, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-C-olden Valley Sun-Post the _ day of ,1999.) COMMUNITY PLANNINO - DESION MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDOnald FROM: Alan Brixius / Troy Hagen DATE: 29 December 1998 RE: New Hope - R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District Study FILE NO: 131.00 - 98.04 Over the course of late sUmmer and fall, the City has examined the lot area and width standards within the R-2 zoning district for twinhomes. This evaluation was conducted to determine if some adjustment in the twinhome lot size would expand the City's opportunities for utilizing twinhomes as a scattered site redevelopment housing option. A July 21, 1998 planning report outlined the background research associated with this study. This report noted two study objectives: 1. Expand the opportunities to utilize twinhomes as a scattered site r~edevelopment housing option within New Hope. 2. Maintain and protect the character of the City's existing single family neighborhoods. The July report provides a comparison of New Hope's twinhome lot sizes with neighboring communities. This comparison revealed that New Hope's twinhome lot size of 7,000 square feet per unit was larger than neighboring communities. The result of this research was a recommendation to reduce the lot area per unit to 6,000 square feet. In reviewing this information with the Codes and Standards Committee, it was determined that an increase in lot width from 75 feet to 90 feet should accompany the proposal to reduce the twinhome lot size. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 55,41 (5 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@WlNTERNET.COM These changes should accomplish the previous cited objectives in the following ways. 1. The reduced lot area will allow a twinhome on a 12,000 square feet base lot expanding opportunities for scattered site redevelopment. 2. The increased lot width is intended t° prevent crowding a twinhome onto narrow lots. The recently constructed City twinhomes required minimum 80 foot lot width to accommodate the building and necessary setbacks. This indicated that the current 75 foot lot width was insufficient. Additionally, in conversation with residents along Wisconsin Avenue, their greatest concern was the street side appearance of the twinhome building. Weighing this information, the Codes and Standards Committee recommended a minimum lot width of 90 feet for twinhome units. 3. Another protection for single family neighborhoods is the need to rezone properties from R-1 to R-2 to accommodate twinhome development. The rezoning process involves a public hearing atthe Planning Commission and a final decision by the City Council. In recognizing the need for rezoning, it should be noted that the proposed lot area and width changes alone will allow twinhome development in areas currently zoned R-1. CONCLUSION The City Attorney has prepared a draft ordinance that outlines the proposed changes to the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. The zoning changes were recommended for approval by the Codes and Standards Committee and offered to the Planning Commission for further evaluation. pc: Steve Sondrall Doug Sandstad 2 Memorandum To: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development From: Phil Kern, Community Development Intern Date: December 24, 1998 Subject: R-2 Lot Size Requirements - Background and Analysis Background Proposed is a code text amendment to Section 4.035(2) to lower the lot size requirements in the R-2 zoning district for twinhomes. The need to amend the zoning code initially surfaced as the City began developing options for redevelopment at 5629 Wisconsin. Shortly following acquisition in December of 1997, City staff began preparing redevelopment options for this property at the request of the City Council. The potential developments included a single-family home, a single- family handicap-accessible home, a twinhome, and a handicap-accessible twinhome. Staff researched the advantages and disadvantages of each type of development in preparation for a Council decision on the future development at this site. As staff began researching the possibility of building a twinhome at 5629 Wisconsin, two hurdles became evident. First, the property was zoned R-1 single-family, which does not include twinhomes. The Comprehensive Plan, however, identifies this property and the adjacent properties along Wisconsin Avenue between Bass Lake Road and 55th Avenue as a target redevelopment area for Iow and medium density residential units. Therefore, redevelopment and a possible rezoning of this property had been previously been established as a desirable goal for the City. With adjacent properties to the west and north zoned R-4 and land to the east zoned R- 3 and R-0, the rezoning of the properties adjacent to Wisconsin Avenue would create more compatible land use for the entire neighborhood. On August 24, 1998, the City Council discussed the possibility of rezoning these properties and authorized staff to continue looking into the possibility of building a twinhome on this lot, stating that there was sufficient justification for rezoning the property if desired. The willingness for the Council to continue the process of looking into a twinhome at 5629 Wisconsin caused staff to look into the other hurdle preventing a twinhome at this site. In June, staff identified that the lot size for this property was 13,500 square feet, and its dimensions were unique. The property has a lot depth of 180 feet, but it is only 75 feet wide. Staff felt that the lot size and depth were sufficient for building a twinhome, however the lot width created a concern, since lot width determined how close the home would be built to neighboring lots. In researching the Zoning Code, however, staff learned that under the current standards, the lot width is sufficient for a twinhome but the lot size is too small. The current codes states that a lot must be 75 feet wide and have an area of 14,000 square feet. Therefore, if the lot was 6 feet deeper, it would meet the Code requirements, even though the depth does not affect the building or its closeness to neighboring lots. As is, though, the lot at 5629 Wisconsin was too small to build a twinhome. Staff felt that the lot area requirement was uncommonly high, especially since lot width is the factor that gives the appearance of crowding a twinhome on a small lot. Research was conducted by staff and the Planning Consultant as to the standards in place in our surrounding communities. The survey concluded that New Hope's lot area requirements in fact were higher than most other cities, yet our lot width requirements were lower than most others. On average, our neighboring communities had lot width requirements of 95 feet and lot area requirements of 12,900 square feet. The results of the survey are attached. Staff presented these findings to the Council on August 24, 1998 in the context of the redevelopment project at 5629 Wisconsin. The Council concluded that our current zoning requirements are unusual. In terms of 5629 Wisconsin, the CoUncil asked staff to continue researching how a twinhome could be built on this lot, whether through a variance, code text amendment, or by purchasing land from neighboring properties. At this point, staff separated the R-2 lot size issue from 5629 Wisconsin, and began looking at its impact on the City as a whole. The Planning Consultant researched the City's target redevelopment areas, as identified by the Comprehensive Plan. The results indicated that in four of our five selected redevelopment areas, the lot sizes are two small to accommodate a twinhome under the current requirements. The lot area averages 13,300 square feet across these redevelopment areas. The lot widths, however, average anYwhere from 90 to 95 feet. The survey of New Hope redevelopment areas is attached. The item was presented at the November Codes and Standards meeting, where it was tabled while staff conducted further research. The Committee wanted staff to report the dimensions and lot sizes of the two City-built twinhomes at 51't & Winnetka Avenues and 62"~ and Louisiana Avenue. Staff indicated at the December Codes and Standards meeting that both twinhomes were built on lots with at least 17,000 square feet and lot widths of 100 feet or more. The Committee discussed the issue further, and recommended a code text amendment to the Planning Commission to change the requirements to 12,000 square feet and a 90 foot lot width. The Committee stated that these standards will accommodate the City's redevelopment areas while preserving the integrity of our neighborhoods. In terms of 5629 Wisconsin Avenue, this amendment will not change the fact that a twinhome cannot be built on this lot. Since the August 24th City Council meeting, staff has held a neighborhood meeting with residents in the area of 5629 Wisconsin to discuss the redevelopment project. While for the most part residents were supportive of a twinhome, concerns were raised about the appearance of a twinhome being "crammed" on this lot. Staff has discussed this issue further with the City Council and the idea of a twinhome is no longer among the primary considerations for this lot. Currently, staff is focusing on building a single-family home, possibly handicap accessible. Staff agrees that a twinhome is not compatible with the existing width of this lot. Analysis The proposed code text amendment to change the R-2 zoning standards for twinhomes involves two components, lot size and lot width. The research done by staff and the Planning Consultant indicate that New Hope has unusually Iow requirements for lot width while maintaining higher than average lot size requirements. For the purposes of assisting future redevelopment efforts, both public and private, the Codes and Standards Committee recommends amending zoning code to allow a twinhome to be built upon a lot with 12,000 square feet and a width of 90 feet. · Page 2 For the Codes and Standards Committee, the issue that raised the most concern was allowing twinhomes to be "crammed" onto smaller lots in the City. The Committee stressed the importance of maintaining the integrity and appearance of our residential neighborhoods. New Hope's current lot width requirements are much lower that neighboring cities, and it is lot width that gives the appearance of "cramming" a home on a lot. Using the lot at 5629 Wisconsin, for example, a home built on a 75 foot wide lot would be ten feet from both adjacent property lines. The Committee identified that the recommended 90 foot lot width was the smallest lot on which New Hope should allow for a twinhome to be built. in looking at the practicality of a 90 foot lot width requirement, it seems that this is reasonable considering the City's redevelopment goals. The surrounding communities average 95 feet for their lot width requirements. In order to set reasonable standards for New Hope, however, the City must also focus on its existing redevelopment areas. While other cities require lot widths of around 95 feet, the average lot width in New Hope's redevelopment areas averages 90 square feet. Therefore, the Codes and Standards Committee decided to set the New Hope standard at a lot width that was reasonable taking into consideration the City's existing lot sizes. The lot size requirement, based on a 90 foot wide lot, was recommended to be 12,000 square feet. New Hope's neighboring communities average lot sizes of between 12,000 and 13,000 square feet. The inventory of the City's redevelopment area indicates that our average lot sizes are around 13,300 square feet. The existing twinhomes in New Hope average a lot size of 12,960 square feet. In summary, New Hope's current requirement of 14,000 square feet for a twinhome far exceeds the standards of other communities, the existing twinhomes lot sizes, and the lot sizes of the City's redevelopment areas. A lot size requirement of 12,000 square feet would create more development possibilities in the City's target areas. in most cases, this change will affect City projects in the targeted redevelopment areas. The Codes and Standards Committee identified at the November meeting that it is in fact the City that does most of the residential redevelopment projects in New Hope. If the City desired to build a twinhome in the targeted redevelopment areas, it would be required to rezone the property prior to building a new home, as is the case with the lot at 5629 Wisconsin. Thus, the City will retain the authority through the rezoning process to judge the appropriateness of a twinhome on a case-by- case basis. It is recommended that the City revise Section 4.035(2) of the New Hope City Code to reduce the lot size and increase the lot width requirements to 12,000 square feet and 90 feet respectively. · Page 3 lemorandum To: Codes & Standards Committee From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Phil Kern, Community Development Intern Date: December 11, 1998 Subject: R-2 Lot Size (Planning Case 98-16) The purpose of this discussion is to amend the current zoning code with regards to the R-2 lot size requirements for twinhomes. Preliminary discussions have raised questions concerning the current zoning code requirements for development in the R-2 Zone, causing staff to research and develop potential changes to the City Code. Such changes could allow more flexibility for twinhome developments in the R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District. This item was discussed at the November 24th meeting, where is was tabled until further research could be completed on the issue. Staff has researched the lot sizes of the two twinhomes the City has built as part of its scattered site housing program. Each of these twinhomes were built on oversized lots of at least 16,000 square feet. These lot sizes, as the Planner's Report suggests, are common lots in our City. The Planning Consultant, in his 7/21/98 report, explains why changing the lot size requirements would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Of the potential redevelopment areas, 80% have lot sizes smaller than the current requirement of 14,000 square feet. This will make the variety of options in the scattered site hoUsing program and private redevelopment limited in the future. Staff would like to discuss potential options for a zoning code text amendment. City staff has met with the Planning Consultant and City Attorney to discuss this issue and the consensus of those present was to reduce the R-2 lot size requirements from 7,000 square feet per unit for two-family dwellings to 6,000 square feet per unit. The City Attorney has prepared the attached draft ordinance making this change. This issue was placed on the agenda for the September 24th meeting, but was only discussed briefly. Attachments: City developed twinhome lots (5009 Winnetka and 6073 Louisiana) 5629 Wisconsin property survey 9/18/98 City Attorney Correspondence and Ordinance 7/21/98 Planner's Report (Twinhome Lot Size) 7/16/98 Building Official Report 6/26/98 Surrounding community survey City Developed Twinhomes Lot Size per Width per Length per Lot Area Lot Width Lot Length dwellin~l dwellin~l dwellin~l 5009 Winnetka 19,200 SF 128 ft. 150 ft. 9,000 - 10,200 SF 60 - 68 ft. 150 ft. 6073 Louisiana 16,268 SF 96-100 ft. 166 ft. 7968 - 8300 SF 46 - 50 ft. 166 ft. City Developed Home at 6073 Louisiana (near 62"d Avenue) ~- '166 ft. -~ L 0 U I Lot A S 46-50 ft. X 166 ft. I 7968 SF A N A 9 Lot Size 1 6 96-100 ff. X 166 ff. 0 f .................................................... 16,268 SF .................................................. 0 A t f V t E N U Lot B E 50 ff. X 166 ff. 8300 SF (.. 166ft. Scale: I inch = 20 feet City Developed Twinhome at 5009 Winnetka 51't AVENUE NORTH ~' 128ft '.-) ~- 6Oft-) ~' 6 8 ft "') Lot A Lot B 60 ft. X 150 ft. 68 ft. X 150 ft. 9000 SF 10,200 SF Lot A and Lot B W 128 ft. X 150 ft. I 19,200 SF N I N 5 E 0 T f K t A A V E N Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet · ~ ,~- ~E ~."~ S 0~'05'57'' W · ~ ... ~.,~- SFC. ~.. 7.5. O0 5629 Wisconsin ~- .: x Lot Width = 75 feet / '-- \ Lot Depth = 180 feet ' / :. \ Lot Area = 13,500 SF 1' ,~ '? I ~ / 75.0 "' I. '. --- .E hO ' ? 0 F. 480.0 Memorandum To: Codes & Standards Committee From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Communi~ Development Phil Kern, Community Development Intern Date: NOvember 19, 1998 Subject: R-2 Lot Size (Planning Case 98-16) The purpose of this discussion is to amend the current zoning code with regards to the R-2 lot size requirements for twinhomes. Preliminary discussions have raised questions concerning the current zoning code requirements for develOpment in the R-2 Zone, causing staff to research and develop potential changes to the City Code. Such changes could allow more flexibility for twinhome developments in the R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District. The Planning Consultant, in his 7/21/98 report, explains why changing the lot size requirements would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Of the potentia. I redevelOpment areas, 80% have lot sizes smaller than the current requirement. This will make the vadety of options in the scattered site housing program and pdvate redevelopment limited in the future. Staff would like to discuss potential options for a zoning code text amendment. · The discrepancy in the R-2 lot size requirements between New Hope's current ordinance and those of neighboring cities was discovered when staff started researching possible redevelopment options for 5629 Wisconsin Avenue. In eady discussions, a twinhome was 'being considered at this site, however the zoning code prohibited this redevelopment option due to the size of the lot. Staff then proceeded to survey surrounding communities and found that New Hope's requirements are much higher than most cities. On October 28, 1998, City staff held a meeting with the residents in the 5629 Wisconsin Avenue neighborhood. At that meeting, only one property owner had concems about the concept of a twinhome. At this point, the City is still considering either a twinhome or a single-family home at this site. Regardless of the decision on this issue, staff would need to separately present a rezoning for 5629 Wisconsin Avenue at a later date. The City Manager ha~ indicated he wants the Codes & Standards Committee to consider amending the R-2 lot size requirements for the entire City, especially after reviewing the requirements from other cities for R-2 properties. A number of changes have been made recently to the standards in other districts and it may be time to modify the standards for the R-2 District. Staff is requesting that the Committee consider amending the standards based on the Planner's Report. After consideration has been given to the standards on a City-wide basis, then the specific redevelopment of rezoning at 5629 Wisconsin can be discussed at a future meeting. City staff has met with the Planning Consultant and City Attorney to discuss this issue and the consensus of those present was to reduce the R-2 lot size requirements from 7,000 square feet per unit for two-family dwellings to 6,000 square feet per unit. The City Attorney has prepared the attached draft ordinance making this change. This issue was placed on the agenda for the September 24a meeting, but was only discussed bdefly. NOU-04-1998 10:26 NAC 612 595 983? P. N C:OMMUNITY PLANNIN(~ - DESlQN ' MARK~'T MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 4 November 1998 RE: New Hope - Wisconsin Avenue Rezoning and Twinhome Performance Standards FILE NO: 131.00 - 98.05 The meeting we had on October 28th with the residents of Wisconsin Avenue was very promising with respect to our objectives for both the R-2 rezoning in the area, as well as reducing the lot area standards pertaining to twinhomes. I believe that the residents at that location were favorable to an R-2 zoning recognizing that if it did not increase their taxes, it gave them some flexibility in the use of their property that would not have otherwise be available. They also recognized that in the midst of higher density zoning, · that an R-2 Zoning District would be compatible and acceptable for their properties. There was specific concern expressed though with the placement of a twinhome on the newly purchased property by the City. The concern basically stemmed from the narrowness of the lot. At 75 feet in width, the introduction of a twinhome at this location may not be compatible. Concern was expressed as far as proper setback from adjoining properties, as well as the visibility of the building from both the street side and adjoining properties related to the rear yard. In this respect, it may be advisable for the City to consider introduction of a single family home onto this site. if this option is considered and pursued, it would be my strong recommendation that we look at a housing design that is compatible and similar in character with the existing homes on the block. 5775 WAYZATA bOULEVARD. SUITE 555 ST, LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 3541 6 PHONE 612-59~-g636 FAX 612-595-9~3~ E-MAIL NAC~WINTERNET,COM NOV-04-1998 10:26 NAC 612 595 9839 P.04704 I would also suggest that we go ahead and pursue the change in performance standards for twinhomes within the R-2 District. The G,000 square foot per unit seems to be reasonable and was acceptable to the residents within Wisconsin Avenue. One element that we may also want to include in the suggested changes would be a twinhome lot having a minimum lot width of 80 feet. An 80 foot tot would have sufficient width to provide proper setbacks from adjoining properties and still accommodate a standard twinhome design. Increasing the lot width to 80 feet would limit the application of twinhomes on other redevelopment sites throughout the City. This would limit the redevelopment potential of the narrower 75 foot lots that do exist within the community. This increased lot width standard for twinhomes may not be acceptable to the City Council in view of our scattered site redevelopment project objectives. By increasing the performance standards, we are reducing our potential investment opportunities by introducing twinhomes on other scattered site redevelopment projects. Please call me if you have any questions regarding these comments. 2 TOTAL P.04 MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Jeffrey $c~aumanrVDaniel LichtJAlan Bdxius DATE: 21 July 1998 RE: New Hope - Twinhome Performance Standards FILE NO: 131.00 - 98.04 BACKGROUND The City has very successfully utilized twinhome~ aa the preferred housing type in its scattered site redevelopment ef~3~. The~ ~ have raaulted in the elimination of bligl~ted properties and provided new I'mu~ing oppertuniti~ in the City. In looking to the future, City staff believe~ that ~ a.,'rent ,I~. ~r~lardl for twinhemes may prevent the use of ~is housing type in the redevelopment of a~allet single family Iot~. The develol3me~ of twi~ on single family lei size~ rai~ ~everal iss~e~. S~ne of the issues arl delc~bld ~ . ~. Neigtd)e~toed Chm'act~. By introducing ~ into singe family neigl"tlX)lt"tQQCM, ma1 life cycle I"tou~ing family ~ ~ I:)y reckJciflg grlert Sf)lCll IflCl making garages mom 2. SeattermJ Site Redevelc)~~ By allawing twird'tQm4~ on single family size lots, the potential for ~.t'tered site redevelol3ment i~, wflieh is an ideal coniisterK with City pQlicy. By increasing the redevel~ the frequency wittl wflich i~. 5775 WAYZA'rA eOUI. I~VAIII~I~). :SUI?I~ PHONS' ~ ! 2-SGS-g43e II'AX 3. Infrastructure. As densitY increases, so do the demands placed on City service~-'' City service capacity and street capacity must be evaluated prior to any increase in density. One positive outcome of more dense development is lower capital infrastructure costs per housing unit. If it is found that the concept of developing twinhomes on single family lot sizes is appropriate, a further evalUation can Occur. It is staff's opinion that some reduction in required lot size for twinhome units is warranted. The City Council and Planning Commission should make a determination on what level of density is appropriate given existing neighborhood character. In the following sections of this report, staff will identify the City's current regulations, provide a comparison with other cities and offer options for amending current twinhome performance standards. CURRENT REGULATIONS The following are the lot areas and width standards established in the New Hope Zoning Ordinance for residential uses: 4,035 (1) District Standards: R-1 9,500 sq.ff., 75 feet R-2 9,500 sq.ff. 75 feet R-3 10,000 sq.ff. 80 feet R-4 15,000 sq. ff. 100 feet R-5 15,000 sq.ft. 100 feet (2) Lot Area Per Unit. The lot area per unit requi~ for townhouses, multiple family dwellings and planned unit developments shall be calculated on the basis of the total: area in the project and as controlled by an individual and joint ownership. Other minimum areas are: Single Family 9,500 sq.ft. Two Family 7,000 sq.ff. Townhouse 5,000 Multiple Family 3,000 sq.ff.* Elderly Housing and/or Physically Handicapped 1,000 sq.ft. *4,000 square feet in an R-3 District. 2 l (8) Subdivision of Double Bungalow, Quadrarninium or Townhouse Lots. The subdivision of base lots containing do.uble bungalows, quadraminiums, or townhoues to permit individual private ownership of a single dwelling unit within such a structure is acceptable upon approval by the City Council, but is contingent on the following requirements: (a) Meet Zoning Requirements. Prior to a double bungalow, quadraminium, or townhouse subdivision, the base lot must meet all the requirements of the zoning district. (b) Minimum area and Width. The following are minimum unit lot requirements for double bungalow, quadraminium, or townhouse subdivisions: Double Bungalqw Quadraminium ~ Lot Area 7,000 sq.ff. 5,000 sq.ff. 5,000 sq.ff. Lot Width . ',,~ the base lot 50 feet 20 feet street frontage (c) Principal Structure. There Shall be no more than one principal structure on a base lot in all residential districts. The principal structure on a unit lot created in a double bungalow, quadraminium, or townhouse subdivision will be the portion of the attached dwelling existing or constructed on the platted unit lots. Under current regulations, a twinhome unit would have a minimum lot size standard of 14,000 square feel The 14,000 square foot twinhome lot has not presented a problem for development of vacant land. However, it limits the use of twinhomes as a redevelopment tool in areas developed at smaller single family lot size standards. If it is determined that it is appropriate to develop twinhomes on single family lot sizes, staff offers the following: COMPARISON WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES The chart below provides a comparison of New Hope's twinhome lot sizes with other area communitiee. New Hope's twinhome lot area requirements rank as one of the largest of all communitiea surveyed with 7,000 square feet per unit required. Most of the communities have lot area requirements of 4,000 to 6,250 square feet per unit, with 60 to 100 foot lot widltm. The required lot width in New Hope is 75 feet, well within the average range. Of the 11 communities surveyed, only Brooklyn Park and Minnatonka have more stringent requirements. 3 TWINHOME LOT SIZE COMPARISON CHART I ' I City Zoning Lot Width Land Area Per Total Lot Area District Dwelling Required New Hope R-2 75 feet 7,000 sq.ff. 14,000 sq.ff. St. Louis Park R-2 by permit only must have 600 sq.ff, open R-3** 60 feet 4,000 sq.ft. 8,000 sq.ft. Columbia Heights R-2 60 feet 4,200 sq.ff. 8,400 sq.ff. Robbinsdale R-2 80 feet 4,800 sq.ff. 9,600 sq.ft. Plym.outh R-MI=. 90 feet 5,000 .s.q.fL 10,000 sq.,. Hopkins R-2' 100 feet 6,000 sq.ft. 12,000 sq.ff. multi family distdct R-3 3,500 sq.ff. 7,000 sq.ff. Brooklyn Center R-2 75 feet 6,200 sq.ff. 12,400 sq.ff. for a comer lot R-2 90 feet 6,200 sq.ft. 12,400 sq.ff. Crystal R-2 100 feet 6,260 sq.ff. 12,500 sq.ft. Golden Valley R-2 100 feet 6,250 sq.ft. 12,500 sq.tt. Maple Grove R-3* 8.5 feet 7,000 sq.ft. 14,000 sq.ft. Brooklyn Park R-4* 120 feet 8,100 sq.fl. 16,200 sq.ff. homes built after 1980 R-4* 5,400 sq.ff. 10,800 sq.ft. Minnetonka R-2 None required 12,500 sq.ft. 25,000 sq.ff. AVERAGE ,., 95 feet 6,450 scl.ft. 12,900 scl.ff. · Denotes zoning diMrict equivalent to the single/two-family residential district (R-2 in New Hope) ' · ° In St. Louis Park, IR-2 il ~ single family and twinhomes are by permit only. In St. Lou~s Park, ~ R-3 ~ il itl two.family district, and the parametere listed above in R-3 are for its twinhomes. The figures attached a~ Exhibit A illustrate visually the minimum lot requirements of New Hope as compared with the average of all communities surveyed. As is apparent by the exhibit,' the primary difference between the two lots are their relative buildable area restrictions. The minimum New Hope yard is narrow and long, thus creating difficulties with the width of the twinhorne. Conversely, the average lot is restricted in its depth. The question .that should be answered then is how wide and deep of a lot is needed for a twinhome struCture? 4 An examination of prospective single family lot redevelopment areas within New Hope found the average lot sizes within each respective area to be different than that required under the existing Ordinance. The map attached as Exhibit B identifies the areas examined. The chart below lists our results. Redevelopment Minimum Average Lot 'Ama Areas Lot Width Lot Width Area A 90 95 13,300 Area B 90 95 13,300 Area C 85 95 16,200 Area D 85 ~95 .~1'3,300 Area E 90 90 12,600 AVERAGE 90 95 13,300 An analysis of current twinhome sites within New Hope was also performed to determine what lot sizes actually exist for twinhomes within New Hope. Of the twintx3mes or duplexes reviewed, the majodty had lot areas of less than 14,000 square feet. The average lot size for said developments was 12,960 square feet, with some units built on lots of as little as 8,000 square feet. OPTIONS FOR AMENDING THE CURRENT TWINHOME PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The following analysis is provided to allow City officials a basis upon which to determine appropriate zoning standards as related to twinhomes. To answer the question on the appropriate lot area and width for twinhomes, the following discussed is offered: 1. Width. An identified goal of New Hope is to encourage single family residential r~lopment into twinhomes. Since many single family lots within the City have Widths of 85 feet, the allowance of such widths for twinhomes is necessary to encourage twinhome development on existing single family lots. The existing requirement of 75 foot lot widths does allow for such redevelopment. Several outcomes result from small lot widths. a. Lower infrastructure costs. With narrow lots, less street, water and sewer main lines need to be constructed per housing unit, thus decreasing costs. b. Aesthetic character. With narrow lots, the likelihood of highly visibi= garages increases due to buildable area restrictions. c. More dense development. By placing a twinhome where a single family home was, we are doubling density. As a result, externalities such as an increase in traffic, noise, service demands and the like occur. If City officials find these outcomes acceptable, the City should either maintain the 75 foot minimum lot width. 2. Lot Area, The current area required for twinhome development in a R-2 District is 14,000 square feet. Based upon the minimum lot size and the lot width of 75 feet as is currently required, a lot depth of 189 feet would be needed. Such dimensions are not reflective of most (all) single family lots within New Hope. Most single family lots are 85 to 90 feet wide with areas of 13,300 square feet: Because of the existing square foot requirements, most single family lots do not qualify for twinhome redevelopment. The examination of existing twinhome developments found a lot area of 12,960 to be average. A reduction of the minimum requirement would greatly increase'the potential for twinhome redevelopment of single family lots. Staff believes that lot areas of 10,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet is sufficient for twinhomes in most cases, as is evidenced by lot area requirements in Robbinsdale, Plymouth, Hopkins, Crystal and many other communities. CONCLUSION A policy decision must be made in regard to the appropriateness of twinhomes on single family lot sizes. If found to be appropriate, a decision can be made regarding the acceptable lot area for twinhome developments. Upon decision of this factor, a Zoning Ordinance amendment can subsequently be prepared for consideration. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve $~drall 6 t _.. Figure I Figure 2 New Hope - Minimum Stand~rd~ Surveyed Communitle~. Average Minimum Standards III 75 feet ,,, 1:50 Exhibit A - Compariaon Figurea MARKET VALUES: .'. -- ' : .-- $.'i'-.,-'?~'~'-,:.. ~--':. · '..-..'".. - '~ '. ' ."- "'"'~ ~"'~"1, 'L :~ :.,'.' .. '" '~' 'i ~.:; ~.~1:.:; ~? : Area S -' ..:.. :. _~ ~...~---"~'"~_____.-,~ ...... '=, ..... ~.1~.. ~!r~.',~ ~ ~1~, .... , ~-'=::.~' . I · · - · 7~.~.i.TM -~_L~~ .... - ---=--,~=~ , , ~ Area C --. ~ '~, , t .-L_IL_..... _, :--_-.. HOUESTEAD PROPERTIES ONLY Area D '~ I :'--~_ I ~,~.~. ~.- ~ i' ~-";.'-.'. · -: :.'. ~'1 -- * * '"= ~' ' ;... / .... ~.~:~ -~.. ~ ;.~'-~. :;.~J. - I, ~ Exhibit B - Potential Redevelopment Areas MEMORANDUM TO: KIKK McDONALD AL BRIXIUS, NAC ~ FROM DOUG SANDSTAD DATE: .I'ULY 16, 1998 RE: EXISTING TWINHOMES EXES IN NEW HOPE [ have reviewed basic land area data for 156 of our twinhomes or duplexes. The approximate minimum lot size for ~A of a dwelling [some are not platted as "zero lot line"] was found to be 4,000 sf. In this case, the land is zoned R-3, but has two separate twinhomes on it. In other neighborhoods, unit lot sizes [actual or perceived] range from 4,800 to 8,000 sf. Six of the 11 clusters of twinhomes have at least one lot area under the 7,000 sf threshold in today's code. Two are PUDs. Perhaps a dozen were foun~l to have been built on 75' or 77 'wide lots. All had garages except for the Oregon Avenue cluster of 32 dwelling units, where 50% have built a detached garage in the rear yard of the narrow lots. I believe that a minimum lot area/unit of $,000 to 6,000 is sufficient for a twinhome in many cases. Naturally, they tend not to be isolated. They tend to be on the edge of a neighborhood or clustered. Two existing twinhomes are alone, on comer lots, another few are pan of a pair, while most are in larger developments up to 24 sh'uc~s. We may want to consider an appeal to a different housing market, one that desires a smaller yard, but a nice dwelling with a maintenance free-exterior, which is one metro- area trend. These are not solely "empty nesten", either. Singles, first time buyers and professionals who travel a lot like this type of housing. Zoning Requirements for TwinhomeslTwo-Family Residential Updated and Verified' ' June 26, 1998 New Hope R-2 ??? 7,000 S.F. t4,000 S.F. St. Louis Park R-2 bypermit only. must have 600 $.F. open R-3** 60' 4,000 S.F. -'8,000 S.F. Columbia Heights R-2 60' 4,200 S.F. 8,400 S.F. Robbinsdale R-2 80' 4,800 S.F. 9,600 S.F. Plymouth R-MF * 90' 5,000 S.F. 10,000 S.F. Hopkins R-2 * 100' 6,000 S.F. 12,000 S.F. multi-family district R-3 3,500 S.F. 7,000 S.P. Brooklyn Center R-2 75' 6,200 S.F. 12,400 S.F. for a comer lot R-2 90' 6,200 S.F. 12,400 S.F. C~stal R-2 100' 6,250 S.F. 12,500 S.F. Golden Valley R-2 100' 6,250 S.F. 12,500 S.F. Maple Grove R-3 * 85' 7,000 S.F. 14,000 S.F. Brooklyn Park R-4 * 120' 8,100 S.F. 16,200 S.F. homes built 1980 R-4 * 5,400 S.F. 10,800 S.F. none Minnetonka R-2 required 12,500 S.F. 25,000 S.F. · denotes zoning district equivolent to the single/two-family residential district (R-2 in New Hope) · *In St. Louis Park, R-2 is strictly single-family and twinhomes are by permit only. In St. Louis Park, the R-3 district is its two-family district, and the parameters listed above in R-3 are for its twinhomes. Memorandum To: Codes & Standards Committee From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Communi~ Development Phil Kern, Community Development Intern Date: November 19, 1998 Subject: R-2 Lot Size (Planning Case 98-16) The purpose of this discussion is to amend the current zoning code with regards to the R-2 lot size requirements for twinhomes. Preliminary discussions have raised questions concerning the current zoning code requirements for development in the R-2 Zone, causing staff to research and develop potential changes to the City Code. Such changes could allow more flexibility for twinhome developments in the R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District. The Planning Consultant, in his 7/21/98 report, explains why changing the lot size requirements would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Of the potential redevelopment areas, 80% have lot sizes smaller than the current requirement. This will make the var{ety of options in the scattered site housing program and pdvate redevelopment limited in the future. Staff would like to discuss potential options for a zoning code text amendment. The discrepancy in the R-2 lot size reqUirements between New Hope's current ordinance and those of neighboring cities was discovered when staff started researching possible redevelopment options for 5629 Wisconsin Avenue. In eady discussions, a twinhome was being considered at this site, however the zoning code prohibited this redevelopment option due tO the size of the lot. Staff then proceeded to survey surrounding communities and found that New Hope's requirements are much higher than most cities. On October 28, 1998, City staff held a meeting with the residents in the 5629 Wisconsin Avenue neighborhood. At that meeting, only one property owner had concerns about the concept of a twinhome. At this point, the City is still considering either a twinhome or a single-family home at this site. Regardless of the decision on this issue, staff would need to separately present a rezoning for 5629 Wisconsin Avenue at a later date. The City Manager has indicated he wants the Codes & Standards Committee to consider amending the R-2 lot size requirements for the entire City, especially after reviewing the requirements from other cities for R-2 properties. A number of changes have been made recently to the standards in other districts and it may be time to modify the standards for the R-2 District. Staff is requesting that the Committee consider amending the standards based on the Planner's Report. After consideration has been given to the standards on a City-wide basis, then the specific redevelopment of rezoning at 5629 Wisconsin can be discussed at a future meeting. City staff has met with the Planning Consultant and City Attorney to discuss this issue and the consensus of those present was to reduce the R-2 lot size requirements from 7,000 square feet per unit for twO-family dwellings to 6,000 square feet per unit. The City Attomey has prepared the attached draft ordinance making this change. This issue was placed on the agenda for the September 24"' meeting, but was only discussed briefly. Attachments: 9118/98 City Attorney Correspondence and Ordinance 7/21/98 Planner's Report (Twinhome Lot Size) 7/16/98 Building Official Report 6/26/98 Surrounding community survey CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 97-26 Request: Consideration of An Ordinance Amending Chapter Six of the New Hope City Code by Establishing Regulations for Courtesy Benches on Public Rights of Way Location: City Wide PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: December 30, 1998 Meeting Date: January 5, 1999 BACKGROUND 1. The City is requesting consideration of An Ordinance Amending Chapter Six of the New Hope City Code by Establ!shing Regulations for Courtesy Benches on Public Rights of Way, pursuant to Section 6.14 - New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. This ordinance is not part of the City's Zoning Code, which is found in Chapter 4 of the City Code and, therefore, does not require a public headng. This ordinance Would become part of Chapter 6 of the Code, which addresses "Streets, Alleys and Public Property." Over the past six months, the Community Development Department and Public Works Department have cooperated together with the Planning Consultant and City Attorney to draft this ordinance and the Codes & Standards Committee has been included in the review of the ordinance. Due to the involvement of the Codes & Standards Committee with this ordinance from a planning perspective, the ordinance is being presented to the full Planning CommissiOn for a recommendation to the City Council. 3. The purpose of the courtesy bench ordinance is to regulate the placement and maintenance of courtesy benches in public rights-of-way. The courtesy bench ordinance allows for the establishment of privately owned courtesy benches at public transit stops within New Hope through a permit process. It gives an opportunity to the City to provide transit stop facilities without expense to the City. The ordinance will apply to both existing courtesy benches and those installed after the adoption of said ordinance. 4. The impetus for this ordinance results from a written request from a private vendor in March of 1997 to install 13 new benches in the City. The City currently does not have any standards regulating the placement of private vendor bus benches. Recognizing the public service that the benches serve, staff suggested that discussions begin about the adoption of reasonable bus bench standards. Many of the neighboring cities have ordinances regulating these benches, and a brief overview chart was prepared by the Building Official. 5. This spring/summer two interns for the City conducted a city-wide survey of all the private vendor benches located in the City. They counted a total of 29 private vendor benches located on the public rights-of-way. This ordinance would not regulate benches that are located on private property. A survey identifying the location of each bench and a sketch of each bench location was prepared and is attached. 6. The Planning Consultant and Community Development Intern have prepared the enclosed reports to investigate and summarize the various issues associated with the accommodation of courtesy benches in the City. 5) Permit display ~--~, 6) Conditions -,,, 7) Advertising matter Section 6.149 describes the removal of benches. Section 6.150 discusses the fact that the registration of permits will be made available to the appropriate road authority. Section 14.068 establishes a "courtesy bench fee" for initial permits and annual renewals. Section 134A of the ordinance establishes a definition for the term "courtesy bench." 2. The Planning Consultant and Community Development Intern have prepared the attached reports which describe the sections of the ordinance in more detail. 3. The two bench companies that the City has been in contact with have been notified that the Planning Commission will be considering this ordinance. RECOMMENDATION The Codes & Standards Committee and staff recommend approval of the ordinance. Attachments: Summary Memo/Comments from Companies Reviewing Ordinance National Courtesy Bench Correspondence U.S. Bench Corporation Correspondence 11/7 Planning Consultant Report 9/16 Planning Consultant Report 3/10 Building Official Memo Overview of Courtesy Bench Research Project Planning Case 97-26 Page 4 11/25/98 1~x2~98 14:~8 ~SgS.ATTO~EYS ~ 53151~ N0.8~5 P082 JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRA L, P.A. Attorneys At L~ lib'iS E~RCimOOI~ CB, oss~C, S~ 201 ~ O. ~.~A Decem~r 29, 1~8 K.ixlc McDonald O~ ~p.~s q. ~,r~s'r,u:, Community DeveLopment Director City of New Hope 440! Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55425 Re: Courtesy Bus Bench Oral,,*,,ce Our Fii~ No.: Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed for consideration at the Sanuary plaxming commission meeting a revised Ordixtance Amending Cl~pt~r 6 of the New Hope City Cock: by F.,stablishhlg Regulations for Courtesy Bench~ on Public Rights of Way. Basically, three changes were mide in zespon~ to recommendatio~ by the Cea:les and Standards Committee at i13 December 18, 1998 meethl~. The chatlges ar~ as follows: 1. Section 6.148(3) was amended to require an ~ar;itional 3 slal} underneath the bench for accor, wn~afion of wheelchairs. 2. Section 6.148(7) was ~ to re&mn the sigllage area fi'om t4 feet to 12 feet consistent with tl~ requi~rns~-t fOu~ at Section 6.143(3). 3. Section 6.149(1) was amemt~d to require remckiing of the slab area in,s~ad of reseeding upon removal of the bench and slab. Please contact me if you have any other questions or commits regardin~ &_is ordinance or the chan~es ~s_a,_ to it r~sulti~ from the Dc~ml~r Ill, 1998 meetinl. Very rally yours, Sm ~~A. SomtmU I~ SW.~ON & SOND~ALL. P.A. Enclosur~ ~: Valerie Leone ORDII~ANC~ NO. ~ Oi~J3!NANCE ~~G C~Eg SlX O~ T~ ~W ~OPE CI~ CODE BY ~T~LIS~G ~G~A~ON5 FOR COSTLY B~C~ ON P~LIC ~G~S OF WAY The Ci~ Co~ of the City of New Ho~ or~; S~n 1. Section 6.14 "Courtesy Bench." ~rough S~c~ion 6.1~0 "R~tion ot,,per~ Obtain~ frqm ~her Road Authodfi~J' of ac New Hope Ci~ Code ~ hereby added ~o read ~ follows: 6,14 Courtesy Benches. 6.I41 ~ose. ~e p~ose of ~hi~ section is to regulate ~e placing ~d ~e~nce of Co~y Ben. es ~ public right.f-way. Benches loca~ on priva~ pr~e~ ~e exit 5om ~e provisio~ of s~tio~ 6.14 ~ough 6, I30 of~h C~e but ~e subj~t to of ~ Co~. 5.142 Pe~t Rc~ir~. k ~ ~law~ for a peson to pl~ a a ~ublic right, f-way wi&ou~ ~st ob~ning a p~mi~ ~ provided in ~is set,on. (1) ~s sect/on sh~ apply to ~ exis~g Co~y Benches · ose i~ed a~er ~e adoption hereof. The pe~it on~ issu~ sh~l be ~ly renewed. (2) The p~it p~i~ ~11 be May 1 to Ap~ 30 ~ly. (3) Pe~ for Bench~ will be ~t~ o~y on existing ~d ~proved MTCO ~it roums at d~i~a~ M~O Ci~, on condi~on ~ ~e be~ lo~tion is not prohibited by section 6. I~(3) of ~ C~e requke~a of scion 6.1~ of ~s C~e. 6. I43 P~_~d Apvh~tion. App~ca~on for p~i~ ~1 bem~e to ~e Ci~ M~, or ~e Ci~ M=nsg~'s d~ign~. · e following (1) s~= ~aw~g show~g ~e s~ re. rive to all o~er obj~ on ~e prope~ ~cl~ing ~e ~yout of appli~ble ~ja~ roadways, ~s~tio~, ~affic si~ge, sidew~, ~s, u~i~ ~les, fenc~ vic~F; i2/2_9/98 i4:28 ]'S~S,ATTORNEYS -~ 5"~25~.~6 N0.895 (2) name, addr~s and phone number of applicant; (3) detailed plans and specifications of each proposed beuch including the general nature of advertising matter, if any, to be posted thereou and total surface area intencled as signage not to exceed 12 square feet using the front, or seating side surface only of the bench back. Advertising material may not exceed the length o~ the bench. (4) current general Iiabiliry Certificate of Insurance from an imuranee company, rated "A" or better by A.M. Best Company and authorized to do business in the State of Mhanesota, naming, the city as additional insured in the rainimum amoum of $600,000 for any ~d all claims arising out of the use or existence of the Courtesy Bench, and approved by the City Manager. The certificate shall provide for automatic notification of tl~ City with a minimum 30 days advance notice in the event of cancellation; (5) a graptric showing the public transportation bus service whicta serves the proposed Courtesy Bench and the specific bus stop location, if applieabte; (6) an executed hold harmless agreement from the permittee, approved hy the City Manager, protecting the City from any and all claims arising out of the use and existence of the Courtesy Bench; (7) such other information the City Manager may require. 6.144 C_o..rlditions GovernintIssua!ace_of Permits. This subsection governs the issuance of a permit for a Courtesy Bench. (1) l~_rmit for Each Bench. A separate permit is required for each Courtesy Bench, but renewals may be granted for more than one location on the b~sis of a single application provided the City Manager is satisfied that ali the information required by this section has been supplied for each proposed Courtesy Bench. (2) . Transfer: New Permit, If a Courtesy Bencla for which a permit lms been issu~ i~ sold or title or control thereof is transferred or assignS, a new permit shall he requixecl. (3) ~. No perr~.'t may be issued for ~e installation of Courtesy Benches, on approved tramit routes ia the following places: -2- 12/~9/98 14:28 /S~S,ATTORNEYS -~ 5J151J~ N0.895 P~55 (a) on a transit route upon which the City has constructed or intends to construct a public street beautification project commonly known as a "streetscape' project; Co) on a public or private sidewalk or trail, (c) in an alley; (d) at azty location where the distance from the face of the curb to the edge of the right-of-way is less than eight feet and sidewalk or trail is located therein; (e) at any location more than 50 feet from the nearest point of intersection with a street unless the City Manager so authorizes; (f) within 20 feet of any street right of way corner or other locahons as the City Mn-~ger may determine which impede safety by obstructing the vision o/~ pedestrians or motorists; (g) other locations which the City Manager determines would potentially, restrict pedestrian traffic, pose a snow and ice control problem, obstruct vehicular traffic or otherwise be alert/mental to the public safety. (4) PelT/lit Fees. Fees for Courtesy Benches shall be as set out in Chapter 14 of this Code. 6. I45 Insurance ReouirementR. Pertntt holders shall deliver to and keep on file with the City Clerk a current general liability Certificate of Insurance meeting the requirements of Section 6.143(4) of this Code. The insurance shall be maintained in its original amount by the permit holder at his or her expense at ail times during the period for which the permit is in effect. When two or more permits are issued to one person one insurance policy may be furnished to cover two or more Courtesy Benches, and the policy shall be of a type which coverage is automatically restored upon occurrence of any accident or loss from which liability may hereafter accrue. 6.146 Permits: .Apvroval and Issuance. If the City Manager is satisfied that all of the conditions enumerated in this Section have been met and that the erection and maintenance of the Courtesy Bench at the proposed location will not re~trict pedestrian traffic or otherwise be detrimental to public safety, he shall approve the application. -3- 6.147 .Revocation. of Perr0it. The City Manager may revoke or deny renewal of any permit for failure to comply with the provisions of this Code. the Zoning Code, for misrePresentation of material facts in the original application, for failure to maintain the Courtesy Be~¢~, because the bench is considered a safety hazard, because the bench location is au longer served by public u'ansportation, because the transit route on which the bench is located has or will be included in a "streetscape project" or for any reason which would have been grounds for denial of the original application. 6.148 Installation and Maintenance. (1) Location. Courtesy'Benches shall be installed parallel with the curb, sidewalk or trail, and set back at least 3 feet from the back of the curb. Further, there shall be a mir~imum clearance of six feet from the back of the bench to any structure or landscaping along or near any sidewalk to provide for sidewalk snow plow clearance. (2) Siz. e.. Size limitations on Courtesy Benches are as follows: (a) height - 12 inches maximum; (b) width. 30 inches maximum; and (c) length - Seven feet maximum. (3) _Construction. A Courtesy Bench shall be installed and msintained on a durable, level surface including, but not limited to, concrete, bomanite or decorative brick. The durable surface Shall extend forty-two inches on either end of the bench to accommodate a wheelchair and six inches on the other end and in back of the bench. Further, the durable surface in front of the bench must extend to the back of the curb. The Courtesy Bench shall be of sufficient weight or shall be secured in a manner to minimize the potential of accidental tipping or vandalism. No Courtesy Bench shall be fastened, secured, or anchored m City property. (4) Materials. A Courtesy Bench shall be constructed of durable materials including but not limited to concrete, wood, steel, plastic, or combination thereof, with colors limited to whites, earthtones of subdued greens, grays, browns, reddish-browns, and golds. (5) Permit Display.. Each Courtesy Bench shall display the permit number in a conspicuous place. 14:28 ~S~S,A]q'ORI~_~YS -> 5J151~G NO.SD5 POl~7 (5) ~. It is the respor~sibility of ~ permi~e to maintain each bench in a safe condition and to keep benches neat, clean and in usable condition. The Permitte~ fl~all keep the Co~tesy Bench and bench base free of ice and snow and accessible. (?) Advertisin! Matter. Advertising matter may be displayed only on the front (roadway side) surface of ~c backrest of a Courtesy Bench and shall not exceed 12 square feet in surface area. Advertisements of obscene, immoral, indecent or illegal matter is prohibited on all Courtesy Benches, No advertising matter on any Courtesy Bench may display the words "Stop", "Look", "Drive In", "Danger", or any other word, phrase or symbol, reflective material or illumination device which might interfere with, mis. lead or distract traffic. Any political advertising displayed on a Courtesy Bench shall be subject to ~e time restrictions for such advertising or political signs as set Out in Section 3.465 of this Code. 6.149 Removal of Benches. (1) Notice. Upon the revocation or expiration of any permit without renewal, the permi~e shall remove the Courtesy Bench promptly. The permittee shall also be required to remove the concrete slab and reseed the slab area at its cost if so directed by tt~ City Manager. The City Manager may remove the bench after tun days mailed notice to the permittee and the cost of removal, including removal of the slab and resoddinl~ of the slab area, shall be paid by the permittee. If the permitt~ fails to pay the costs within 60 days after receiving notice from the City Manager, the bench shall become the property of the City, but th~ permitree shall remain liable for the cost of removaI, restoration and storage of the bench. No permit or renewal shall be granted to the permitt~e until all such costs are paid in full. (2) Suml~arv Removal. A Courtesy Bench plaid in the public right- of-way in the City, contrar~ to the provisions of this Section, my be summarily removed by thc City Manager, pursuant ko Minnesota Statutes, Section 160.27, Subdivision 6. 6.150 Re_~i~tration of Perm_ i~_Obt~ined fro~ Oth.er Road Authorities. When a Courtesy Bench is placed in the City within the limits of a street or roadway subject to the control of a road authority other than the City as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 160.02, the person placing the bench shall file proof of permi.~ion from the other road authori~ with the City Manager. -5- Section 2. Section 14,06 "Public Street and Prouertv Fe~*' of thc New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding subsection 14.068 "CouriesT Ben.ch Fee" to read as fo~ows: 14.065 Courtes~ Beo. ch Fe~. The initial permit and renewal fees for Court~"y Benches required by Section 6.1~4(4) of this Code shall be as follows: (1) Initial permit fee: $100.00. (2) Annual renewal fee: $30.00. Section 3, Section 1.10 "Definitions_" of the New Hope Code is hereby amended by adding subsection 1.134A "CqurtesT Bench" to read as follows: 134A Courtesy Benches is a bench meant for the convenience of the public waiting to board re$ularly scheduled means of public transportation at a location deemed appropriate per the provisions of Section ii. 14 of this Code. Sect{on 4. Effecti-~e Date. This ordinance shali be effective upon passage and publication of this ordinance. Da~ed [his __ day of . ,1995. W, Peter Enck, Mayor ATTEST: Valerie Leone, City Clerk CPublished in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun Post on the _ day of , 1999.) 1 COMMUNITY P!_AN NINO DESI(3N MARKET MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Troy D. Hagen / Alan Brixius DATE: 29 December 1998 RE: New Hope - Courtesy Bus Bench Ordinance FILE NO.: 131.00 - 98.07 BACKGROUND The City of New Hope has been working on a Courtesy Bench Ordinance, which dates back to September 1998 when the first draft was developed. It was discussed by the Codes & Standards Committee and changes to the ordinance that were recommended have been completed by the City Attorney. The revised ordinance was forwarded to National Courtesy Bench and the U,S. Bench Corporation, who responded with comments in writing. On November 13, 1998, the City Attorney and staff met with representatives of both companies 'to discuss their comments. At a meeting held December 18, 1998, the latest revised ordinance was again reviewed by Codes & Standards Committee. The Codes & Standards Committee recommended that the Courtesy Bench Ordinance now be forwarded to the entire Planning Commission for public hearing. This report will outline the general content of the ordinance and contain the recommendation of this office. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The purpose of the Courtesy Bench Ordinance is to regulate the placement and maintenance of Courtesy Benches in public rights-of-way. The Courtesy Bench Ordinance allows for the establishment of privately owned courtesy benches at public transit stops within New Hope through a permit process. It gives an opportunity to the City to provide transit stop facilities without expense to the City. The ordinance will apply to both existing Courtesy Benches and those installed after the 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 5541 PHONE 6 ! 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@WINTERNET.COM adoption of said ordinance. The ordinance as drafted includes: 1. Permit Requirements. Permits shall be required for all benches located within New Hope. Through the permit process, the City will evaluate the design, location, and maintenance of each Courtesy Bench location. Permits must be annually renewed. The Ordinance establishes a permit period to be May 1 to April 30 annually. Permits may be granted only on existing and approved MTCO transit routes at designated MTCO bus stops within the City. A permit is required for each bench, but renewals may be granted to more than one location on the basis of a single application, provided all the .information required has been supplied for each proposed bench. 2. Necessary Application Information. A scale drawing of detailed plans, which includes: · Design layout of the Courtesy Bench including the bench detail, bench platform, and bench location in relationship to adjacent roadways, intersections, traffic signage, sidewalks, trails, utility poles, fences and other objects in the vicinity. · Name, address and phone number of applicant. · Specifications of each proposed bench including the general nature of advertising manner, if any. The total surface area intended as signage shall not exceed 12 square feet using the front, seating side surface only. ,. Graphic showing the public transportation bus service which serves the CourteSy Bench and the specific bus stop location. · Such other information the City Manager may require. 3. Insurance ReQuirements. The permit holder shall deliver and keep on file with the City Clerk a current general liability Certificate of Insurance. If two or more permits are issued to one owner, one policy may be issued to cover two or more benches. Permittee shall provide to the City an executed hold harmless agreement, approved by the City Manager, protecting the City from any and all claims arising out of the use and existence of the Courtesy Bench 2 4. Installation and Maintenance Requirements. The Ordinance establishes specific design and location requirements for Courtesy Benches. The Ordinance also requires that all Courtesy Benches be maintained with unobstructed access year round. The location, size, and construction shall conform to the specifications outlined in the ordinance. 5.Prohibited Locations. The Ordinance prohibits Courtesy Benches in the following locations: · On a transit route upon which the City has constructed or intends to construct a public street beautification project commonly known as a "streetscape" project. - On a public or private sidewalk or trail. · in a alley. · At any location where the distance from the face of the curb to the edge of the right-of-way is less than eight (8) feet and sidewalk or trail is located therein. · At any location more than 50 feet from the nearest point of intersection with a street unless the City Manager so authorizes. · Within 20 feet of any street right-of-way comer or other locations as the City Manager may determine which impede safety by obstructing the vision of pedestrians or motorists. ,. Other locations which the City Manager determines would potentially restrict pedestrian ~traffic, pose a snow and ice control problem, obstruct vehicular traffic or otherwise be detrimental to the public safety. 6. Removal S.oecifications. In the event of permit expiration or revocation (street scape project), the ordinance establishes that the permittee shall be required to remove the subject bench, concrete slab underneath bench, and reseed the area. City Staff and this office have reviewed the Courtesy Bench Ordinance and recommend its approval to the City Council as drafted. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall 3 Memorandum To: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development From: Phil Kern, Community Development Intern Date: December 24, 1998 Subject: Courtesy Bench - Background and Ordinance Summary Back,qround The City has hosted courtesy benches in its public right-of-way since the 1960s without any method of regulating their location, maintenance, and design. Staff and Planning Commissioners began addressing the need for a regulatory ordinance in the spring of 1997 when a pdvate bus bench company requested permission to place thirteen benches in the public right-of-way. Since that time, the City has committed almost two years to studying and reviewing courtesy bench ordinances from other cities, using this research to develop an ordinance applicable to New Hope. On December 18, 1998, the Codes and Standards Committee of the Planning Commission approved an ordinance drafted by staff to provide standards and requirements for all courtesy benches in the public right-of-way. The events that led the City through the courtesy bench ordinance from January 1997 to December 1998 are offered below to indicate the level of analysis and research that have been put into this process. In a January 27, 1997 letter to the Building Official, the All Amedca Courtesy Bench company requested permission from the City to place 13 benches in the public right-of- way. The Building Official researched the City Code and found no regulations or references to courtesy benches. The Building Official then took the initiative to contact surrounding communities and gather information about their respective courtesy bench ordinances. The City was able to collect regulations from Golden Valleyl Crystal, and Plymouth. On November 7, 1997, the City's Planning Consultant prepared a report on bus benches outlining the concerns the City must consider in terms of location, design, and maintenance. · The Codes and Standards committee reviewed the information gathered as of November 21, 1997, and directed staff to proceed with the research and development of an ordinance. · In June, two City interns completed a survey of the bus benches in the City. The inventory consisted of identifying location, size, and advertisements for all benches adjacent to the public right-of-way. The diagrams from the survey are attached. Staff conducted several internal meetings following the inventory to discuss specifics concerning an ordinance, working through the framework provided by the Planning Consultant and ordinances from the neighboring communities. · The first draft of the ordinance was presented to the Codes and Standards Committee in August 1998. At that time, the Committee directed staff to conduct further research in order to identify items such as bus routes in New Hope, potential bus stops, and requirements for concrete pads in relation to curbs and sidewalks in the public right-of- way. As directed, staff researched these issues and returned to the Codes and Standards Committee in September with a revised ordinance addressing said concerns. · The. Codes and Standards committee directed staff at the September 24 meeting to forward the ordinance to courtesy bench companies and other City staff for comment. Staff distributed the ordinance to the National Courtesy Bench Company, U.S. Courtesy Bench Company, and relevant City staff. Comments were returned, and presented at the November Codes and Standards meeting. The letters outlining concerns from the bus bench companies is.attached. · The City Attomey, in his attached correspondence from December 10, 1998, made several revisions to the ordinance based upon the comments from the courtesy bench companies and City staff. · The Codes and Standards Committee reviewed these revisions on December 18, 1998, and recommended the ordinance be presented to the Planning Commission on January 5, 1999, with a few minor revisions. These revisions inclUde requiring the courtesy bench companies to extend the cement slab surrounding the base of the bench to accommodate wheelchair access to the curb, allow only 12 square feet of advertising, and to allow the City Manager discretion in requiring companies to remove the cement slab following the extraction of a courtesy bench. Subject to these changes, the Codes and Standards Committee recommended the ordinance to the full Planning Commission. Ordinance Summary The courtesy bench ordinance was wdtten to be assigned as part of the "Streets and Public Areas," .section 6.0 in the City Code. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide regulations and outline the permit requirements for courtesy bus benohes in New Hope. The outline below offers a bdef but detailed analysis of each section of the courtesy bench code. 6.141 This section states the purpose of the ordinance, namely "to regulate the placing and maintenance of Courtesy Benches in the public rights-of-way." ' 6.142 This item describes the requirements for permits for all benches in the public right-of- way. 6.143 This section outlines the application process for permits. The application for permit will have to include the following information: · a scale drawing of courtesy bench location including other adjacent objects. · name, address, and phone number of applicant · proof of general liability insurance · verification of a public transportation service designated stop at the site · an agreement protecting the City from any and all claims adsing out of the use and existence of the courtesy bench 6,144 This part of the ordinance defines the conditions for issuance of a permit. It states that a permit is required for each bench including fees and that there are specific conditions that must be met for courtesy bench location. · Page 2 6.145 This section describes requirements general liability al! courtesy the for insurance for benches in the public right-of-way. 6.146 This item states the approval and issuance process for permits. 6.147 Conversely, this item reserves the right to revoke or deny any permit that does not comply with the provisions of this Code. 6.148 This section establishes the installation and maintenance requirements for courtesy benches. It includes items such as location, size, construction, materials, and advertising matter concerning all permitted courtesy benches. 6.149 This item sets forth the requirements for the removal of courtesy benches, including the cement slab area beneath and around the bench. 6.150 This reference requires the courtesy bench companies to notify and seek permission from the proper road authority for roads subject to the control of an entity outside of the City of New Hope. 14.068 This establishes the courtesy bench permit fee. The fee as printed is $100 for the initial permit for each bench, with a $50 annual renewal fee. 134A Provides the definition of "courtesy bench" for the purposes of this ordinance. · Page 3 Memorandum To: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Frem: Phil Kern, Community Development Intern Date., .November 19, 1998 SubJe~l= Responses from the courtesy bench ordinance I have forwarded the courtesy bench ordinance to staff members and two courtesy bench companies. Both companies, U.S. Bench Corporation and National Courtesy Bench, have replied in wdfing to the ordinance. Along with this summary memo I have included copies of their comments. Comments from staff were as follows: · Section 6.149 - Removal of Benches - Public Works felt this needs to be strengthened to include charging the bench companies for the removal of the cement slab and reseeding, inaddition to the costs associated with removing the bench. This may have been our intent, but it should be clarified in the ordinance. · Section 6.148 (2) - Construction - This section states that 'The durable surface (cement slab) shall extend six inches on either end and in back of the bench.' Shad French has commented that this is not compatible for wheelchair use. If a person in a wheelchair wants to wait by the bench, they wo.uld have to do so in front of the bench. Further, if the person wants to go from the sidewalk to the curb and a bench is located between, the six inch requirement is not sufficient. She is recommending that we require the durable surface to be extended on one end of the bench to accommodate wheelchair passage. The courtesy bench companies, to summarize, made the following requests: · Section 14.068 - Courtesy Bench Fee - Both companies felt the $100 initial and $50 renewal feee were high. The National Courtesy Bench company requests $50 and $25 to be the initial and renewal fees, and U.S. Bench Corporation recommended somewhat similar fees. · Section 6.143 - Permits & Applications - U.S. Bench Corporation requested that the advertising area allowed be reduced from 14 to 12 square feet. Its standard signs are exactly 12 square feet. · Section 6.142 (3~ - Permit Required - U.S. Bench Corporation recommended that we eliminate the list of transit routes. This is a good idea, since we would have to amend the ordinance every time the MCTO bus route was changed. · Section 6.143 (5) - Permits and A~)Dlications - U.S. Bench Corporation recommended that 'times of service' be eliminated. · . Section 6.144 (3a, b, & cb - Location - U.S. Bench Corporation wanted clarification, which was handled by the City Attorney on 11/13/98. There were no more concerns about this item. Section 6.148 - Installation & Maintenance - The responses to this were interesting. U.S. Bench Corporation requested that *at all times" be removed from the ordinance. They verbally stated that they attempt to remove snow immediately, but it was impossible to be in all 90 communities they serve at one time. National Courtesy Bench, on the other hand, wanted thls part of the ordinance tightened. They want it to include grass cutting, vandalism, and necessary repairs. I spoke with their representative on the phone, and his pdmary concem with this ordinance was that we strictly enforce this section. He hoped we were sedous about revoking permits for any benches that were not maintained according to our ordinance. · S. ection 6.148 (61 - Advertisin.q Matter - The City Attorney discussed the recommended changes with U.S. Bench Corporation, and that we could not restrict political, tobacco, or alcohol advertisements, as discussed at th~:September Codes and Standards meeting. · National Courtesy Bench wants the City to address how we are going to allocate permits to the different bench companies. They currently do not have any benches in the City, while U.S. Bench Corporation holds claim to 28 sites, including the most visible sites in the City. National Courtesy Bench,fears that U.S. Bench Corporation will receive permits for its existing benches, and it will not be allowed to fairly compete. These are the issues that have been brought up from the distribution of the ordinance. Perhaps we can further discuss these items and prepare the City's position on. these issues at the November Codes and Standards meeting. · Page2 NATIONAL COURTESY BENCH "THE AFFORDABLE OUTDOOR AD I'ER TISING" P O. Box 4084. Hopkins. MN 55343, Phone: (612) 728-5284 FAX: (612) 728-5284 November 6, 1998 Phil Kern Communi~ Develm Intern City of N~'w Hop, 440 l Xylou Ave. North New Holg, MN 55428 Dear Mr. Kern: It was great speaking with you last Tuesday. Your might and explanation was extremely beneficial in addressing our que~ions and concerns regarding the New I-Iol~ bus bench ordinan~. The following are several concerns and suggestions for tl~ ordinance: Applicatioa and renewal deadline: Permit fees: Proposed fee: $100/benc, h initial: $50/tgnda rene~ R~gommended fee: $$0/bench initial $25/bench renewal Now, we'd like to explain a little more about our company. National Courtesy ltench is a young innovative company commi_n_~ to providing the hishest quality service to transit riden and communities throughout the Twin Cities. Our servioe begins with installing a bench and concrete pad. After installation we inspect the bench a.minimum ofon~ ~ per week and provide prompt maintenance and snow removal. In addition, we ar~ r~luiml ~o mn,/a ~ insurance poiioj on ~ bench. Coaside-' ring e~r ~qgrues, feel the initial cost of $100.00 ~ bene, h is r~lalively high for a on~-year bench permit. Therefore, recomngnd ~ lo~r permit f~ ma ~ period of two years. one bench company to provi~ ~hese servia, the city will be abi~ to comlm~ tl~ maintnaan~ perfomaanc~ ofeae, h company, lf~ benc, h is not ooatinually maintained to the set standa~i, the permit should be Anc.~igr issue that w~ feel needs to be add~ssed is the allocation of available bench sites. Given proposed transit rout~ it is pmsible that both bench companies will apply for the same bench site. By oqually dist~ibu~ sites based on rig average daily automobil~ traffic count, ttg City of New Hope will giv~ equal opportunity'for both companies to provide the best possible service for the commumty. NATIONAL COURTESY BENCH "THE AFFORDABLE 0 UTDOOR AD I,~R TISING " P.O. Box 4084, Hopkins, MN .q.~343, Phone: (612) '728-5284 FAX: (612) 728-.~284 We apprecia~ th~ °Pportamity to be involved in the dra/t~ process and are looking forward to providing our s~rvices W tl~ commum~, ff you have any questions or concerns regarding our c. ann~ts and suggestions, plea~ call us at (612) 721~-~2114. Sincerdy, NATIONAL COURTESY BENCH CC: Kirk Mc, Do~tk[, ~ of Community D~-~dopme~ SEI~/ING: United States Bench Corporation ~ ~ SNELLING 8r~ ~ MINN~POLIS, MINNE~TA ~ ~uff~ TELEPHONE 61~21-2525 ca~ C~n~ FAX: 61~21-2222 c~n c~n~ November 12, 1998 C~a Ci~le Pin~ C~ao Colu~a H~ C~n R~ Con~ ~ C~s~ o~o,. ~.~ Mr. Phil Kern, CommUni~ Development Intern ~*~ City of New Hope ~,, 4401 Xyio~ ~vs. N. Edi~ ~,c~ New Ho~, MN 55428 Farmi~ ~- ~ v=~ Dear Phil, HilE~ ,~,~..~ Thank you for your gracious letter asking for our review a~ our input into J~ ~. ~*m the new proposed ordinance in the Ci~ of New Hope. We look fo~ard to ~ m~atilng with you on gdday at 11:00 a.m. ~. c~ As you probably know our company has been in the bus bench business in u~M~ the metro area for 52 yearn. This experience might help with ~me areas M~ of regulation in the ordinance. Min~ Min~is P~ ~ s~, ~ ~,~ A~er reviewing t~ ordinate it is our opinion that t~ ordiname is ve~ ~ well written. The areas of concern where we suggest ~ssible changes are ~ ~o. the fol~: N~ Ho~ u~,"~,o 1 . ~tion (2) 14.068 cou~esy beth fee. T~ $50.00 ~it fee is ~o., s~. ,~ un~u~ h~h to maintain the ~h a~ its e~ensive o~,~. mainten~e - t~ pubi~ se~ice pmv~ed by t~ beth is o~ ~r~ ~ way we can partially com~nsate the communi~ and the city ~'~ c~* for t~ p~ileGe of a lice~e. ~ g. 8.143 ~i~ & appl~ations. 12 muam f~at of siaq ~ ~ ~ m~imum to sup~ a cou~esy bm be~h. ~oa~ ~'~ 3. Bm m~es cha~e from time to amc. We ~lieve Section 3 of st. ~o~ ~ ~. 14~ $ ~equate wit~ut listi~ routes. This would eliminate st.~t' ~,~' ~ need to cha~e t~ o~inance. st. ~, 4. ~ction 5. We do not feel the times of se~ice is appl~able for ~o, co~ t~ cou~e~ ~h. sm~s~ 5. S~tion 8.144 Subsection 3 a b & c am restrictive. We s~gest ~o~ St. ~ul s~n ~, p~ ~ moffi clarification 9nd latitude. s,~,~s~"~ 6. ~ction 6.148 installation and maintena~e (5) cou~esy ~nch ro.,,u.,.e~s~. ~.~ reasonably free of snow and ice. Although we make a v~ms w~ w~z~ w~ SL ~ White ~ ~e ~N~ THE ~ ~D~ FOR OV~ A ~ C~RY ~~ ~ ~ ~E T~AYER -2- cOncerted effort to keep benches free of ice and snow, it's impossible to be at all locations in all the cities at the same time. 7. 6.148 Sec. 6 We suggest the addition of 'no political, tobacco or liquor advertising'. Thank you again for giving us this opportunity to express our concerns. ~ncerety, CC: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development RD/mk _ United States Bench Corporation, ~ ~ SNE~IN~ ~ ~e~ MINN~POLIS. MINNESOTA ~ufa~ November [2, [998 TELEPHONE 61~1-2~5 9urn~e ~AX: 61~21-~ LICZNSE RE~WAL FEES Oa~a ~.tv MINNE~OLIS $18.00 Oe~a~ ST. PAUL 20.00 ~ ~ide ANO~ 15.00 =a~n,eigms BROOKLYN CENTER 20.00 ~W COL~B lA HEIGHTS 25.00 ~" ~ ValIW =;~ CRYSTAL 27.00 '~ G~ Heights ED ~ NA ~ 2.00 Jordan Lake E~ ~a~ GOLDEN VALLEY 20. O0 La~m HOPKINS 20,00 u~o~ ~L~WOOD [ 0 $50.00, ad~g~oaa[ ~3~,00 ea ~ ~, (averase $32.00) uam~ NORTH ST. PAUL 20.00 '.'a~ RICHFIELD 14.50 '.,,...am, s ~m eoard ROBBINSDALE 30.00 S~ate ~ Minn~ta '.~in~ka ~O S EV I LLE 25.00 '.'Ou~ '~S~mo, ST. LOUIS P~K 25.00 ':~. SOUTH ST. PAUL 20.00 ~;ortfl Maflkafo ,~o.~ St ~au STILLWATER 12.00 Oak Pa~ Heights ;,o~o ~ST ST. PAUL 15.00 =:y~n ~{ITE BE~ LA~ 12.00 ~',or Lake ~ ~S~ County =osem~f =~s~,e I~ER GROVE HEIGHTS HAS A O~-TI~ LICENSE ~E OF $15.00 SL AnlM~ %t. L~s .~.pau~ The above license fees represen~ an average for ~he Tw~ Ci~tes. 3L ~aul 3t.~et~ [ have eimtna~ed ~he ~m htghese and S~e Ecu. Shak~ Shor~i~ 3,~,;m St Paul ~ 3o~ng ~ke Pa~ 'Jnit~ Slates '/~dnai$ He~g~s .v~zata '~1 El. Paul '.~,e 8~t La~e .~ERV~NG THE TRANS~ RIDER FOR O~R A ~ALF C~EY ~0~ C~ ','lrig~ ~unty MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McOonald FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 7 Novembec 1997 _. RE: New Hope - Bus Benches FILE NO: 131.00 - 97.13 The City recemN received a request to install 13 "courtesy l:us bem~es' thmugt~out New Hope. The majority of the proposed bench sites are located aloc~g Boc~e Avenue. This request raises many issuel in~lucling street aislt~, signage, and locating such stnJctur~ within pul:)iic: rkO-way. Al noted in Exhibit A, issues surrounding courtesy I:enches are being conf~ted by oth~ melzopelitan communitiis. In response to t~e afomme4-4J4:h"~d request, our office his ~ authorized to investigate/ summarize various iss~m~ associated wiffi tl~ ;)Gssibla I~medatiefl of courtesy becx~is within the City of New Hc)f:)e. The fc)llchving ils~is summary incluctis a specific review of orcli~ar~:ee from ti'la Cifiis of Golden Valley, Bmeklyn P~k, Crystal, Plymouth wflich were I~sem01ecl by I~ ,~trtclsticI. Bench Puqiee4 Courtesy beflctlis all ol~lred to ~ City aa a ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ovidfl a rest areaf~p~~~~Ci~s~ ~~ie~to~Ci~in The ~aSjc ;remiss of a(3~vertJsing is that an aOve~'tJsement should stand out a~0 ~e see~ ~-' ~y as ~any ~ar~ns as ~oss~e. If ~Js is not a~eve~, ~e a~e~s~ent ~s ~ot success~l an~ w~ll ~ave Ii.Is ~etum on ~e investment. Ordinance Requiremenm The City must c[etermine if these I~enct'~es/adver'tising signs meet the City's expectations for tl~e New Hope streetscape. Presently, the New Hope Sign Ordinance prot'~bits placement of courtesy I=encl~es in that they woulcl be considered advertising sIgns, as clefine<:l I=elow. As a result, accommodation of ~ese benc,~es would require a Sign Ordinance amendment. Section 3.422. Definitions (2) Sion. A~vertisina. A billboard, poster panel board, painted bulletin board, or offier communicative device wt~ic~ i,s u~<l to a<3'vertise ~, goo~, mx:i/or slr"vices'wflict'l are not exclusively retatecl to tt~e premise on w~icl't ~e sign is located. Section 3.468 of ~e New Hope Sign Ordinance regulates ~e placement of advertising signs in New Hope a~ follow~: 3.46~ Advartimin~ Siena ~Billboardm~. All edvetti~ing sigma hareeft~ peinte~l, c=~sl~.~cted, emoted, remodels<l, relocated or expanded slsall comply wills ti'ti following ~"Ktlrdl in a~:litiort to estal~li~hed in Sections 3.44 tlsroug~ 3.4,53. (1) General Business Dima'i~t Rmattfctie~t. Advl'ti~ing Ngl"ts ~ell bi' located in ~ Buaine~ Dt~rict~ (2) Maximum N~.~ar. Net mere Ilsen one ~ te ~ advertising sign (3) -~"~,m~m ~ The tetal ama of a ~ ~1 ~ exceed (4) ~m,Jm Haa3~. The maximum ~ of any ~~ sign 2 . (5] L.g.~.a.tJ.g~ Advertising sIgns slnall I:)e located no closm" than one thous~n~ (1,000) feet from ea~ omer on t~e s~me s~e o~ ~ s~reet. Minim~ Setb~ R~uire~t. AUve~s~ng signs s~all com~ly with ~he minim~ se~a~ r~u~rements for t~e ~eneral Business Oistn~ fee~ from any residentially zon~ prope~. Community Survey Several cities that allow courtesy benches have included restrictions on signege content and presentation. The City of Plymouth, for example, prohibits werUs wnicl~ may interfere witl~, mislead or detract traffic sucl~ as 'stop', 'look', '~lnve in',_*.clanger', The City of Plymoutln al~o prohibits reflective signege. The City of Golden Valley regulates the content of adv.'rising signa. Specifically, their o~inanca la'o~iloit~ liqu~', beer, ot3scene and i:x31iticat edve~tising. Howev~, based upon documented court ca~e~, it ia tt~ City Attorney's opinien tlllt ~ City ie limited in its aloility to regulate sign content (oth~ than wiqat is considered obscene or preaents a threat to pul31ic safety). In thia re~:t, the inal3ility of the City to control uncle~iral31e sign content or presentation can be very ixot31ematic witlq reglr~ to ~ sign mllaage, a political opinion, and good taste wrtictl could produce unsiglqtly result1. Attact'~l a~ Exlqiloit B am example c~li~ fi'om the Ciflle of Gok:lml Valley, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, and Plymouth. Lecation Cenceme In ctiacu&~=n will1 City ~11t, ia~et surrounding bencl~ placement and maintenance w~'e identified, Loca6on conce~rm inct~de: . 1. Location wimin Cay am.~ r~m,of-way ~ ~ ~ ~i~t~ ~ ~1~ d~~. 2. A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~i~a 3. P~~~~~~~~ for ~ ~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. 4. 8encl'~ must 0e located at~Oroximatety to avoid interfering wit~ traffic v~sit::)ility or conflict wi~ pedestrian movement on sidewalks. Design Concerns Frecluentfy, courtesy ~er~cnes are placecl wit~ lit'tie regard to streetscape design. 1. Bm'c~es s,"<~uld 0e located o~ a co,crete platform t~at extends from ~e street cu~ to ~act< of ~. This platform would avoid a deterioration of lanclscaping, clefir~e area for pe<:lestrian using ti'ts ber,~, ~ a maintainable surface arouncl tl~e 2. Concerns are prescribed win regarcl to 13encl~ datedoratio~ and vandalism of pnvate 0encY. 3. The 0encl'~ area ~ould include receptacles for trasi~ and refuse. The I=enct~ locations-ara locations for people to ga~er and trash may become a prol31em. 4. 8em:l~ locations raise issue corceming .NTterica~ Diss0ility Act (ADA) accessibility. Maintenance The i=lac~ment of rig~t~f-~y mai~~. In di~i~ ~ ~ ~1~ W~ Oir~, ~e foiling issues ~e rai~: piing 3. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~a fm site wire ~ 4 CONCLUSION Staff feels it a~prol~ate to discuss me desirability of tJ~e courtesy ~en~es wi~ the Codes an~ Sta~ar~s Comm~. ~ ~e Ci~ ~et~ines ~at ~u~e~ ~es are desir~ wff~in New Hope, staff would suggest pedo~ance standards in t~e following areas: L~censi~g of ~en~ea is suggest~ to ~rovide an annual review an~ t~e ~o eliminate ~en~ sites t~at fait.to m~t Ci~ standards. ~ai ~ice~slng fees s~ould ~e esta~lis~ to ~v~ ins~ion an~ e~or~ent expenditures. 2. To avoid ~e orolE~atio~ ~ ~ea t~mu~t ~e Ci~, I~tional standards s~ld ~e esta~lish~ to ~efine ~ta~le I~ti~a f~ ~ee. ~e Io~tJonal st~ ~id at~ i~ a~o~ate ~t~a from s~t ~ to actress tr~c s~e~ and s~t mainte~an~. 3. Oeai~ ~d~ ia ~e~ to e~li~ a desirable s~t~ ameni~. design standards ~Ould ~p~aaize ~ eea~etic ~ maint~. 4. ~e t~ ~ ~ li~ ~11 provide f~ ~vate mai~~ ~ ~e ~ ~ea. If 5. In~~ ~id ~ r~uir~ ~ffi all ~~ ~ ~ ~ Ci~ ~le~ ~om ~y lia~ilifi~. 6. Site pl~ ~i~i~ ~ii ~ ~ir~ ~ li~ ~li~ to al~ Ci~ review MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald Steve Sor~:l~ll FROM: Cynthia Putz-Yang I Alan Brtxlus DATE: 16 September 1998 RE: New Hope - Courteey Benchea FILE NO: 131.1X) - 9~.07 BACKGROUND Staff met on Sel:~mber 9a to cliKuIe c:etateey bench materiel pmvioualy preM)nted at the Cc)dee ancl 8tandatde meeting that took place in Augutt. The foilowir~ IMue~ will require 1771 WAY~TA BOULEVARD. SUITE 5B~ ST. LOUI~ PARK. MINNESOTA PHONE ela-.gs-eeae FAX et2-598.913? 'E'MAI~ NAG~WINTERNET.COM i~ '., Improvement project by the City, permitl will not be renewed at their time of expimuo.. e. ~.~t~eln~er? of the. ground around the benct~ wa~ dlecueeed Staff ~m ~ m'ea ~ lf~ back of the curb to the bec~ of the I:~nch'--..., ,,-- .. :-=- :'~'~' be p~vecl ~n am e~aly maintained and aegdletically pleasing materfal. BUS BENCH OROINANCES TO: K/rk McDonald FROM: DOug Sandstad ~~ DATE: 3- ].0.97 I have surveyed the surrounding communities in the Iasc 3 weeks, regarding ~he/r respective re.la,ions on courtesy bus benches. The impetus for the effor~ results from a written request, by a private vendor, to install 13 new benches in New Hope. In discus~in~ the matter with the appl/cant, it became clear tha~ the oublic service aspec~ ia the laudable goal, balanced against: · ADVERTISING SI($N$ = PRIMARY FUNDING M~CHANTSM · LACK OF MAI~ANCE OF 9F.,~CEF,5 · SNOW 3 FEET DEEP 9LOCKING ACCE~ TO 5C)M~ 9E~~ LACK OF SID~A'ALKS PARALLEL TO ~ · SIDEWALK Ph'RPKNDI~ TO ~ TO S1/I~VE 91/NCH ? CONFUSION AS TO PROPERTY LIN1/S; Private land or Public ri6ht-oi-wa? ? · UNCLEAR LIABIL1TI~ · DISABILITY ACCI/~ [SST.rl/S · LICENSI/? · REQUIRED 91/NCH SEPARATION FROM $i~t- FOR SAFETY AND PLOWING CLF. ARAN(:~ To generate both 'heat' and 'light' on the subject, please review t;he followin~ overview chart and ord/nancee from Golden Valley, Brooklyn Park, Crystal & Plymouth. I would like to discuss an ord/nance concept a~ our next "Enjineerinf' meeting. EXHIBIT BUS BENCH OVERVIEW RegulatedA. speCt~: .... GV BP, PC CR NH Ordinance: Y N Y y N' Lice-se / Permit: L N P L N Posted License S~i, cker. Y N Y y N .Approval By:. gn~. N Mgr. gn~. N Locations Resmcted: Y H Y Y N Bench Size Maximum: *30xi2xS4 Y* N Y* Y* N Bench Materiels: N N Y N N Bench Sign Size Ree~ric~d: N N Y N N Sign Content: Y N Y Y N Bond ! Insurance: Y N Y Y N Non. Ci~ Road Approval l~q'% N N Y N N · M~ Numbe~ in Cit~. N N ~ N N O~er/A~a~at ~ ~ac ~ N Y ~ N ' M~~ I .~ I ~ Y N Y Y N · S~ ~~ ~ ~e~ ~ the t~ a~a~nt ~. t~t ~ a b~ ~ p~ ~e B~~ P~k ~ ~e~ ~p. h~e~ the ~t d 13 p~ b~ ~n~es m th lemr [I.~-~ hm ~ a~ a congrs~ ~M~a ~e 36m & · Perhaps Cb ~ s~d ~ a ~ b~ b~ or ~o, Mthifl tb Ci~ CeuMr, ~ ~ude ~b~ b~ a~ ? ... I ~mmend ~h~ we be~ ~sio~ cow~ a~pgon of ~a~nable b~ bench s~d~. OVERVIEW OF THE COURTESY BENCH RESEARCH PROJECT BENCH TOTALS TOTAL BENCHES 38 EXCELLENT/GOOD BENC'HES 26 FAIR/POOR BENCHES 12 ADVERTISERS NUMBER OF BENCHE~ GILL BROTHERS 7 -' PARK NATIONAL 3 MTC 2 EDINA REALITY 3 CARLSON TRAVEL 1 SUBWAY 2 CALL 4 WIRELESS 3 STATE FARM INS. 1 HOTLINE REALITY 1 KTIS 3 NORWEST BANK 1 COUNSELOR REALITY 1 AMERICAN FAMILY INS I OWNERSHIP US BENCH CORPORATION 29 NORTHRIDE ESTATES 7 CITY OF NEW HOPE 2 LOCATION NUMBER OF BENCHE~ WINNETKA 18 BOONE 15 NEVADA 1 42~° AVENUE 1 WEST BROADWAY 2 BASS LAKE ROAD I COURTESY BENCH SURVEY INFORMATION Bench- #1 ~2 #3 Address. 62'~ Avenue- 62~ Avenue- 62" Avenue- Boone Avenue Winnetka Avenue W. Broadway (SE Comer) (SW Comer) (SE Comer) Width- 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet Curry- 3 ff. 8 in. 2 ff. 8 in. 5 f. Height- 3 ff. 5 in. 3 ft. 8 in. 3 fi $ in. Advertiser- Gill Brothers Park National Bank Gill Brothers (Front and Back) (Front and Back) (Front and Back) Condition of the Bench- Good- sigr~ Excellent- recently Good- Signs ot of rotting wood redone rotting wood and discolora~on. U.S. Bench Corporation U.S. Bench ~ U.S. Bench Corpemtion 1991 1997 1996 Phone Number 721-2525 Phone Number 721.2525 Phone Number 721-2525 Bench Layout Sketch / Bench Layout Sketch i Bench Layout Sketch~__ $ ~IOXr, ATE S~AZAS,: IY ~...- .~ " T.D~ BKIJCHF.,S ,d'F_TItOOT SICm~ i ?' · **zNoz~re '~c~&ss .orr. COURTESY BENCH SURVEY INFORMATION Bench- Addreee- 6051 8008 Winnetka- W. Broadway Winnetka Avenue Bass Lake Road (SW Comer) ON Comer) (NW Comer) Wldth- 12 feet 12 feet 7 feet Curb- 8 ff. 6 ft. " 7 ft. Height- 8 lt. 8 ff. 3 ft 3 in. Advertiser. MTC Station MTC Station Edina Reality (Front and Back) (Front and Back) (Front and Back) Condition of the Bench.. Good- graffiti and Good- some Fair- Warped gamege everywhere. Banch graffiti rotted wood MTC M'rC U.S. Bench Corporation 1993 Phc:me Numl:~ 721-2525 Bench ayout Sketch ? *melNDICAI'B '~'OIG~ASS UOIrl'B ~ Bench Layout Sketch COURTESY BENCH SURVEY INFORMATION Bench* #7 ~ ~3 Address- Winnetka* Winnetka Winnetkao Bass Lake 49'~ Avenue NW 49'~ Avenue SE (SW Comer) (NW Comer) (SE Comer) Wldth- 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet Curb- 8 ff. 5 f. 7 in. 5 ff. $ in. Height- 3 ff. 3 in. 3 ff. 5 in. 3 ft 5 in. Advertlasr, Carlson Travel Call 4 Wirele~ Park National Bank (From and Back) (From) (From and Back) Condition of the Bench. Fair- Rotted and Excellent- gmat Geed- Minor warped wood. shape wood rottir~g. U.S. Ben¢~ Corporation U.S Bench Corporation U.S. Benc~ Corporation 1993 1997 1993 Phone Number 721-2525 PI'rune Numl3er 721-2525 Phone Number 7:21-2525 Bench Layout Sketch Bench ,ayout Sketch Be~ch Layout Sketch COURTESY BENCH SURVEY INFORMATION Addraaa- Winnetka- Winnetka Winnetka. 47~ Avenue 45~ Avenue H5"11~ Avenue (NW Comer) (NW Comer) ($W Comer) Width- ' 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet Curb- 5 ft 4 in. 13 ff. 8 ff. Height- 3 ft. 5 in. 3 ff. 5 in. 3 ff 5 in. Advertiser. Gill Brothem Subway Call 4 Wireless (From and Back) · (From and Back) (Front) Condition of the Bench- Good- some Fair- Problem with Good- Minor graffiti, rotting and warped discoloration. Wood. Owner. U.S. Bench Corporation U.$ Bench Corporation U.S. Bench Corporation 1997 1992 1990 Phone Number 721-252.5 Phone Number 721-2525 Phone Number 721-2525 Bench Layout Sketch Bench Layout Sketch~: i/ ***INDICATE '~Ot~ASS MOJ~*i AEtOM Bench Layout Sketch COURTESY BENCH SURVEY INFORMATION Bench- #1:3 . #14 #15 Addreee- Winnetka- winnetka Winnetka- Winnetka Center 42'~ Avenue 42" Avenue (SW Comer) (NW Comer) (SE Comer) Width- 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet Curb- 12 ff 7 ft. 8 ft. Height- 3 ff. 2 in. 3 ff. 5 in. 3 ff 6 in. Advertleer- State Farm Ine. Edina Reality Gill Brothem (Front and Back) (Front and Back) (Front and Beck) Condition of the Bench. Poor- warping Fair- PmlXem with Excellent- Be~t and rotting wood rotting and warped berK:h in the City. wood. Owner- U.S. Bench Corporation U.$ Bench Corpemtion U.S. Bench Corl~ration 1991 1989 1997 Phone N,,.ml:~, 721-2525 Phone Numl:mr 721-2525 Phone Numl:~' 721-2525 Bench Layout Sketch Bench e yout Sketch Bench Layout Sketch COURTESY BENCH SURVEY INFORMATION Bench- #16 #17 #18 Addrees- Winnetka- Winnetka Boone- Xylon 36~' Avenue Northwood (NE Comer) (NW Comer) (NW Comer) Width- 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet Curb- 7 It, 3 in. 8 It, 6 in. 9 It, Height- 3 ff, 8 in, 3 It, 4 in, 3 It 6 in, Advertiser- Subway KTIS Radio Call 4 Wireleu (From and Back). (Front and Back) (Front and Sack) Condition of the Bench- pOOr. warping Excellent- Gmat Good- Some and rotting wood 13eft~! warping and rotting. U,S, Bench CO. rporation U,$ Bench Corporation U,S, Bench Corporation .. 1992 1997 1994 Phone Numl=et 721-2525 Iq'mae Number 721-2525 Phone Number 721.2525 Bench Layout Sketch Bench ,ayout Sketch Bench Layout Sketch~= ~..~___ COURTESY BENCH SURVEY'INFORMATION Bench- #19 ~20 ~r21 Address- Boone- Boone* Boone- 42~ Avenue 49~ Avenue Bass Lake Road (SE Comer) (NW Comer) (SW Comer) Width- 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet Curb- 8 ff. 6 ff. 6 in. 17 ft. 6 in. Height. 3 ft. 6 in.' 3 ff. 4 in. 3 ft 4 in. Advertiser- Gill 8rothem Gill Broffiem Hot Line Reality (Front and Back). (Front and Back) (Front) Condition of the Bench- Good- some warping. Good- minor Excellent- Gmat wood rotting, shapel OwI1ef- U.S. Bench Corporation U.$ Bench Corporation U.S. Bench Corporation 19g~ 1996 19g~ Phone Number 721-2525 Phone Number 721-2525 Phone Number 721-2525 Bench Layout Sketch Bench Layout Sketch Bench Layout Sketch COURTESY BENCH SURVEY INFORMATION Bench- ~t22 ~23 ~r24 Addreee- Boone- Bass Lake 424 Avenue- Bass Lake Maryland Nevada (SE Comer) ($W Comer) ($W Comer) Wldth- 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet Curb- 6 ff. 6 in. 10 ff. 7 ff. Height- 3 ft. 4 in. 3 ft. 4 in. 3 ft 5 in. Advertiser. Park National Bank Norwest Bank Edina Reality (Front and Back) (Front and Back) (Front and Back) Condition of the Bench- Good- some warT)ing- Fair- rotting GooO- minor discoloring and' chipping wood. rotting. O~tller- U.S. Bench Corpo~ U.S aenc~ ~ U.S. Bench Coq=oration 1993 199~ 1993 Phone Numl:~r 721-2525 Phone Numb~ 721-2525 Phone Numbe~' 721-2525 Bench ~ayout Sketch - Bench ~ayout Sketch Bench Layout Sketch COURTESY BENCH SURVEY INFORMATION Bench- ~25 ~26 ~r27 Addreee- 36~ Avenue- Winnetka Winnetka- Winnetka Medicine Lake Medicine Lake (SE Comer) (NW Comer) (NE Comer) Width, ' 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet Curb- 5ff. 8 in. 6 ff. 9 ff. 6 in. Height- 3 ff. 8 in. 3 ff. 5 in. 3 ft 2 in. Advertiser- Gill Brothem K'i'IS Radio American Family Insurance (Front and Back). (Front and Back) (Front and Back) Condition of the Bench- Fair- warping- Fair- rotting Good- minor discoloring and di~x:~::.'ed wood. rotting. U.S. Be~ch Corl:mmtion U.S Bench Corporation U.S. Bench Corporation 1993 1989 1996 Phone Number 721-2525 Phone Numl:~r 721-2525 Phone Number 721-2525 · Bench ~ayout Sketch Bench Layout Sketch~_._._~~_ ,. BenchLayout Sketch COURTESY BENCH SURVEY INFORMATION Bench- ~r28 ~r29 #30 Address- Boone Avenue- Boone Avenue Boone Avenue 42"~ Avenue $6~ Avenue 5500 block ($W Comer) (SE Comer) (E Block) Width.. 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet Curb- 8ff. 19 ft. 19 ff. Height- 3 ft. 6 in. 3 ff. 5 in. 3 fi 5 in-.' Advertiser. Counselor Reaiity Northddge Estates Northridge Estates (From and Back) Condition of the Bench. Fair- warping- Excellem shape Excellem shape rotting and di~,oloring wood. U.S. Bench Corporation Northddge Estates Northddge Estates 1989 MI~- Phone Number 721-2525 Phone Number 536-7000 Phone Number 536-7000 Bench ~ayout Sketch Bench Layout Sketch Bench Layout Sketch COURTESY BENCH SURVEY INFORMATION Bench- ~31 #32 Address- Boone Avenue- Boone Avenue Boone Avenue 5500 8lock 5500 Block 5500 Block (E Block) (E Block) (E Block) Width. 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet Curb- 19 ff. 19 ff. 19 ff. _. Height- 3 ff. 5 in. 3 ff. 5 in. 3 ff 5 in, Advertiser- Northddge Estates Northddge Estate~ Northridge Estates Condition of the Bench- Excellent shape Excellent shape Exceilem shape OINTler- Northddge Estate~ Northddge Estate~ Northddge Estates Phone Number 721-2525 Phone Number 536-7000 Phone Number 536-7000 , , Bench ayout Sketch B~nch ~ayout Sketch Bench ,ayout Sketch COURTESY BENCH SURVEY INFORMATION Bench- #34 #35 #36 Addresa- Boone Avenue- Boone Avenue' 42nd Avenue 5500 Block 5500 Block Winnetka (E Block) (E Block) (NE Comer) Width- 7 feet 7 feet 6 feet Curb. 19ft. 19ff. 8ft. Height- 3 ff. 5 in. 3 ft. 5 in. 2 ft 5 in. Advertiser- Northridg® Estates Northddge Estates City Bench Condition of the Bench- Excellent shape Excellent shape Excellent shape Northridg® Estat~ Northrtdge Estate~ Streetscape Site Phone Number 721-252~ Phone Number Bench ,ayout Sketch :' Bench ,ayout Sketch Bench ~t Sketch COURTESY BENCH SURVEY INFORMATION Bench- ~.37 ~8 Address- 42~ Avenue- Boone Avenue Winnetka Medicine Lake Road (SE Comer) (NW Comer) Width- 6 feet 7 feet Curb- 8 fl. 15 ft. Height- 2 ~. 5 in. 3 ~. I~ in. Advertiser- City Bench KTI$ R~dlo (Front) Condition of the Bench- Excellent shape Fair- rotted/ discolored wood PhorleNtmli~r721-2525 Bench Layout Sketch Bench ayout Sl~etch~~ Z~IDZGA.'T~ SL&BS IJl~n OIt ~EAR " I:I)EB'L'IYY SEIICKES b'ZTHOg'T S I~H'~ STUDY AREA MAP BROOKLYN PARK EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES Express Route Express Route: No Stop ~ Local/Limited Route: No Stol: Local/Limited Route Local/Limited Route: Limited Sm'vice I · I ~ark&Rk:leLot ,~l~e: ~ CII~ ~ Ama Tran~oo~atkm See~ice Map I~7 Ci~ of New Ho~ Com~ns~e Ptan Update 95 Invento~ Scheduled Bus Routes Benches will only be allowed to be placed on scheduled bus routes throughout the City. All benches must be parallel to the flow of bus traffic at all locations. The bus routes in New Hope are currently: Boone Avenue WinnetKa Avenue Medicine Lake Road from 169 to Boone 36= from Winnetka to Louisiana 42~ Avenue from Boone to Louisiana Xylon Avenue from 42"~ to 45a 45= Avenue from Xylon to Winnetka Research Center Road & Science Center Drive HWY 169 Frontage Road from Research Center to 49~ Bass Lake Road from Boone to Louisiana -' West Broadway Avenue · Benches will only be permitted at bus stops established by the public transit system. It is the responsibility of the permitee to provide verification of a public transit stop. Memorandum To: Planning Commission Members From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Date: December 30,1998 Subject: Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on CouncillEDA actions. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. 1. December 14 CouncillEDA Meetings - At the December 14 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the follow!ng planning/development/housing issues: A. Project #514, Resolution Approving Agreement with Events of Distinction to Assist with Coordination of 1999 Northwest Suburban Remodeling Fair: Approved, see attached Council request. Remodeling Fair to be held on Saturday, April 10, 1999. B. Project # 600, Resolution Amending Resolution No. 98-50 Section 2.03 Regarding.Sandpiper Cove Housing Improvement Area: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Project #589, Resolution Authorizing Publication of Notice and Holding of a Public Hearinq Regarding the Sale of 9116 31`t Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. D. Planning Case 98-23, Request by Petitioner to Table Request for a Variance in the Fence Height Requirement to Allow Construction of a 10' Sound Barrier/Fence, 8201 54"' Avenue: Tables until January 11, 1999, see attached Council request. E. Resolution Reciting a Proposal for an Industrial Development Proiect, Taking Official Action with Respect Thereto Indicating Preliminary Intent to Assist the Financing of the Project Pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act and Calling for Public Hearing on the Project: Approved, see attached Council request. F. Resolution Approving Re-Appointments to CAC, Human Rights Commission, Personnel Board, Planning Commission, and Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council: Approved, see attached Council request for list of re-appointments. Bill Sonsin and Steve Svendsen were both re-appointed to the Planning Commission. G. Presentation by Staff and Task Force Members; Resolution Ordering Construction of Street and Storm Sewer Improvement No. 547 and Preparation of Final Plans and Specifications (New Hope City Center Streetscape Proiect): Part 1 of Phase 1 was approved by the Council. which includes 42nd Avenue. Part 2 of Phase 1, which includes 45"' and Xylon Avenues, was not approved. See attached Council request. H, Planning Case 98-27, Request for a Variance to the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Garage Addition and a Variance to Allow a Third Accessory Building on One Lot, 9325 31st Avenue: Approved; Council requested that the window on the west wall of the garage be similar to the windows in the house, to which the petitioner agreed. I. Presentation Regarding Proposed 1999 Infrastructure Improvements; Resolutio,, Authorizing Staff to Proceed with Feasibility Report: Approved, see attached Council request. J. Presentation by North Ridge and MaSonic Homes, Inc. Re.qardinq the Sale of North R~e_ and Housing Bond Assistance: See attached Council request. K. project #614, Resolution Authorizing Deed to Project of PPL at 7300 Bass Lake Road. Approved, see attached EDA request. 2. December 28 Council/EDA Meetings - At the December 28 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Project #614, Resolution Approving Metropolitan Council's Memorandum of Understandinq to Establish and Administer a Waitinq List and Grievance Procedure for MHOP Units in th~ Bass Lake Townhome Project: Approved, see attached CoUncil request. B. Project #651, Motion Authorizing Staff to Neqotiate with Property Owner for Potential Acquisition of 7603 Bass Lake Road; Approved, see attached Council request. C. Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on a Housing Program and on the Issuance of Housing and Health Care Revenue Bond~: Approved, see attached Council request. D. Project #653, Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain Appraisal of 5340 Winnetka Avenue North: Approved, see attached Council request. E. Project #589, Resolution Authorizing and Al~l~rovin_cl the Sale of 9116 31st Avenue North to Nicholas Zaqaros and Kimberly Armstronn,: Approved, see attached Council request. F. Project #597, Discussion Re.qardin.q Develol~ment of City-Owned Property at 9200 49= Avenue North: See attached EDA request. This item was tabled until the January 11, 1999, meeting. The EDA is considering having the City make the soil correction and then selling the property to the developer. G. Project ~493, Resolution Calling for Public Hearinq to Convey Property at 5501 Boon= Avenue North to Senior Outreach Services, Inc. (CareBreak) and Authorizing Preparation of Development Contract: Approved, see attached EDA request. H. Project #614, Resolution Approving the Metropolitan Council's Memorandum of Understanding to Establish and Administer a Waiting List and Grievance Procedure for MHOP Units in the Bass Lake Townhome Project: Approved, see attached EDA request. I. Project #614, Resolution Approving Bass Lake Townhome Housing Development Agreement and Regulatory and ODeratin_~ A-areement and Authorizing the President and Executive Director to Sign Said Agreements: Approved, see attached EDA request. 3. Codes & Standards Committee - The Committee met in December to finalize the new ordinance on courtesy benches and the recommended revisions to the R-2 lot size ordinance, both of which will be considered at the January Planning Commission meeting. 4. Design & Review Committee - Design & Review met with the petitioners in December to review plans for the 54~ Avenue warehouse noise variance and Taco Bell revised plans. 5. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - The Committee will remain intact to review plan updates for neighboring cities when they are received. New Hope's plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council and neighboring cities (see attached list from Northwest Consultants). 6. Proiect Bulletin - Enclosed is a project bulletin regarding Hidden Valley playground improvements. 7. Miscellaneous Articles: Attached is Zoning News for your information. 8. Miscellaneous Issues: A. City staff continued to work on the following potential developments: . _.~ 1) CareBreak building and plat on Boone Avenue " 2) Navarre building expansion 3) A.C. Carlson plat and rezoning or CUP Attachments: Remodeling Fair Sandpiper Cove 9116 31" Avenue Sale Soundwall Height Variance Ware Manufacturing IDRBs Commission Re-Appointments City Center Streetscape Project 9325 31~t Avenue Variances 1999 Infrastructure Improvements North Ridge Sale 7300 Bass Lake Road Bass Lake Townhome Project - MH©P Units 7603 Bass Lake Road North Ridge/Masonic Homes 5340 Winnetka Avenue 9116 31't Avenue Sale 9200 49th Avenue Development 5501 Boone Avenue (CareBreak) Bass Lake Townhome Project - MHOP Units Bass Lake Townhome Project Agreement 12/21 Northwest Consultants Correspondence Project Bulletin Miscellaneous Articles ~ I cocr'NCZL ~ SZgt ST x,O ACTZO Ortgtnat.tng Department Approved t'or A&enda Agenda Secuon CommUnity Development Consent 1 ~8 :tern No. IBy:. Kirk McDonald ~'// 6.6 RI:SOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT /~V1TH L:VENT$ OF DISTINCTION TO ASSIST WITH COORDINATION OF 1999 NORTHWEST SUIBURE}AN REMODELING FAIR (IMP~OVI:MI:::NT PROJECT NO. 514 The five CO-DP Nortt~west Cities (New Hope, Crystal, Robbinsclal®, Brooklyn Center, E}rookiyn Park) eno Plymouth again desire to join together with Northwest Hennepin Human Services to sl0onsor the annual "Remodeling Fair" to encourage homeowners/residents to utograde/rernodel existing homes in our cities. The Remodeling Fairs of the previous He years have been very sq.cces~ful with 70 exhibitors and approximatelY2,500 attendees. The Fair ia scheduled to be held o~(~turctaY, Alodl 10, 1999~t the C;rystal Community Center on Douglas Ddv®. The objectives of the NW Sulouroen Remodeling Fair are to provide homeowners with: 1) remodeling ideas/techniques; 2) advice on working with remodeling professionals; 3) information on city requirements; 4) financing altematives/10rogram$ by local banks; and 5) examl:)ies of interesting remodeling projects. The Remodeling Fair will include exhibits i:)rovided by profe~ionala in the field of remodeling and home improvements and workshope that provide information/advice on vadous remodeling and home iml:)rovement tol0ics. The Police, Fire and Building Inspections Departments from the six cities will also have informational booths at the Fair. Staff from the six cities will be rest:)onsible for a majority of the realm associated with the Fair including exhibitor registration/confirmation/booth assignment, marketing, facility set-up, and refreshments. The six cities again deeire to hire a consultant to asei~t with the planning/echeduling of workehopa and the solicitation/procurement of door prizee from exhibitor~. Staff from the six citlee desire to enter into an agreement with Events of Dietinction, the ~anm consultant that ha~ been teed the last several years, for these services. Events of Distinction has sulxnittecl a quote in an amount not to exceed $2,300 to perform these tasks (same aa 1996). This firm does an excellent jot) coorciinating with the cities on the Fair and their pdce is conaiderei01y less bhan quotes sul0mitted by other consultants in t0dor years. New Hope ie again coordinating the registrations for tim Fair and trw receipt/dlebursement of revenue~expensmm for the Felt, therefore, thle agreement needs to be approved by. New Hope even though it ie addremeed to Cryetal. It ia anticil0ated that there will be no coat to the cities to host the Fair, as the income derived from the sale of booths for exhibits pay~ for advertising and consultant expenses. The enclosed resolution aPlxOVes the Letter of Agreement with Events of Distinction to assist with the coordination of the 1999 Northwest Suburt)an Remodeling Fair and staff recommends al:q0rovat of the resolution. MOTION ~ 9~X::OPlO ~ TO: ~ma~$ D~ent ~p~ for ~e~a ~da ~cUon Finance/Admin. Consent 12-14-98 It~ No. ~ Lar~ Wa~s ~ .... 6. ~ RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 98-50 SECTION 2.03 REGARDING SANDPIPER COVE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 600) Resolution No. 98-50 was a~Droved on March 23, 1998. In that resolution S~ction 2.03 dealt with tbs ~aym~nts of' th~ improvement, b~ did not s~ecifically stats the Ci~'s intention of allowin9 pro~e~ owners to pay tbs ~rinci~al bala~c~ of the assessment prior to expiration of ths 20 year t~. This issus, however, was properly addressed in th~ notics that was mailed to the ~ro~ ownsrs. Henn~pin Coun~ r~quires that th~ resolution stats ve~ clearly wh~the¢ early payoffs are allowed. To comply with N~n~in Count's dir~ctivs, th~ Ci~ A,orney has expanded Section 2.03 in tbs r~sol~io~ to stats 'Th~ ~ro~ owner may at any time prior to November 15 of any year pay to th~ Coun~ Auditor, Ci~ Financs Director or Assessment Clerk tbs entirs ~rinci~al amount of th~ assessment remainin9 due with interest accrued to O~cemb~r 31 of th~ y~ar in which said ~aym~nt is made". Staff rscomm~nds a~roval of th~ r~solugon. - ~ . COUNCZL ~ Originating Department Approved for ~genda Agenda Secuon Community Development .~ Cdnseqt -14-98 Item No, =~.Susan Henry ' "~Community Development Specialist ]~' 6.12 / ' RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE AND HOLDING OF A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE SALE OF 9116 31a AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #589) City staff have found buyers, Nick Zagaros and Klm Armstrong, for the single family home rehabilitated this year at 9116 31"~ Avenue North. A Purchase Agreement has been executed, subject to the approval of the City Council. By law, a public headng regarding the sale must be held with at least 10 days published notice. The public hearing would then be conducted at the December 28 City Council meeting. Staff recommends approval of the resolution authorizing publication of notice and holding of a public headng regarding the sale of 9116 31=~ Avenue North (Improvement Project #589). I III RFA-O01 ~ RE UE ? FOR ACTION Originating Deparl:nent Approved for Agenda Agenda Secuon Community Development Consen~ 12,~8 Item No. BY'Kirk McDonald By:../ / 6, ~3 PLANNING CASE 98-23, REQUEST BY PETI lONER TO TABLE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IN THE FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 10-FOOT SOUND BARRIER/FENCE, 8201 54TM AVENUE NORTH, CNH ARCHITECTS, PETITIONER At the October 12 Council meeting, the Council tabled a request by CNH Architects for a vadance to the fence height requirement to allow the construction of a 10-foot sound barrier/fence at the 54~ Avenue Distribution Center located at 8201 54~ Avenue, per the' request of the petitioner. O'he Planning Commission recommended approval of the vadance request at the October 6 Planning Commission meeting.) The petitioner requested a tabling until the Noveml:>er 9 Council meeting to allow the applicant time to re-evaluate the feasibility of existing construction plans in relation to engineering studies and city ordinances. Subsequent to the October 12 Council meeting, the petitioner met with staff and indiCated that they want to move fo~vard with a modified proposal that would enhance the noise mitigation after:. 1) additional engineering studies are finalized, 2) a meeting with staff/consultants is conducted regarding a potential noise ordinance variance, and 3) a neighborhood meeting is conducted. The petitioner anticipated that it would take four to six weeks to accomplish these items and requested at the November 9 Council meeting that action by the Council on their onginai request be tabled accordingly. The petitioner submitted a letter and waived the timeline requirements for Council action on their original planning application, as outlined by Minnesota Statutes. Th~ Council tabled the matter until December 14 and requested that the property owner or a representative be present at this meeting. Subsequent to the November 9 Council meeting, the property owner has had further discussions with staff regarding the procedures for applying for a noise variance. The petitioner is proposing to potentially construct a "9 decibel' vs. a ,4 decibel' wall, as previously approved, however, are concerned that they may still not be able to comply with the noise ordinance regulations and utilize their facility. They have conducted two neighborhood meetings and, after listening to all the facts, the neighbors are generally receptive to a vadance from the noise ordinance if a substantial sound wail is built (cont'd.) MOTION BY ~::OND B~ I I I I RFA-0OI ~ Request for Action Page ;2 12-14-98 Per the attached correspondence from the property owner's representative, the petitioner is planning on submitting an application for a noise orclinance variance for consideration at the January Planning Commission meeting. The application would then move forward to the January 11, 1999, Council meeting. The petitioner would like to have the height variance application and the noise ordinance application both considered at the same meeting, therefore, staff is recommending that this matter be tabled to the January 11 Council meeting. Again, the petitioner is waiving the time limit requirements for the height variance application and have indicated that they will be present at the meeting to answer questions. Staff recommends that the Council approve a motion tabling this matter until the January tl, 1999, Council meeting. WALSTEN, WALSTON & TI/: SLAA, PA. Bioomin~on Mendota Hei~hu 1000 Northls~ Phm 200 Dsko~ ~800 W~t t0* Strut 1060 Dskot~ Driv~ Bloom/fl&,tou, ~ 55431 M~ci~tz H~/ht~ MI~ 55120 Telephone: (612) 89~3799 Jmes R.'Wtlsmu Telephone: Fax: (612) 896.2717 P,~ply ~o Mendom Heifhu December 4, lg~8 VIA FACSI~TLE TRA~SML~ION, aud FIleT CLASS M~ lVir. I~k~d D~.~-mb~r 4, !998 Pq~ 2 eppllc~ion ord¥, md ~m' a ~ime period ~ to ~he ~me ~ ~pgl]c~nt hes req~ this mener to · ' S~ly, Mr. ;eff~ mL Comp~es R.F T ACTION Ot-tglnarJ~g Depa~ ~,,.ent Approved ~Or ~e~a Dev~n~C~On Community Development & Planning ~irk McDonald RESOLUTION RECITING A PROPOSAL FO~AN INDUSTRIAL DEVELopMENT PROJECT, TAKING OFFICIAL ACTION WITH RESPECT THERETO INDICATING PRELIMINARY INTENT TO ASSIST THE FINANCING OF THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC H~RING ON THE PROJECT Ware Manufacturing Company, Inc., Io~t~ at 4300 Quebec Avenue No~h, has request~ that the City approve its proposal to finan~ a pmje~ consisting of the leasehold improvements and ~uipping of an existing 100,000 square foot addition to the company's existing manufa~udng facil~ through the issuance of tax-exempt industrial development revenue ~nds in an amount not to ex~ $2,5~,000. The enclosed resolution states that the Ci~ desires to la,IRate sa~ development ~use ~ will result in the creation of approximately 35 add~ional n~ jo~. ~em are ~ existing jo~ provid~ by the business. The resolution establishes a public headng date on said finan~ng pro~sal of Janua~ 11, 1999. Ware Manufa~udng has complet~ the Ci~'s appli~tion for IDRB financing and has submiff~ the appropriate application and de~s~ Staff recommends approval of the resolution. 612 3¢0 7800 DORSEY & WEITNE'~ ~003 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP '~'.*.SHINGTON. ri.C: "720 ~UTI'! SIXTl-I .'~'I'I~P'T ao~ ~o~ FAX: (612) 340-2868 ~oc~-rl& d~O~ P. ~.~ (81~1 ~ December 10, i998 Mr. Kirk McDonald VIA FACSIMILE City of New Hope axt01 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Propo.~l Industrial Revenue Bonds for Ware Manufacturing, Inc. Dear K. Lrk: Thc City has received a request from War~ Manufacturing, Inc. that the Ci~ issue revenue bonds under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Act (Minnesota Statute. s, Section 469.152 to ,i69.165) to finance a project consisting of leasehold improveme, nts and equipping of an addition to thc existing manufacturing facility of Warn Manufacttuing at 4300 Q~cboc Avenue North in tim City. At its meeting on December 14, the City Council will consider a r~olution indicating the City's pmUrnlaary intent to i~ue bonds to ilnance the project and calling for a public hearing then~n. The re, solution provides for the public h-caring to be ~Id on January 11. 1999. Tim proposed revenue bonds Will bo limited obligations of the City and the City will not have any liability with r~pect the,~to. In issuing the bonds the City will be acting as a conduit in order to provide tax exempt financing for the project. Th~ bonds will not be taken into account in determining ~ City's $10,000,000 annual limitation for bank qualified bonds or the $5,000,000 small issuer exemption from the arbitrage rebam requirements. In order to issue the bonds it will be nece,s,sary to obtain an allocation of bond issuance authority from the State of Minneaota. It is my understanding that Ware Manufacturing intends to apply for an allocation of bond issuance authority when additional authority becom~ available in January 1999. 12/1.0/98 TI~ 1.$:$3 F.,LT. ~1.2 ~40 7800 DOR.~*'Y & ~I~T~ ~1004 DOR. SEY &. WHITNEY LLP Mr. Kirk: McDonald December 10, 1998 Page 2 Thc form of resolution of preiimlnm'y intent submitted to the City Council for consideration at its December 14' meeting appems to be in order, and should the City Council wish to proceed with thc proposed bond issue it is appropriate for it to adopt the resolution a.s the first step in this process. Should you have any questions, plea..,~ ¢',fll me. Yours truly, ~ .l*P~:cmn cc: Steve Sondrall LynO Tcmplen Z400 IDS CENTE,~ ~0 SOUTH E[C.,HTH ~T~EET '~[NNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 612, 334-640O I GG S O R GAN (612) 334-g5t3 December 7, 1998 HALTRU,~E5IAIL.BRIGGS.CONI BY MESSENGER Kirk McDonald Communi~ Development Coordinator Ci~ of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue,N New Hope, ~ 55428-4898 Ci~ of N~. Rop~, ~inn~ola ~,~00,000 IndexiCal Development Revenue Bond~ (Ware Manufacturing Comp~ay. Inc. Project) Se~e~ 1999 De~ Kirk: Pursuit to our phon~ ~onve~ation, ~nelos~d for consideration by th~ Ci~ of N~w Hop~ at meeting on Decliner 14 ar~ ~ following; 1. Resolution giving approval to issu~ of th~ ~ve-r~f~r~n~d Bonds subject to holding ~ Publi~ H~ing ~d o~r ~ppmv~l~ 2. Notio~ of ~blie He~ng 3. Application for Project Approval from th~ D~p~nt of Trad~ ~d E~onomi~ D~v~lopm~nt 4. Fo~ of P~limin~ Bond Counsel Opinion 5, Fo~ of Transmi~l Leu~r from Ci~ to D~D 6. Fo~ of F~ibili~ L~r It i~ my under,ding ~t CDi~ Voll~ of W~ M~ufa~fing will d~liv~r to you on Monday th~ other Application m~t~lt in~ludinB ~ ex~ut~d M~momdum of Und~rmnding ~d th~ required d~sit. By ~opy of~i~ l~r, I m ~1~ d~liv~fing do~umen~ to ~ GilliB~ md St~ Sondr~ll for their approval. If you h~v~ ~y qu~stion~, pl~ eau m~. V~ ~ly you~, Enclosures cc: Jerome P. Gillig~, E~. Stev~n Sond~ll, Esq. I 0~693.1 SAINT PAUL OFFICE · FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING · W'W'W. BRIGG,,%COM MEMBER - LEX MUNOl. A GLOBAL A~OCIATION OF INDEPENDENT LAW FIRM.S ( December 3, 1908 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue N. New Hope, Mirmesota 55428-4898 Re: City of New Hope, Minnesota $2,500,000 Variable Rate Demand Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Ware Manufacturing Company Project), Series 1999 Mayor and Council Members: At the request of Ware Manufacturing Company, a Minnesota corporation (the "Borrower"), we have conducted a study of the preliminary economic feasibility of the proposal that the City of New Hope, Minnesota issue its revenue bonds under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.165, to finance, in whole or in part, a project consisting of the leasehold improvements and equipping of an existing approximately ! 00,000 square foot addition to the Company's existing manufacturing facitliY located at 4300 Quebec Avenue North. The building will be used by the Borrower for the purpose of OEM metal stampings and wire forms'(the "Project"). Our study has led us to conclude that, on the basis of current financial conditions, the Project appears feasible from the financial standpoint and the proposed revenue bonds of the City can be successfully issued and sold. We understand a copy of this letter will be forwarded by the City of the Minnesota Depa~hnent of Trade and Economic Development to serve az the feasibility letter required by the Deparunent. Very truly yours, Associated Bank Lakeshore,/~4.A, Michael B. Mo epske Presideut4heboypn Office 1217 North Taylor Dr. 'P.O. Box 388 Sheboygan. WI 530824)388 920.459-6880 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOND PROJECT PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 469.152 THROUGH 165 (please submit this.form in duplicate - all supporting data in single copy only) Date: January , 1999 The governing body of the City of New Hope , County of Hennevin , Minnesota, hereby applies to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (Department) for approval of a proposed industrial Development Bond issue as required by Minn. Stat. 469.152-.165. Addresses of Issuer /.nO1 Xvlon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota, $5428-4898 Attn: Daniel Donahu~ Telephone: 612-531-5112 We have entered into preliminary discussions with: Firm: Ware Manufacturing. II1¢, Attorney: Trudv $. Halla. Briges and Morgan. P.A. Address: 4300 Ouebcc Avenue No,ti Address: 2400 IDS Center. 8(~-S. Eighth Street"- City: New Hol;~ State: MN 55427 City: ~ State: MN 554Q~ Name of Project: Ware Manufacturing. Inc. PrQj¢C~ This firm is engaged primarily in (nature of business): manufacture of OEM metal stamping and wire forms produ,V'rt~ The proceeds from the sale of the Industrial Development Bonds will bc used to (de. so'ibc the project): The Project to b¢ financed by the Revenue Bonds is the eon:~truetion of leasehold improvements and co_nipping of an existing approximated 100.000 sq_uar~ foot addition to the Companv,s existing manufacturing facility located at ~.300 Ouebec Avenue North in the City of New How. Minnesota, Address of Project: New Ho~. Minnesota Proceeds from the sale of the bonds of approximately $2.500.00Q, will be applied toward payment of costs now estimated as follows: Acquisition of land: $ '.O. New construction: $ Demolition and site preparation: $. Acquisition and Installation of Equipment: $ 2.240.000 Fees: Architectural, enginesdng, inspection, fiscal, legal administration, or printing: $ 60.000 Construction IntereSt: $ .Q. Initial Bond Reserve: $ Contingencies: $ -Other:. Leasehold Improvements $ 700.000 &EDP 1/10-1 947261 It is presently estimated that construction and acquisition will begin on or about March 1, 1999 and will be co',. ,.,ere or~ or about December 1, 1999. When completed, there will be approximately 35 new jobs created by the project al annual payroll of approximately $740,000 based upon currently prevailing wages. (If applicable) There are 98 existing jobs provided by business. Repayment of the proposed issue will be amortized over a period of 20 years. The following exhibits are furnished with this application and are incorporated herein by reference: 1. An opinion of bond counsel that the proposal constitutes a project under Minn. Stat. 469.153, subd. 2. 2. A copy of the resolution by the governing body of the issuer giving preliminary approval for the issuance of its revenue bonds and stating that the project, except for a project under Minn. Stat. 469.153, subd. 2(j) or (j) would not be undertaken for the availability of Industrial Development Bond financing. 3. A comprehensive statement by the municipality indicating how the project satisfies the public or purpose and policies of Minn. Stat. 469.152-.165. 4. A letter of intent to purchas~ the bond issue or a letter confirming the feasibility of the project form a financial standpoint. 5. A statement signed by the principal r~presentative of the issuing authority to the effect that upon entering into the revenue agreement, the information r~luired by Minn. Stat. 469.154, subd. 5 will be submitted to the Department (not applicable to project under IMinn. Stat. 469.153, subd. 2(g) or (j). 6. A statement signed by the principal representative of the issuing authority that the project does not include any property to be sold or affixed to or consumed in the production of property for sale, and does not include any housing facility to be rented or used as a permanent residence. 7. A statement signed-by a repr~entative of th~ issuing authority that a public hearing was conducted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 469.154, subd. 4. The statement shall include the date, time and place of the meeting and certify that a draft copy of its application with all attachments was available for public inspection and that all interested parties were al:forded an opportunity to express their views. 8. Copies of notice(s) as published which indicat~ the date(s) of publication and the newspapers) in which the notice(s) were published. 9. Provid~ a plan foa' compHancs of employment preferenc~ of economically disadvantaged or unemployed individuals. (Sea Minn. Stat. 469.154, subd. 7.) AEDP 1/10-1 947261 -We, the undersigned, are duly elected representatives of the City of New Hope ?finnesota and solicit your approval of this project at your earliest convenience so that we may carry it to a final conclusion. Signed by: (Principal Officers or Representatives of Issuing Authority; type or print official's name on the line to the left of the signature line. Thank you.) W. l?etet Enck Mayor/chair Signature Daniel Donahue Title City Manager Signature This approval shall not be deemed to be an approval by the Department or the State of the fe~ibility of the project or the terms of the revenue agreement to be executed or the bind~ to be i~ued therefor. Authorized Signature, Minnesota Department of Date of Approval Trade and Economic Development Please return to: Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development Division of Community Development Attn: Paul Moe ' 500 Metro Squat~ 121 7th Plac~ ~ St. Paul, Minm~ota 55101 AEDP 1/10-1 947261 ~ COUNCU. ~ l . b'nmT 1,Oi tcrwN Omgtnaung Del)merit Approved for ACenda Agenda SecUon City Clerk ~--'~2-14-98 Consent: ValerieLeone)// Item No RESOLuTiON ~5-APP~NT~ENT$ TO C~T~Z~N$ ADViSOrY COMUI$SION, APPrOViNG MU~AN ~GMT$ CO~SS~ON, P~BSONN~[ 8DASD, P~NN~NG CO~SS~ON, AND NO~TH~SST HENN~P~N HUMAN S~RV~CES COUNCIL Te~ms o~ severa~ oomm~ss~on members ~ expire Decembe~ 31, 1998. S~aff has ~ece~ved fo~o~m~ respomses from p~esen~ members: Commission Member Response Citizens Adviso~ John Devine Requests re-appoimmen~ (one-year ~erm) Brenda Gassman Reque~s re-appoimmenz Carole Nelson Requems re-appoimmen~ Steven Reed Requests re-appoimmen~ Roger Rubin Requests re-appoimmem ~rika Runge Requests re-appoimmen~ Rod Sanders Requests re-appoin~mem Thomas Schmid~ Requests re-appoin~men~ Human Rights Hen~ Ba~es Reque~s re-appoimmen~ (~wo-year Christopher Lange Declined (wishes ~o pursue appoin~mem ~o C.A.C.) Personnel Board Amhony Brown Requests re-appoin~mem (3-year ~erm) Planning William Keefe Resigned effective 12/31/98 (4-year William Sonsin Reque~s re-appoimmen~ Steven Svendsen Requests re-appoimment Nonhwem Hennepin Human Du~ne Reynolds Requests. r~appoimmen~ Se~ices Council {2-year ~erm) Staff recommends adoption of ~he a~ach~ resolution' r~appoiming members who have expressed a desire Zo continue se~ing on various commissi~s. Staff will adve~ise vacancies and ask the CiW Council'to conduct ime~iews the early pa~ of 1999. ~A~I REQUEST FOR ACTION Oriel.hating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Public Works 12-14-98 Public Hearing Item No. By:. Guy Johnson ~ 7. ~. PUBLIC HEARING - PRESENTATION B~STAFF AND TASK FORCE MEMBERS; RESOLUTION ORDERING CONSTRUCTION OF STREET AND STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. 547 AND PREPARATION OF FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS In September of 1997, the initial concept for Improvement Project 547 was to address traffic movement, infrastructure improvements, street lighting, burying overhead utilities, and overlaying the street surface on 42~ Avenue between Winnetka and Zealand Avenues. It also addressed a 199:3 request from Gethsemane Cemetery for a new driveway and landscape plan at Xylon Avenue. From the initial concept plan, Council authorized a resolution for the development of a Streetscape Master Plan for the New Hope City Center area. The Streetscape Master Plan was to include 42~ Avenue between Boone and Louisiana Avenues, Xylon Avenue between 42~ and 46~ Avenues, 45a Avenue between Xylon and Winnetka Avenues, and Winnetka Avenue, north and south of 42~ Avenue. Past comprehensive plans for the City have addressed the need for a developmental plan for the New Hope City Center area. It is again recommended in the most recent Comprehensive Plan Update mandated by the Metropolitan Council. A task force made up of residents, property managers, City Council, Citizen AdviSory Commission members, and City staff was created to assist in the development of the streetscape master plan. Initially, an issues workshop was conducted to identify strengths and weaknesses of the City Center area. The task force met on a regular basis with the City Engineer and a landscape architect while the streetscape master plan was being developed. Two open houses for resident~ and property owners were held by the task force. The completed plan divided the New Hope City Center area into separate phases. Proposed Phase I includes 42"~ Avenue between Boone and Winnetka Avenues, XYlon Avenue between 42" and 45~ Avenues, and 45~ Avenue between Xylon and Winnetka Avenues. MOTION BY' SECOND ~ TO: , I I RFA-00! ~ Request for Action Public Hearing. Improvement Project #547 December 14, 1998 Page 2 After reviewing the completed Streetscape Master Plan.this summer, the Council requested staff to redefine the project costs for Improvement No. 547. As part of the Feasibility Report presented to Council on November 9, 1998, the cost for Phase I of the Streetscape Master Plan was divided into Part 1 and Part 2. Part 1 included 42'~ Avenue between Boone and Winnetka Avenues, including city pond and storm sewer work on Gethsemane Cemetery property near or adjacent to Boone Avenue. Part 2 included Xylon Avenue between 42''~ and 46~' Avenues, and 45~ Avenue between Xylon and Winnetka Avenues. The Feasibility Report describes the overall project, estimated cost, assessment, revenue source, maintenance charge, and project schedule. Conceptual cost estimates were previously provided, however, they did not necessarily reflect input from all affected agencies/staff and did not necessarily reflect all the work. The conceptual cost estimates were prepared to speculate what the cost might be, based on an assumed scope of work. Therefore, certain portions of the Feasibility Report may indicate different cost estimates than previously discussed or presented. The purpose of the Feasibility Report is to finalize the project based on discussions to date so that the project can be presented at a public headng. The discussion at the public hearing might also modify the project based on the direction gNen. A memorandum is attached that lists the goals and objectives of the Infrastructure Improvements in both Part 1 and Part 2 areas. It al~o states that the street'scape costs are approximately 25% of the total cost for Phase i. Staff estimates that the tax consequences on a $130,000 home in New Hope would be .$9.00 per year for Part 1, and $20.00 per year for Part I and Part 2. These figures are based on a 15-year bond issued at 4.5%. AI~o, it is estimated that through increased valuations of all properties in the project area, total additional tax revenues would be $8,240 per year for Part 1, 'and $15,250 per year for Part 1 and Part 2. Thi~ is based on the 1999 tax capedty rate. These additional tax revenues would only be available if the restrictions on levy limits are allowed to expire. In the Feasibility Repo~, propo~ preliminary annual maintenance charges would be $4.08 per assessable front footage for commercial properties and $2.72 (2/3 of $4.08) per assessable front footage for re~dentlel pro~, for a total of approximately $30,~ for Phase I. It is proposed that these charges would be collected through the City's utility billing system. Some communities impose an annual assessment for streetscape maintenance. A number of cities have had similar street/streetscape projects to re~olve infrastructure issues and encourage redevelopment. Some cities also take a more active role by either acquiring property or partnering with property owners to encourage commercial redevelopment. A memorandum is. attached describing street/street'scape projects in other communities. l.Rfa~ubworks~42Heatin~ × Request for Action Public Hearing - Improvement Project #547 December 14, 1998 Page 3 Individual total estimated costs for Part 1 and Part 2 of Project 547 have already been identified in the Feasibility Report. In an effort to clarify the proposed revenues for each part, proposed assessment rolls and revenues for both Part 1 and Part 2 have been identified. A memorandum with this information is attached. A memorandum is attached which discusses the cost savings and efficiency of including the regrading of Civic Center Park ballfields with this project. The ballfield regrading is in accordance with the Civic Center Master Plan and is required to provide acceptable play and improve drainage. The resolution before the Council will authorize staff to prel~are final plans and specifications to proceed with both Part 1 and Part 2 of Improvement Project 547. Authorizing the resolution does not limit the Council's ability to reduce the scope of the proposed project at a later date. In the event the Council cannot support Part 2 of the project at this time, staff feels it is critical to proceed with Part 1. In order to obtain substantial completion by the fall of 1999, the project schedule proposed in the Feasibility Report should be followed for Part 1. Delays in Part 1 construction will have an adverse effect on future Capital Improvement Programs scheduled in the year 2000 and beyond. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. [.Rt'aL-r~ubworlc~\42Heatia$ c Anderlik & ' Associates MEMO~NDUM TO: Daniel Donahue, Guy/ohnson FROM: Mark Hanson SUBJECT: 42nd Avenue, Xylon Avenue, 45t" Avenue Street, Streetscape, and Utility Improvements Project No. 547 BRA File No. 34-98-186 DATE: December 8, 1998 The task force for the above project met on November 24, 1998. The attached agenda was discussed. The task force felt it was necessary to emphasize the importance of the infrastructure improvements; which concern themselves more with improving existing conditions in the City Center Area. Although the streetscape/redevelopment opportunities are critical to the success of New Hope's City Center Area, the basic infrastructure improvements are needed and warranted at this time. The infrastructure improvements are summarized below. Infrastructure Improvementa.. 42a'i Avenue · l:h'ovide protected left turn lane in 42~ Avenue at Xylon Avenue continuing to Winnetka Avenue. Traffic signal at Xylon Avenue will provide left turn arrow. · Relocate Gethsemane Driveway opposite Xylon Avenue. · Relocate New Hope Center Driveway (west of Applebee's Restaurant) to better serve New Hope Center and utilizing the protected turn lane in 42''a Avenue. · Relocate K-Mast driveway to utilize protected turn lane in 42? Avenue and better serve the back service areas for K-Man and New Hope Center. · Bury overhead utilities. ~ · Reconstruct existing, sidewalks (which are in extremely poor condition) and construct new trails in accordance with New Hope's Transportation Plan. Boulevards between curb and sidewalk/trail will be developed in neatly all areas to provide safer area for pedestrians/trail users and a separation from vehicles traveling in 42ad AvenUe. · Upgrade existing storm sewer in 42ms Avenue from Winnetka Avenue to the low point in 42as Avenue near Xylon Avenue to reduce flooding. · Develop wetland and ponding (for retention and water quality) along Boone Avenue on Gethsemane Cemetery property. The wetland/ponding will restore existing wetlands due to development and provide additional protection for Northwood Lake. 233S ~g'est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 5S113,· 612-636-4600 · Fax: 612-636-1311 Water main valve replacement will be made in Winnetka Avenue at 42ad Avenue in accordance with the Joint Water Commission. 45ta Avenu~Xylon Avenue · Reconfigure Xylon Avenue to better serve abutting property by providing protected left turn lane opposite driveways. Lrt some areas existing Xylon Avenue will be narrowed (48'-,44' wide to 40' wide) to provide boulevards. · Relocate both of K-Mart's existing driveways to utilize protected left turn lanes in Xylon Avenue and align with existing driveways on the west side of Xylon Avenue. · Realign intersection of Xylon Avenue and 45u~ Avenue to provide safer intersection (3-way stop). · Provide designated parking lanes along Xylon Avenue at police entrance.to City Hall and Civic Center Park ballfields north of Assumption Cemetery (designated parking lane will also be provided for MTC Bus Stop). · Provide designated crosswalks in Xylon Avenue to provide safer crossings for Civic Center Park users. · Reconstruct existing sidewalks (which in many cases are in extremely poor condition) and Construct new trails in accordance with New Hope Transportation Plan. Boulevards will be provided in nearly all areas to provide a safer area for pedestrians/trail users and a separation from vehicles traveling in Xylon/45~ Avenue. · Bury overhead electric in Xylon Avenue. · Reeonfigure 45a Avenue to better serve abutting properties based on existing uses. in some areas existing 45da Avenue will be narrowed (44' wide to 32' wide) to provide boulevards. Protected left turn lane will be provided to serve Winnetka Center. · Upgrade exisffng storm sewer in 45~ Avenue from wetland to low point in Xylon Avenue north of 45d~ Avenue to reduce flooding. · Restore existing wetland north of 450. Avenue to provide additional pending for retention and water quality (also reduce flooding in low point of 45~ Avenue at wetland). · Re~ad~ existing ballfields in Civic Center Park to provide acceptable g~ades for play and properly account for drainage. Excess material from road construction in Xylon/45"' Avenue~ will be utilized to regrade ballfields. Stl~etscau~ Imgr~vmnts Street.scape improvements ~nt ~proxima~ly 2~ ~eu~ of ~e pwj~ cost S~e~a~ im~vemen~ ~ ~ ~~ wi~ ~e M~ S~~ PI~ for New Ho~ Ci~ Center ~ S~~ ~pmve~n~ ~ pm~d in ~1 ~ulev~ ~d ~n~r m~ ~e~ (two cen~r m~i~s ~ pm~ in e~h 42~ Avenue, Xylon Arena, md 45~ Avenue). S~e~ca~ improvemen~ ~ ~so pm~ ~ong co~i~ ~ however not m ~e extent' that ~hey would ~ if m~velop~nt ~m. ~ feR ~e i~c~ ~d s~~ impwvemen~ will inifi~enco~ ~velopmenl ~ ~e co~e~i~ ~ ~e s~~ improvemen~ pro~ he.in wo~d ~ exp~ ~d ~e b~is for desi~ ~ ~evelopment ~cu~. The task force recognizes the need for additional discussion and meetings to further enhance and promote the City Center area identified in the Master Streetscape Plan. The time frame t'or additional public improvements in Winnetka Avenue and 42nd Avenue east of Winnetka Avenue and west of Boone Avenue must be further reviewed with City Council and abutting property owners. The Phase [ improvements, which will be discussed at the December 14, t998 Public Hearing, are the first of hopefully many private and public improvements in the City Center area. The Phase I Improvements are built around existing high-density residential uses and Civic Center Park uses. However, the Phase I Improvements also provide flexibility to accommodate many typeS' of redevelopment in the commercial areas, which could be undertaken publicly or privately, dependent on the type of redevelopment allowed. The streetscape elements included in the Phase I Improvements would be incorporated into the redeveloped areas. The infrastructUre improvements could occur before or in conjunction with redevelopment in the commercial areas. However, because redevelopment in the commercial areas has been anticipated for some time and not occurred, the task force has recommended, as part of the New Hope City Center Streetseape Master Plan, the Phase I Improvements proposed with Project 547 occur at this time to set the framework and hopefully encourage some redevelopment. ~rmc~Oal~: Otto G. ~onestroo. PE. · Joseon C A~aerhR. Pl. · ~arwn L Sorval~. a~ , Engineers & Architects MEMORANDUM TO: Daniel Donahue, Guy J'ohnson FROM: Mark Hanson SUBJECT: 42aa Avenue, Xylon Avenue, 45~ Avenue Street, Streetscape, and Utility ImProvements Project No. 547 BRA File No. 34..98-186 DATE: December 8, 1998 The feasibility report for the above project separates the project into two pans as follows: Pall I 42ad Avenue Improvements $2,433,000 Part 2 Xylon Avenue/45'" Avenue/Civic Center Park Improvements 1,905,000 Total ~1,338,000 In the event the City were to approve only Part I (42~d Avenue) the Preliminary Assessment Roll in Appendix B would be reduced to include only the property on 42"d Avenue. A revised preliminary assessment roll for Part I (42~ Avenue) and Part 2 (Xylon Avenue/45a~ Avenue) is attached. The revised revenue sources tot Part I and Part 2, if they were considered individually, are presented on the following page. 2335 ~/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 · Fax: 612-636-1311 REVENUE SOURCE 42~ AVENIffE, XYLON AVENUE, 45~ AVENUE STREET, STREETSCAPE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMI!iNTS PROJECT NO. 547 Part ! - 42~a Avenue Project Revenue Cost Part 1-42~t Avenue Improvement $2,433.000 Special Assessment Bond $993,000m Tax ~crement Financing 750,000 Hennepin County Participation 500,000 Storm Water Utility Fund 150,000 Ioint Water Commission 30,000 Watzr Sewer Fund 10,000 TOTAL $2,433,000 $2,433,0~ (1) Special As~ssment Bonding Breakdown Ass~sment to New Hope Property Owne~ $289,0~O Assessment to Pmpe~ Owned by New Hot~. , S,456 Sul:m:~ $29"/,~6 City Bomiinl 69~J 14 Part 2- Xylon/4.q~a Avenme Projeet Revenu~ Cost Part 2.Xylon/4~ Avenue ltnprovement $1,905,000 Special A.~essment Bond $1,095,000t~) Tax lncmmt Fummia$ 650,000 Storm Wa~r U 'ttlity Pond 150,000 Wamr S~wer Fund 10,000 TOTAL (1} Special Aaae~mem ~ooding Bteakdawn Aas~ssu~ut to N~w Ho~ Property C}~n~ss APPENDIX B REVISED PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PART 1 - 42ma AVENUE STREET, STREETSCAPE, UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 547 BRA File No. 34-98-186 Residential Commercial A~w~able Assemble Assessable [4nt _al De~criD~ NUmber of Front Footage Total Unit~ ~ (Front foot FF) Rate/FF Assessment 11-0003 McDonalds 145.2 102.50 14,883 11-0005 New Hope 82.5 102.50 8,455 I 14}012 Marquette Bank 157.6 102.50 16,154 ! 1-0013 K-Mart 381..9 102.50 39,145 11-0016 New Hope Center 445.5. 102.50 45,664 12-0003 Nmxve, M Bank 201.6 - 102.50 20,664 12-0006 Gold~fi"Oaks 12 1261 68.35 8,6 i 2 12-0007 I~ntal Building ! 35.7 102.50 ! 3,909 Subtotal 126 1,5.50 $167,486 13-000 i C~thsemane C..~ngtery N/A N/A N/A N/A $ i 30,000 TOTAL $297,486 m Residential a.s~ssablo fix)iago equals 10.5 FF/unit APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL PART 2 XYLON AVENUE/4Sa AVENUE STREET, STREETSCAPE, UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 547 BRA File No. 34-98-186 Residential Commercial Assessable Assessable Assessable Legal Description Number of Front Footage Total ~ Units ~ ~ Rate/FF Assessment 44-0055 New Hope 248.4 $ i 02.50 $25,461 44-0056 New Hope 518.7 102.50 53,167 44-0059 Trade Winds 60 630j 68.35 43,061 11-0012 Marquette Bank 1703 102.50 17,456 I 1-0013 K-Marl 863.6 102.50 88,519 I 1-0014 Winnetka Center 699. I 102.50 71,658 I 1-0015 Noflh Park Plaza 106 1,113t 68.35 76,074 I 1-0017 Winnetka Weal 26 273j 68.35 18,660 12-0003 Norw¢$! Bank 270. I 102.50 27,685 12-0005 New Hope 786.9 102.50 80,657 TOTAL 2,016 3,557.1 $502,398 m Rcsidcmial asacssablc footage equals 10.5 FF/unit COUN~,~ ~ REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Depa~U~ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Public Works 12-14-98 Development & Planning ///7 Item No. By:. Guy Johnson By:. 8.2 PRESENTATION REGARDING PROPOSED 1999 INFRASTRUCTURES IMPROVEMENTS; RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 648 The City Engineer presented the Concept Report for the proposed 1999 Infrastructures Improvement to the Council on November 9, 1998. The proposed project addresses infrastructure issues in two neighborhoods just north of Bass Lake Road. The project is divided into a West Area and East Area on either side of Boone Avenue. The West Area is the same neighborhood, with the exception of 60a Avenue, that was bid as Area 1 of the 1997 Infrastructure Project. Only one bid was received for the work in Area 1 at that time, and the recommendation was to omit Area 1 from the 1997 Project. The East Area was part of a proposed street project in 1993 that was delayed to allow additional time to resolve neighborhood concems. The project was made up of three neighborhoods, the East Area of the proposed 1999 Project, the 61'* and Sumter/Rhode Island/ Quebec area, and the area behind Saint Raphaei's Church. Except for the East Area of the proposed 1999 Project, the other two areas of the 1993 Project became part of the 1995 Infrastructure Project and was constructed. In the West Area, staff recommends proceeding with the proposed project outlined in the Concept Report, with the exception of 60*" Avenue. After reviewing comments, street conditions, and options for the Scol~e of work on 60a Avenue, staff recommends deleting a portion of 60~ Avenue from the 1999 Project. The Project would then stop at al~proximately the East property line of Liberty Park on 60a Avenue. This is also the point where the old surmountable curb that is in the rest of the project area StOl~. From this point East to Boone Avenue, the curb is B-618. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action 1999 Infrastructure Improvements December 14, 1998 Page 2 This portion of 80n Avenue was last resurfaced in 1982, as was Cavell, Decatur, and Ensign Avenues from 60~ Avenue to Bass Lake Road. Staff believes that with some additional preparation work, this portion of 60~ Avenue could be added to the City's 1999 Sealcoat Project. Its condition would then be reviewed again in four to five years with Cavetl, Decatur, and Ensign Avenues. Staff has also reviewed comments, street conditions, Pavement Condition index (PCI) ratings, and options for the scope of work in the East Area, and still believes the proposed project outline in the Concept Report is necessary. It should be noted that many residents have concerns with this assessment of the street's condition. A public information meeting, proposed in the project schedule, was held on December 2, 1998. A summary of the comments and questions made during the meetings to staff and comments sent to the City by neighborhood residents is affached. Copies of the comments mailed to the City are available for review upon request. An attached memorandum also documents-the comments and opinions received at these meetings, compares cost of different repair options to the cost of reconstruction, and outlines staff's recommendations for the 1999 Infrastructure Improvements on Page 7. Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution BONESTRO0 ROSENE ANOER~.~K '~'6516361311 12/10/98 11'17 ~ :02/09 E~ineers & Architects o.,~., s~..~, ~,,sTe, w,,~ ~. ~, ~ ~. ~,.~. ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Guy Johnson FROM: V ince Vander Top, Mark Hanson CC: '¥,-,*n qchuster. Dale Reed, .h-,e Tllet~chko SUBJECT: ~9'.+q Infrastructure Improvements . Reconstruction rs. Maintenance Cont -. City Project 648 ,-. BRA Pile No. 34-98-815 DATE: December lO, 1998 " This memo documents feedback and opinions received at Open Houses held for the proposed improvements. Some residents felt 'qowet-cost" maintenance options should be pursued by the City rather than reconstmctiofl. The latter part of this memo compares the cost of sllort-tetm maintenance improvements versus the cost of reconstruction. Information provided herein supplemenLs the contents of the Concept Report israaed in November. OPEN HOUSE An Open House was held for the proposed 1999 lnfrnstmcture lmp~vements on December 2, 1998. The purpose of thc open house is to share information and receive input from effected residents reptdln$ the condition of their streem. Public Works and Engineering Staff have ~'commended the streets in the 1999 Inf~ lmpm~,crnent ama be considered for reconstruction ut this time based on the condition of the streets and needed updatm to the utilities in the area. Public Works/Engineerins Staff feel reconstruction should be considered at this time because routine maintenance (patchinl, crack seat, otc) and ~al coat are no longer as ~at effective for these streets as they were ~ to I0 yeats aso. In addition, New Hope, similar to other .- communities, needs to be consistent in how it maintains its streets throushout the entire City and be confident its spending its maintenance dollm u wisely aa possible. However, staff also recognizes residem.~ n-d City officials are always skeplical when improvements are justified and Comments from the 1999 Infrastructure Open House Staff Notes December 7, 1998 The following is a collection of comments received at the 1999 Infrastructure Open House held on December 2, 1998. The meetings were held at the Public Works building and City Hall Conference Room. Notes were recorded by the following City representatives: Tom Schuster, Guy Johnson, Shad French, Mark Hanson, and Vince VanderTop. General Comments/Questions From Residents on 60"' Avenue West: · Too much traffic on 60"' Avenue. Motorists are trying to avoid the congestion at Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue. · Why is 60~" Avenue included in this project? · Why doesn't the City wait with the reconstruction' of 60a Avenue until Caveil and Decatur are in need of repair. · Some residents feel that the proposed repairs on 60"~ Avenue are not necessary. · Is 60"' Avenue being included in this project because it is convenient for the City. · 'If I live on the south side of 60'~ Avenue on Cavell or Decatur Avenues will I be assessed for this project?' · 'Why would people on 60a Avenue have to pay the same assessment costs as the other residents who are having more extensive work done?' · The increased traffic flow on 80"' Avenue is causing substantial wear and tear on the roadway. · Resident blames the unfair burden being placed upon the residents of 60"~ Avenue to poor city planning and to a loss or lack of exits on Bass Lake Road. Comments from Other ResidentS: · Concerned about the one.way exits onto Bass Lake Road. · The resident believes that the '82 street project was done poorly. · Poor City planning ha~ made it difficult to cross or turn onto Bass Lake Road. · Resident recommends that the City patches the roadways and then in five years assesse~ the whole neighborhood for road and sewer repairs. Storm Sewer:. · Would like to see storm sewers installed along Hillsbor0 and 60~ Avenuee. · 5912 Hill~lboro Circle is requesting that something be done with the drainage problem in her backya~. Property owner states:' the properties at 5909, 5917, 5925 Gettysburg Avenue are draining into my backyard.' · 5912 Hillsboro Circle resident is concerned about the location of the water stop box in her driveway. · 8910 60'~ Avenue resident feels that the people who are benefiting from the installation of the new sewer should bare the construction costs. Lane Configuration and Traffic Problems: · Problems with the increasing number of cars and speed of traffic on 60~" Avenue. · Can Gettysburg Avenue be lowered or flattened in front of the Liberty Park basketball court? The resident is having problems getting out of his driveway. · With the new driveway at Ensign and Bass Lake Road (apartment complex) being constructed, will the existing driveway on Ensign Avenue be closed or eliminated? Otherwise, the driveway will be used as a shortcut for making left hand turn onto Bass Lake Road. · Recommends that right and left turn restrictions be placed on 60~ Avenue between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. · The neighborhood could use more stop signs and squad cars in the area to enforce traffic violations. · A number of residents noted that commuters are using Gettysburg Avenue as a short cut to Boone Avenue. · Restrictions on the number of semi-trucks in the neighborhood. Park and Recreation: · ~,~4ny has the City not installed a tennis court at Liberty Park? · Resident feels that general tax dollars should be'used to refurbish Liberty Park and not tax assessments. She also noted that Liberty Park is deemed the City's property. General Questions and Comments From the Residents of the East Area: · The condition of the streets do not warrant reconstruction at this time. · The priorities for this area should be the following: A. Pave the trail north of the New Hope Golf Course B. Repair the trails in the park. C. Fix the streets. · We don't need new streets. The City should provide more street lights and stop signs. · A number of comments regarding the increased speed of traffic in the neighborhood. · Most residents expressed little to no support for this proposal and felt that it was a waste of their tax dollars. · Please consider bu~ing the utility lines as a part of this project. · Meeting started before the people were even in the conference room. · There wa~ a delay in signing in at the front table, · Resident feels that the tax payers have more personal input in these projects. · The City should get more input from the public before they begin planning such an extravagant project. · Whoever benefits most from the project should be assessed the brunt of the assessed costs. · Take a more pro-active stance on this project by allowing residents the opportunity to state their concerns regarding ones lot, streets, sewers, dudng the eady planning stages.. · The streets would stay in better condition if the snowplows would drive the speed limit. · The City has other problems to deal with other then replacing streets. '-'~ · People with fixed incomes are unable to afford such a high assessment. · Wait to repair the road until it is no longer serviceable or repairable. · The neighborhood has existed for forty years without any significant drainage, sewer, or road problems. · The road is in solid condition and should not need extensive reconstruction. · The $3800- $4500 proposed assessments are excessive for a project that is not necessary. Storm Sewer: · Resident believes that the drainage problem is caused by the leaves building-up in the catch basins. · Proposed storm sewer wort< is necessary. The residents along Aquila and Boone Avenues are experiencing water problems in their backyards. Lane Configuration and Traffic Problems: "We don't have water standing in the streets." · The curb is in good condition. · ~Could we reconfigure the intersection of West Meadow Lake Road, Meadow Lake Place, and East Meadow Lake Road into more a 'T' shape in order to slow down traffic. · Resident is concerned with the speed problem on West Meadow Lake Road. Please place a stop sign or slow children sign in the neighborhood. Park and Recreation: · Would like to see a skating dnk plowed on Medicine Lake. · Pave the trail behind the golf course. BACKGROUND PROJECT AREA The Street Improvement Project Area is shown in the LocatiOn Plan on Page 4. In general, the Area includes those streets north of Bass Lake Road, east of Independence Ave, south of 60th Ave and Meadow Lake, and west of the Village Green Golf Course. Ensign Ave., Decatur Ave., Cavell Ave., and Boone Place are not included in the Project Area. For the purposes of this Report, the project area has been divided into two areas: · WEST AREA - All streets west of Boone Ave. including 60th Ave. · EAST AREA - All streets east of Boone Ave. The West Area was reviewed and improvements were bid as part of the 1997 Street Project. Council elected to not proceed with construction at that time. Instead, the project was placed on the CIP for 1999 construction in conjunction with the area East of Boone Ave. The City may ' elect to proceed with both the West and East Areas as one or separate projects. The recommendations presented in this report summarize the results of the findings and provide information for Council's consideration. Project costs and financing amounts are estimates. Appendices located at the back of this report document the specific information for the project. Infrastructure Improvement Project 5 LOCATION PLAN ~ Boneetroo NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA And®rllk & A#ooi&tee 1999 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CONCEPT REPROT ~ ~' ~ Ongmaung Depa~ t~ent Appr~.~-d t'or A~enda Agenda ~e~Uon Manager Other Business 12-14-98 Item B~. Daniel J. Donahue i B~. 12. l PRESENTATION BY NORTH RIDGE AND MASONIC HOMES, INC. REGARDING THE SALE OF NORTH RIDGE AND HOUSING BOND ASSISTANCE Charlie Thompson and Mindy Patee along with representatives of Masonic Home~ Inc. will be PreSent to discuss the proposed sale and ask the City for consideration of issuance of housing bonds. They will also discuss the implications of the City's existing tax increment district and development agreement between the City and North Ridge. MOTION BY' ~:OND BV TO: NORTH RIDGE CARE CENTER, INC. AND MINNESOTA MASONIC HOME December 18, 1998 Mayor and Members of the Council City of New Hope New Hope City Hall 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Minnesota Masonic Home Purchase of North Ridge Care Center and North Ridge Apartments and Proposed Financing through City of New Hope Tax Exempt Revenue Bonds Dear Mayor and Members of the New Hope City Council: We thank you for your invitation to share additional information concerning the purchase of North Ridge Care Center and North Ridge Apartments by Minnesota Masonic Home and the proposed financing of the purchase transaction through tax exempt revenue bonds issued by the City of New Hope. We look forward to continued opportunities to share information and dialogue with you as we proceed to finalize the purchase transaction. We continue to hope, as North Ridge and Masonic Home work together in the spirit of partnership, to work cooperatively with the City to further the mission we share with the City of New Hope. that of providing high quality, cost effective services to the senior citizens of New Hope and the surrounding communities. We hope that we will be able, through written communication~ and in group and personal meetings, to have you come to appreciate why we believe our transition is in the best interests of the citizens of New Hope and of the City of New Hope itseff. We further continu~ to hope that you will consider the issuance of tax exempt revenue bonds for financing the ~tion. We ar~ most pleased and grateful tha~ an initial bond financing discussion meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, December 2Ya and we thank you, your staff and your advisors for that opportunity. The remainder of this letter will include a description of our purchase transaction and the way we plan to proceed aider closing. We will be happy to supplement the information in this letter in an effort to achieve our goal of closing the transaction in January 1999. Mayor and Members of the Council, City of New HOpe December 18, 1998 Page - 2 - · Purchase Aereement North Ridge Care Center and Minnesota Masonic Home signed a purchase agreement on the evening of December 3, 1998. Charlie Thompson and Mindy Pat'tee of North Ridge met with Mayor Peter Enck and City Manager Dan Donahue to inform ~the City of the purchase agreement. The City of New Hope was informed before the employees of' either North Ridge or Minnesota Masonic Home, as we consider the City to be a vital partner. The Purchase Agreement has the ~ull support of the owners of North Ridge and their families, and of the entire Board of Trustees of'Minnesota Masonic Home. As indicated above, we hope to finalize the transaction by the end of 3anuary, 1999 as we feel very strongly that the transition time should be as short as possible in order to best serve the care needs of our residents. As you know, any change creates stress, and we are concerned that the North Ridge employees, residents, and families may experience stress during the transition. We wish to shorten the transition per/od as much as possible for their benefit. North R/dge's greatest asset in serving seniors is its dedicated employees and we wish to continue to create the most encouraging, open and supportive working environment possible as we move through this proc~,~. Minnesota Masonic Home has agreed to purchase, and North Ridge ha~ agreed to sell, both North Ridge Care Center, the 559 bed nursing facility, and North Ridge Apartments, the 205 unit senior housing facility. North Ridge also manases Chardon Court, which is owned by a related partnership; Chardon Court is not part of the purchase transaction, but will continue to be managed as part of the North Ridge campus after closing. Senior Outreach Services, which is a separate, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization operating CareBreak Adult Day Care, is also not included in the transaction. The North Ridge campu~ will, however, continue to provide supportive services to Cat,Break and will continue to lea~ space at North Ridge Apartments before a new building is built by CareBreak acros~ Boone Avenue. · Minnesot~ Muonie Home Minnesota Masonic Home i.~ a Minnesota non-profit, 501(cX3) organization established in 1906. It is governed by an entirely volunteer, uncompensated thirteen member Board of Trustees. The Masonic Home and it~ resident~ ar~ ble~,~d by the service of nearly 600 employees and nearly 600 volunteer, The bilnnesota Masonic Home organization currently own~ and operates a 358 bed nursing fa~/lity, a 46 unit a,-,aisted living facility, and a 56 unit town home community for senior~ on the Minn~o~a Riv~ bluff~ in southwest BloomingtOn. While the nursin$ facility and assisted living facility ar~ cun'~ntly exempt from real estate tax~, the senior town home property has paid real estate taxes sinc,~ it~ consUuction in 1991. We have invited you, and wish now to repeat the invitation, to visit the Mmoni¢ Home' community in Bloomington. The construc~on of the town home community, the most recent remodeling of the historic car~ center buildings, and the construction of the newest nursing care facilities for transitional care and dementia needs were ail financed through the issuance of tax exempt revenue bond.* from the City of Bloomiugton. Masonic Home has raked the City of Bloomington for financing assistance only twice, and in both cases was privileged to enjoy the City's full cooperation and support in i~ endeavors. Masonic Home has been an important Mayor and Members of the Council, City of New Hope December 18, 1998 Page - 3 - community citizen in Bloomington and has worked cooperatively with the City on a number of matters benefiting the community as a whole: · Factors involved in the Purchase Transaction. Both parties have entered into the purchase agreement because we both feel strongly that it is in the best long term interests of the residents and employees of North Ridge. As you know, the health care sYstem has been changing rapidly in the last decade and we anticipate fiW. her changes as time goes on. The strong trend in the industry is for family owned health care facilities such as North Ridge to become pan of larger health care systems, as a certain concentration of expertise and resources is critical for continued success and stabihty in the field. Due to its size (North Ridge is the largest nursing home facility in the State of Minnesota), North Ridge had only two options available to it. The first option was a sale to a private investor-owned health system, like a national cha/n. Neither owner of North Ridge was comfortable with selling to an organization of unknown reputation, tlaconnected with Minnesota or the local community, and operated with an investment motivation rather than a car~ delivery motivation. The second option was a sale to a. charitable organization with sufficient size and r,~ources to support the tr~,,,.,action. North Ridge believes it is most fortunate that the historic corpmitlXlentS to residel{I ca~ of Minnesota Masonic Home and North Ridge werm and are so compatible, because it permits North Ridge to associate with a local Minnesota organization with an excellent r,~putation of service for the elderly in the past and a strong commitment to service for the elderly of Minnesota in the future. Minnesota Masonic Home is one of the few Minnesota charitable organizations with sufficient resources to undertake the ongoing and increasing financial responsibilitie~ of caring for the number of flail seniors for which North Ridge is responsible. The owners of North Ridge believe that this transaction will position North Ridge for continued s~rvice to the elderly in a manner not possible under private ownm~hip in the futur~. Since North Ridgm is amens the larsest cunployerm within the City of New Hope, we understand that the continued viability of Nordm Ridge is a considerable concmm for you. North Ridge cunently employs over 1000 ~uploy~s and contribut~ siin/ficanfly in many ways to the economic vitality oftl~ City:. We bel/eve that this change in North Ridge's ownership structure is necessary to ~ thai its job ba.~ and other economic contributions will continue into the We arm all lookin$ forward to th~ continued participation of Charlie Thompson, Mindy Patt,~ and the many employe~ of North Ridge in the life of North Ridge and the City of New Hope. While the deta/ls have not yet been finalized, we expect both Chat'He and Mindy to continue to · guide North Ridge's futunm and will also bring their considerable expetmis~ to the Masonic Home orgm~i,~,tlon as a whole. Mayor and Members of the Council, City of New Hope December 18, 1998 ,.- Page - 4 - · Pro_nosed City_ of New Hope Revenue Bond Financinn_ If the City of New Hope were to agree to issue bonds to facilitate the transaction, Masonic Home tully expects, as it did in its Bloomington financings and as is customary in all revenue bond financings, to pay all direct and out of pocket cost~, including legal fees, o£ the City of New Hope in connection with any bond issuance you may approve. We would also be happy to contribute a reasonable amount toward the fees of a financial advisor the City may find helpful in analyzing the impact of our Ixansaction upon the City. The City would have no obligation for the bonds, and Minnesota Masonic Home would, as is customary, indemnify the City for any liability it may come to incur due to the bond financing. North Ridge and Masonic Home, as they work together to complete this purchase lxansaction and make the transition for our employees and residents, wish to work cooperatively with the City on all questions that may arise. We would be happy to participate in working sessions of' the Council, to me~t in one-on-one or small group meetings with you, to make our advisors available to your staffand advisors, or to participate in any other way to ~stabllsh a close working relationship. We appreciate that the transition fi'om family ownership to charitable ownership ?- may present significant questions for both us and the City, but we w/sh to identify, d/scuss and resolve all matters in a spirit of open dialogue and partnership with you. Minnesota Masonic Home has anticipated continuing payment of property taxes on a portion of the North Ridge campus into the future, and would lm pleased to address that matter and other needs of the City. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share this information with you and look forward to getting to know you better. Minnesota Masonic Home is pleased that its representatives will have the opportunity to meet w/th City staff and consultants on December 23"t. We hope that you will be willing to provide timely notice ora public heating as early in January 1999 as possible on the question of whether to is,su~ bonds to facilitate our purchase transaction, with the conviction that open discus,sion will lead to a resolution of any matters that may arise. Please feel flee to contact any of us at any time for further/nformation- our contact information is included on the attached she~. Mo~ sincerdy, North Ridge Cam Cenmr, Ina. Minn~ota Ma,sonic Home M. Me~~ Ed~ ~ M~pi; Jr., ~d~t ~1~ T. ~omp~n S~ ~ L~ ~m CC: Mayor md M~b~ of~ Co~c~ a ~ hom~ ~ Dm ~n~u~, Ci~ M~g~, Ci~ ofN~ Ho~ Stev~ Son~ Ci~ A~m~, Ci~ ofN~ Ho~ M~ ~ompm~ Co~ M~b~ EI~ Ci~ ofN~ Ho~ MINNESOTA MASONIC HOM]~ CONTACT INFORMATION Edwin A. Martini, Ir. Michael Hanson President/CEO Director of Finance Minnesota Masonic Home M/nnesota Masonic Home 11501 Masonic Home Drive 1150l Masonic Home Drive Bloomington, MN 55437-3699 Bloomington, MN 55437-3699 6 t 2.948.6201 612.948,6226 612.948.6113 - facsimile 612.948,61 t 3 - facsimile NORTH RIDGE CAR~ CEN'r~R CONTACT INI~O~~ON M. Melinda Patt~ Charl~ T. Thompson North Ridge Ca~ Cent~' North Ridge Car~ Center 5430 Boone Avenue N. 5430 Boone Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 New Hope, MN 55428 612.536.7098 612.536.7001 612.536,0324 - facsimile 612.504.4200 - facsimile Ann Yungn~r Director of Finance North Ridge Care Center 5430 Boone Avenue N. New Hope, MN 664211 612.536.7074 612.504.4200- facsimile I II EDA \~1 RF~UEST FOR ACTION Originating Depa~ttuent Approved for Agenda EDAA~enda Section Comm~it¥ Development . ~.~~ 12- Item No. BYKirk McDonald By:. ; . RI::SOkUTION AUTHORIZING D~:I::D 'I'O PROJ T FOR PRIDI= IN LIVING, INC. FOR PROPERTY AT 7300 BASS I~KI= Per the City ^ttomey, the title to the Spur gas station property at ?300 8ass Lake Road pa~ed to the City by "quick take' on Septemt:~r 28, '1998. The fiDA now needs to officially transfer th~ titl~ to 7300 Ba~ kak~ Road to ~C to ~ati~ th~ t~m~ of th~ ~v~lo~m~nt ¢ontm~ and ~o that ~ can eompl,t~ th~ pla~in~ of ~C Addition. ¢~k ~ta~d con~tru~ion on th~ ~ntim ~it~ th~ w~k of D~m~r 7. 8~mu~ S~ur station ~it~ at that tim~, an fiady fint~ A~m~m~nt wa~ n~a~ for any ~n~tm~ion actMtg on the E~A-own~ Co,ion of th~ ~it~. Th~ City Manager administratively aCprov~d th~ a~aeh~d fiady A~mement. whioh contained n~a~ ~rot~ion~ for th~ fiD~, ~o that mn~tm~ion muld ~ro~d. ~ady fint~ A~r~m~nt n~ to ~ formally a~rov,d g~ th, ~DA. lh~ ~nclo~d r~olution autho~ th~ transfer of litl~ to 7~00 8~ [ak~ Road and al~o a~mv~ and ratifie~ th~ ~arl~ ~nt~ A~m~m~nt. Sta~ recomm~nd~ a~roval of th~ M~ON ~ S~O~ ~ ~A~ t R,~U'~T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for ~4enda A~enda Sect. ton Community Development Consent 12-28-98 Item No. BYKirk McDonald ~ RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ' METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER A WAITING LIST AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE FOR MHOP UNITS IN THE BASS LAKE TOWNHOME PROJECT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 614) The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed Resolution Approving the Metropolitan Council's Memorandum of Understanding to Establish and Administer a Waiting List and Grievance Procedure for MHOP Units in the Bass Lake Townhome Project. Since this Agreement must be signed by both the EDA and the City Council, the Resolution needs to be considered by both bodies at the December 28 meeting. Per the City Attorney's correspondence and as the Council and EDA are aware, there are 12 MHOP units in the Bass Lake Townhome Project. Four of the MHOP units are designated as incentive units, the occupancy of which can be determined by the EDA. Since the City already uses the procedures established by the Metropolitan Council in the Section 8 Housing program, there is no reason not to use the Metropolitan Council procedures to administer the waiting list and grieving process within this project as well. Aisc, as indicated in paragraph 7 on page 3 of the Agreement, the Metropolitan Council will be assuming responsibility for this process at no cost to the City. The only obligation the City or EDA will have in connection with this matter is an agreement to share costs with the Metropolitan Council-in the event a claim is made against the Metropolitan Council related to its administration of the waiting list or grievance procedure for the New Hope incentive units. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: REQUEST FOil ACTION ongmaung Dc-pa, ~...ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Secuon Community Development ., Conseqt 12-28-98 Item No. Susan Henry B3t: Community Development. Specialisl ~ MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE WITH PROPERTY OWNER FOR POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF 7603 BASS LAKE ROAD (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #651) At the November 23 Council meeting, staff was authorized to obtain an appraisal for the property located at 7603 Bass Lake Road. Gdffith Appraisals, Inc. completed an appraisal and estimated the fair market value at $74,000. The property is approximately 21,300 square feet. The rambler, built in 1948, has 624 square feet of living space, including one bedroom, bathroom, living room, kitchen, and a detached single car garage. The basement is finished and includes a family room and one-half bathroom. The 1998 assessed value of the property is $63,000 ($21,500 land/S41,500 building). The property is located on the "Bass Lake Road extension" behind the Alano building, and the City has previously acquired the property west of and adjacent to this site and demolished the single family home for future redevelopment purposes. Staff is recommending authorization to negotiate with the property owner. Once a price has been determined, based on the appraisal, staff will return to the City COuncil with a recommendation as to how to best proceed. MCrI3ON ~ SECOND !~' TO:. RFA-OO 1 ~ . ~-- ~ ~--~ + ~ Z' : ........ i ~ ; : 7~1 , · 7~1 ~ - ' ; ': ~ . ~ ~: ~ ST. RAPHAEL m ,. .................. ( ........... ~ ., ..... , .... ~.-~- --~ ......... ........... CHURCH I'""'"-'"-'"-'"" ' ' ; ' ' .... ~ "~ -~ ........ ~ .......... ~ ................................ ~ ~L -D~: ............................................ Originating Depa~ auent ~p~ for ~e~a ~enda ~cSon Community Development Consent 12-28-98 [t~ No. ~irk McDonald RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC H~RING ON A HOUSING PROG~M AND ON THE ISSUANCE OF HOUSING AND H~LTH CARE REVENUE BONDS As you are aware, at the December 14 Council meeting, representatives of Minnesota Masonic Home/No~h Ridge requested that the City consider issuing revenue bonds to finance the acquisition of No~h Ridge Apa~ments at 5500 Boone Avenue No~h and NO~h Ridge Care Center at 5430 Boone Avenue No~h. Subsequent to the December 14 Council meeting, Minnesota Mason c Home and No~h Ridge Care Center have submi~ed the enclosed corresponden~ which describes the purchase transaction. An initial bond financing discussion meeting was also conduced on December 23 be~een Minnesota Masonic Home/No~h Ridge and approp~ate City representatives and consultants. The City's Bond Counsel has prepared the enclosed resolution which establishes a public hearing to consider the issuance of said bonds at the Janua~ 25, 1999, City Council meeting. The resolution does not obligate the City to approve the issuance of the bonds.- Staff recommends approval of the resolution. FOR ACTION Originating DepaH...a~t Apprm~l for A~enda "A~enda Section Community Development Consent · 12-28-98 , Susan Henry Item B~. ommunity Development Specialist MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBTAIN APPRAISAL OF 5340 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 853) The City has received the attached correspondence from the property owner, Irene Bauer, of the single family dwelling located at 5340 Winnetka Avenue. North. Ms. Bauer has used the Interest Form presented by staff and indicated "1 am interested in selling my property .... to the New Hope EDA at this time." The property is considered an oversized lot at 43,581 square feet (133.8' x 325.57') or approximately one acre The Council has indicated an interest in acquiring various properties in this area as they become available and land banking them for future redevelopment purposes. There are similar sized lots along Winnetka Avenue in this general vicinity. Staff is requesting Council authorization to seek quotes for an appraisal of the property, accept the Iow quote, and get the property appraised. The estimated cost of the appraisal is $325.00. Staff would then bring the completed appraisal back to the Council to determine if the City desires to negotiate with the property owner for acquisition of the property. The 1998 valuation of the property is $82,000 ($24,000 land/S58,000 building). Staff has indicated to the property owner, that because this would be a voluntary sale, no relocation benefits would be paid. The appraisal will be paid for with CDBG or TIF funds. This house is located in an area where TIF funds can be expended. Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of the property. \ MOTION BY ~...OND ~ , TO: ~ i ..... I ' · , r : ! i ',', · , -,-- 730t ! ~,~~ ....... =-.~ .~,, ', ~ 8:~--..I. ~ ~ ' ~ / '"~ ' ' i , 7~ I ~A~/ ~ , . , : .. ~ ......... ~ ..... ~ ......... ' ' : ; ; ' i ' ,!~ "~~: , , ,' . .................. . ........ ~¢, ........ ~ .......... ,~ ......... : .......... ~ ~ ...... .; ......... ~, ....... ! ...... , ~ ~ t ~?'. ~: ~ ~ ~ · ~ ~ ! ~ ~ -~ ----~, ......... ~ ~ :. ~ ~ ~ ....... 'DRi ..... ~ ~ :~: ~:~t~ ; ...... , .................... , ......... , .... ~ .- .............. . ......... ...:. ...... ;~, ..... ~ ....... : ;~ ; ~7: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~te :~ ~, ~11 ~2~ ~o,,~li i .f~t2f~to ' ....... ' ....... ! ...... i ' ....... ': ..... 4Z, ....... · --~ ...... 4(, ........ , ...... ~ i ~t~ ~; ~4 '. ~t~;; ~te' ~ ~--: ~t4 ._.L ..... 4 .. .... ; .......... : ............., ~'~i ~! ~i~' ' ~;~j~lO :~ . . : ~ ~ ; ~ ~ . ~ ' . , ~: ~I f ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ---- , ...... ,~: ..... , ..... :~: - ..... , .... ~ . - .... ~ ............ ~~ ...... g ........ 1 · ' ....... ~ ' ....... ~ ........ ~ - - ~:._; h ........ ~ ..... , , .............. Q, ...... :'"" ........... ; ~ ' i ' ; ~i~ _ · ; : "~'~G'- ~' ~ ...... ~ ......... ~' .........~ .......i ~i ......... ~ ' : ~I~ . . ¢ : · ~I. ,--,- ; ~: ~ ~: , -.~ ; .......; ..... :,~ ........ ~ .......{~ ........ ~ .... I , .... .., ~' '~.' "~, ; , - I ~ · · ' ~= ' T".../-.~ ,'-~','*.. , ~¢~ / ~'"~ ~1 · t.. ..... ; .... .~ ; ~ '~. ,' ,..~".~ ; ~l .' ?- : ' · _~ ~ ~ ~' : / ~ ',... - .... , ~ ~ ,~ .... , ,... '.~. ;~ / ~ ._ '~;~;-. ~ ........ ,- .,, : ........ ~ .... ' ~, "~ '-~' . ''.,I '~ : ~l ~ ~ ~.' ..... 'I ~4 ~ ; ~'"~. "" ':- /~, ~, "~ " .... ~¢~' -'*'~;' ~ ~ : ~ .... · .! : .... . '-../ ~' ~,. ~ >..~--~' ~ 8~/~ ~--t ~ ......... 8121 : ... ..;, ~ ~,.'~ ,. -~ -~. .; : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '-.. ... %/~,~ ~ '~-.. RF UEST FOR ACTION Originating Depa~U. uentApproved for Agenda Agenda Sect.ton Public Community Development ,, ,,, Hearin,cj 12-28-98 Item No, Susan Henry BY: Community Development Specialisl PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE SALE OF 9116 31't AVENUE NORTH TO NICHOLAS ZAGAROS AND KIMBERLY ARMSTRONG (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 589) At the December 14 Council meeting, the City Council authorized publication of notice and holding of a public hearing regarding the sale of 9116 31" Avenue North. This is the public hearing to authorize and approve the sale. A Purchase Agreement has been signed by Nicholas Zagaros and Kimberly Armstrong and is contingent upon approval by the City Council. The Purchase Agreement states that the City will sell the home to Nicholas Zagaros and Kimbedy Armstrong for $112,500. The buyers are in process for qualifying for an FHA first mortgage. Approval is also in process for the second mortgage in the amount of $10,000 using CHDO Home Investment Partnership funds. The City will be paying two points on the first mortgage. If Nicholas and Kimbedy do not qualify for the first and/or second mortgage, the Purchase Agreement will become null and void. Nicholas Zagaros and Kimbedy Armstrong have been invited to attend the Public Hearing. Staff anticipates their attendance and will introduce the buyers to the Council. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Authorizing and Approving the Sale of 9116 31't Avenue North to Nicholas Zagaros and Kimbedy Armstrong. MOTION BY SY.,~OND BY ~ EDA~ OngtnarJ.ng D~ent ~p~ for ~e~a ~da ~uon EDA Community Development ..... 12-28-98 It~ No. ~Kirk McDonald DISCUSSION 'REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF CI~-O~ED PROPER~ AT 9200 49TM AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 597) Staff requests to discuss with the EDA a proposed development for the ci~-owned propeRy at 9200 49~ Avenue Noah. At the November 9 EDA meeting, staff indicated that several meetings had been conducted with Ga~ Nordness, President of Essence Real Estate Se~ices, Inc., and with the owners of Contract Hardware Company, Inc., who am interested in negotiating with the Ci~ for the purchase of the propeay and who have present~ a con,pt plan that would maxim~e development on the site. Contra~ Hardware Company, Inc. is a major supplier and light manufa~umr of door frames, lock sets and related hardware items. It is a privately held company foxed in 1991, and cu~ently the company has three locations and would consolidate all o~rations at the New Ho~ site. The ~mpany currently employs 14 people and would anticipate adding up to five new employes upon completion of their projea. The company is proposing the constm~ion of a 26,000 square foot o~/wamhouse facility on the site. A typical industrial o~amhouse facili~ of this sae generates about ~0,000 in prope~ taxes per year. They have reviewed the soil conditions on the prope~ and know that a substantial amount of funds will be needed to make soil corre~ions to utilize the site. They am requesting that the City consider subsidizing the proje~ in the fo~ of a land w~e down for the soil co~ections. They also understand the City's desire to retain an easement over a poaion of the pm~ for sto~ water quality purposes and are agreeable to ~o~mting with the Ci~ in that endeavor. City staff and the Ci~ A~omey have met with Nordness and representatives of Contra~ Hardware, Inc. several times over the past 1~ months to t~ and math an agr~ment on the sale of the pmpeay. To date, no agr~ment has ~n roached, so s~ff is requesting direction from the EDA on how to proceed. The developem am on a fast-track timeline to constm~ and occupy a building by ne~ summer and have indicated they will move on to another site not Io~ted in New Hope if an agreement is not reached shoRly wffh the Ci~. In June 1997, the City of New Hope purchas~ this vacant 2.8 acre industrial site from Clarence Brandell. The Ci~ a~uimd the pmpeay because a poaion of the pmpeay is identified in the New Hope Su~ace Water Management Plan as a future potential site for a water quali~ pond to help improve the water quality of the large wetland noah of, and adja~nt to, the site. The Ci~ acquired the prope~ to have control over the future development of the site and is interested in a potential joint- (cont'd.) M~ON ~ Request for Action Page 2 12-28-98 cooperative development (similar to Conductive Containers, Inc. on Quebec Avenue), wb--~e a development could occur in conjunction with the installation of a water quality pond. T~. ~ity purchased the property for $195,000 and the City Engineer has estimated that the City would need to utilize approximately one acre of the site for ponding improvements, leaving two acres available for development. Over the past 1½ years, the City has received several inquiries from industrial/commercial businesses and developers who had or have a potential interest in the property, as follows: Shortly after the City purchased the site, the City was contacted by Upper Midwest Management Corporation, owners of the office building located just west of the site, who indicated that they may be interested in the property for a potential twin office building to match the existing building. They notified the City this past July that they were no longer interested in the site. · In March, Larry Johnson, owner of Precision Machine Shop in Hopkins, submitted a Real Estate Purchase Contract to the City with an offer to purchase 1.8 acres of the propert,./for $120,250. Johnson, who currently leases space for his business, was proposing to construct an 8,250 square foot industrial building on the site and the company has six employees. The maximum size of the one-story industrial development for the site would be 20,000 - 30,000 square feet. The EDA took no action on the proposal, as you indicated the plan did not maximize the site and was not the highest and best use of the property in terms of valuation/real estate taxes that would be generated. In November, Johnson submitted a revised plan with a larger building (13,608 square feet) and is still Interested in the property. Staff indicated to Johnson that the EDA had directed staff to negotiate with ERSI. · In May, a realtor from Axiom Realty, representing G&K Services, Inc., a business that processes and leases workplace uniforms, desired to register his client as a prospective purchaser of the property. G&K would use the site as a satellite facility as a drop-off and pick-up site for garments for processing at the company's main plant in Minneapolis, G&K needed approximately two acres of land to construct an office/warehouse building of approximately 15,000 square feet. The EDA was not necessarily receptive to this proposal because it also did not maximize the use of the site. · W~thin the past two months, staff has been contacted by another developer interested in the site. The cost of the property has been the major issue of discussion. The City's odginal appraisal of the property was $282,000 without soil corrections. The appraisal was later reduced to $182,000 when soil conditions for a mid-sized development were taken into account. The City paid $195,000 for the property and, based on the assumption that 2/3 of the property would be utilized for development, staff anticipated selling the property for 2/3 of $195,000, or approximately $120,000 - $130,000. This calculation is based on taking the appraised value, subtracting the estimated soil correction costs and calculating the value. In the initial meeting with ERS1, the proposal was to purchase 1.85 acres of the property for $37,847.80. This offer was based on taking the appraised value of $282,000, calculating the cost of 1.85 acres ($185,347), and subtracting estimated soil correction costs of $147,500 obtained by the developer. Therefore, after the initial meeting there was a difference of approximately $80,000 between what the City anticipated ($120,000) and the developer's offer {$40,000). Both sides agreed to re-evaluate their positions and meet again. In the second meeting the City lowered its asking price (subject to EDA approval) to $99,500. These calculations and the basis for the calculations are outlined in the City Attorney's December 8 correspondence. This asking pdce was based on the odginal appraised value ($282,000 or $2.30 per square foot), subtracting the developer's estimated soil correction costs of $147,500, subtracting the cost of the land the City would need to construct a pond ($46,000), and adding the developer's cost for ponding. This price was not acceptable to the developer either, although they did agree to increase Request for Action Page 3 12-28-98 their offer to $60,000, Therefore, there is still a difference of approximately $40,000 between the City and developer. Subsequent to the last meeting, the developer, City Attorney and City Engineer have all prepared comments on their perspective of the negotiations. ERSI indicates that Contract Hardware's actual need is a 15,000 square foot building. In order to accomplish the City's goal of maximizing the use of the property, they are willing to building a 26,000 square foot building and lease 11,000 square feet. They indicate that the mitigation ponding is of no benefit to them. They are only willing to purchase 1.85 acres. If the City would agree to correct the soils on the site, Contract Hardware would agree to pay $2.30 per square foot for the property. They indicate that the benefits to the City would include full purchase pdce, ability to correct soils in conjunction with pond, maximize the property's buildable area, increase employment and increase the tax base. The City Attorney has outlined the developers two options as follows: 1. Developer purchase 1.85 acres for $60,000 and do the soil corrections; or 2. Developer purchase 1.85 acres for $185,347, however, the City complete the soil corrections. The City Attorney states that the EDA needs to decide the importance of controlling the development of this property. Any buyer is going to be concerned about the soil conditions of the property. He indicates that the City needs to assess the proposed sale from a public benefit perspective rather than a purely economic perspective. He indicates that the sale would provide the City with the following public benefits: control of the site development, use of the northerly 1/3 of the property for wetland mitigation, and introduction of a new business with additional employment base and increased real estate taxes. The City Engineer is in the process of meeting with the DNR '~)n the site to discuss wetland mitigation and restoration. He indicates there may be some economics of scale achieved if the City undertook the soil corrections and ponding improvements together. In conclusion, staff is seeking direction from the EDA on this matter and there are many factors to take into consideration. VVhile staff is very .supportive of bdnging a new business to the City, the EDA also needs to receive a fair pdce for the property, Staff would remind the EDA that the City has assisted a number of other businesses in the City and that this is a difficult site to develop.. Regardless of whether the property is sold to Contract Hardware or not, these same issues will eventuallY need to be addressed. Staff is hopeful that a compromise agreement can be reached between the developer and the EDA. SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law 8525 EotNnaOOK CROSS, G, BROOKI.YN PARK, ~[I]VNESOTA 55443-1999 TgI. gPtiO~Cg (612) 424-8811 · TELE~AX (612) 493-5193 W{LI~AM (3. STEV~N A. SO~IO, LL .~N ~,. ~u.~c~ December 22, ! 998 B~'TT A. PERRY* Kirk ~¢Donald o~ co~sva. New Hope Community Development Director Lo~ss Q. ~'a,r=S~^O 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Sale Of 9200 49'" Avenue N. Our File: 99.11217 Dear Kirk: This letter is in response to Gary Nordness' December 15~' letter regarding the sale of the referenced property. Basically, both the City and buyer agree this property is worth $2.30 sq. ft. if the soil condition on the property is corrected. Corrected soils would render the property worth $282,111.00 ($2.30 x 122,657 sq. ft.). Our appraisal estimated soil correction at $100,000.00 reducing the property's present price to $182,000.00. Based on an actual contractor's quote provided us by the buyer we now know soil correction costs may be closer to $147,000.00. This would reduce the property's actual value to $135,000.00. We are also faced with an additional problem relative to the current buyer. Specifically, they only need 1.85 acres of the property to construct their proposed office\warehouse. Further, the entire $147,000.00 soil correction cost would need to be spent on the 1.85 acres to render it buildable for the sl~cture. As a result, they only want to pay $38,000.00 for the required 1.85 acres ($2.30 sq. Rx 80,586 sq. ft. ,- $185,347 less $147,000= $38,347). We would retain ownership of the remaining portion of the property for wetland mitigation resulting from our intended construction of a storm water retention pond to the east of this property. As a result, we would receive no economic value from the wetland area on the north 1/3 of the property. In an effort to complete this sale, the buyer has presented us with two options as follows: 1. they will purchase the 1.85 acres for $60,000.00 and do the soil corrections; or 2. they will purchase the 1.85 acres for $185,347.00 however the City will be required to do the soil corrections and guarantee a buildable lot. The City needs to decide the importance of controlling the development of this real estate. Any buyer is going to be extremely Concerned with the soils problems associated with this lot. Also, if we want to impose a wetland easement over the northerly 1/3 of this lot to accommodate our storm water ponding and quality planS, we ate going to be facing the same D~em~er 15, 1998 Mr. Ki~ McDonald Commun~ Develop~nt Dim~r C~ of New Ho~ ~01 XH~ Avenue No~ N~ Ho~e MN ~5~28 ~r ~ ~u~i~l ~a~lng sa~ ~ 92~ ~ Avenue No~mndel Pm~. R~n~ to mN~ng at Cl~ of New Ho~ ~m~r 9, lgg8 Dem ~ant ~ ~e a~ve ~~ ~~ H~m & ERSI ~r ~ ~l~ng. In bUi~di~, ~ m~ ~ C~ s~ a~ ~ ~ = ~~h ~ ~ ~, i.e., u~ of ~ p~, ~~ Harem ~ ~i~ a ~,~ ~uam ~ ~t~lng a~ ~r ~e ~ im~ ~~n ~ ~~ ~ · ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ha~m. ~e le~ of ~~ 8, ~ ~ by ~r ~1 ~M ~m ~ ~ ~ to pu~a~ ~ ~m ~ indud~ ~ aM ~ ~i~. ~~ Ha~are's Ce~ (~ ~ ~am ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e p~ ~~, Le., 1.85 a~ or $1~,~7.~. ~ln ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~11~ ~ ~ ~1~: 1. F~ ~~ ~ We ~ y~ ~1 ~n~er ~~nd ms~ ~i~. ~b ' , December 22, 1998 Page 2 ~'--~, issue regarding the value of the easement area to the buildable area of the property as raised by the present buyer. Specifically, all buyers are going to consider t. his wetland easement area worthless. The only way it is going to have value is if the soils in said area can be corrected and made suitable for building. Basically, the City has paid a premium for this area to guarantee its use as a wetland ar~a necessitated by our mitigation requirements resulting from the needed water quality retention pond to the east. As we discussed in our December 3"~ meeting, we need to assess the proposed sale from a public benefit perspective rather than a purely economic perspective. The proposed sale would provide the City with the following public benefits: 1. Control of the site development; 2. use of the northerly 1/3 of the property for wetland mitigation with an agreement by the property owner to maintain the easement area and pay real estate taxes on said area; 3. Development of proposed water quality ponding area to the east accordin$ to the City Engineer's plan re~ardin$ same; 4. Introduction into ~e City of desirable new business, entity with attendant employment base and real es,ate tax increa.ses; If we simply want to maximize our economic returrt, I suggest we corr~t the soils on the site and market the property as a 2.75 acre building site. The property, as discussed, is worth $21~2,000.00 on this basis. However, the soil correction costs will likely be more than S147,000.00 since no consideration has been given to the correction costs for the northerly 1/3 of the property. I must defer to the City Engineer for an estimate on the soil correction costs as it relates to both the 1.85 acres needed by our proposed buyer and the 2.78 acres if we decided to market the entire property as a buildable lot. If Mark feels we can correct soils for si~niticantly les-~ than the buyer's estimated amount, the economic return may outweigh the risk ora soils ~arantee. However, this is a policy decision that will need to be made ultimately by the City Council. If you have any other questions or comments about the content of this letter or the information developed at the December 3'a meetin$ please don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, St~~ondrall, PROPOSEO MULTI-TENANT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE 9200 49TH AVE. NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA Or~maUng Department Approved for A~enda A~enda SecUon EDA Community Development 12-28-98 Item No. ]3yKirk McDonald By:. RESOLUTION' CALLING FOR _PUBLIC HEARING TO CONVEY PROPERTY AT 5501 BOONE AVENUE NORTH TO SENIOR OUTREACH SERVICES, INC. (CAREBREAK) AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 493) At the November 23 EDA meeting, the EDA approved a motion directing staff to prepare a redevelopment contract for Senior Outreach Services, Inc. for the development of an adult daycare facility at 5501 Boone Avenue North. The next step in that process is for the EDA to conduct a public hearing on the conveyance of a portion of that property to Senior Outreach Services. The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed resolution which schedules the public headng for the January 25 EDA meeting. The enclosed resolution does not bind the EDA to convey the property to CareBreak. Senior Outreach Services is currently working on plans that will advise the EDA as to the extent of the property it will need to complete the development. The most up-to-date information that staff has is that CareBreak will need 1.93 acres of the total 3.92 acre track of land. Staff is also currently working on a draft of the redevelopment agreement and other loan documents to implement the loan/grant program with CareBreak. It is staff's recommendation that the EDA consider the redevelopment agreement in conjunction with the conveyance of the property at the January 25 EDA meeting. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION l~Y SECOND BY TO: I EDA II It.E T FOR ACTION Originating Depa,~ent Approved for A~enda A~enda Section EDA Community Development 12-28-98 Item b~Kirk McDonald By:. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER A WAITING LIST AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE FOR MHOP UNITS IN THE BASS LAKE TOWNHOME PROJECT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 614) The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed Resolution Approving the Metropolitan Council's Memorandum of Understanding to Establish and Administer a Waiting List and Grievance Procedure for MHOP Units in the Bass Lake Townhome Project. Since this Agreement must be signed by both the EDA and the City Council, the Resolution needs to be considered I~y both bodies at the December 28 meeting. Per the City Attorney's correspondence and as the Council and EDA are aware, there are 12 MHOP units in the Bass Lake Townhome Project. Four of the MHOP units are designated as incentive units, the occupancy of which can be determined by the EDA. Since the City already uses the procedures established by the Metropolitan Council in the Section 8 Housing program, there is no reason not to use the Metropolitan Council procedures to administer the waiting list and gdeving process within this project as well. Also, as indicated in paragraph 7 on page 3 of the Agreement, the Metropolitan Council will be assuming resPonsibility for this process at no cost to the City. The only obligation the City or EDA will .have in connection with this matter is an agreement to share costs with the Metropolitan Council in the event a claim is made against the Metropolitan Council related to its administration of the waiting list or grievance procedure for the New Hope incentive units. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY SECOND BY I RFA-O0! ~~1 Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda SecUon EDA Community Development 12-28-98 Item No. BT~irk McDonald ~ RESOLUTION APPROVING BASS LAKE TOWNHOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND REGULATORY AND OPERATING AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO SIGN SAID AGREEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 614) The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed Resolution Approving Bass Lake Townhome Housing Development Agreement and Regulatory and Operating Agreement and Authorizing the President and Executive Director to Sign Said Agreements. Per the City Attorney's correspondence, this resolution is basically a housekeeping item, despite the length of the Agreements attached to the Resolution. The Housing Development Agreement essentially reconfirms the Redevelopment Agreement with PPL. The document requires PPL to construct the proposed development in accordance with the plans and specifications already submitted. It further limits PPL's ability to change an item in the construction plan which would result in an addition of over $5,000 in the development costs. It further requires development of the project to commence on or before May 1, 1999. The Agreement requires PPL to develop and operate twelve (12) MHOP units for the term of the Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) (the term of this contract is 40 years). The Housing Development Agreement indicates the public assistance provided to PPL as a developer with said assistance being the lessor amount of the certified cost of the project or $1,356,480. These funds will be distributed to PPL in accordance with a Disbursement Agreement of which the Minnesota Public Housing Authority (MPHA), the EDA and PPL will be the parties. Aisc, the Housing Development Agreement requires the MHPA, the EDA and PPL to enter into the Operating and Regulatory Agreement also attached to this Resolution. This Agreement simply establishes the operating subsidy which will be paid to PPL on an annual basis. As previously discussed, these agreements also limit the City's dght to collect real estate taxes on the 12 public housing units to 5% of the "shelter rents" for the term of the ACC. PPL representatives have indicated that this amount wilt equal about $2,000. A summary of the terms of both agreements is attached at the encl of this request and the City Attorney can provide further explanation of these agreements at the meeting, if the EDA so desires. Staff recommends approval of the resolution, which approves both agreements. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: , N MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Cynthia Putz-Yang / Alan Brixius DATE: December 21, 1998 RE: New Hope - Comprehensive Plan Update FILE NO: 131.00 - 98.10 We sent Comprehensive Plans to the following people on December 11"~. Curt Boganey, Brooklyn Park Jerry Dulgar, Crystal William S. Joynes, Golden Valley Dwight Jollnson, Plymouth Tom Boilin, Robbinsdale School District 281 Je~ Spartz, Hennepin County We delivered seven copies of the Comprehensive Plan to Lynda Voge of the Metropolitan Council on December 18th. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA PHONE: 6 1 2-595-9636 [~AX 6 ! 2-59~-9B37 E-MAIl. NAC(~)WINTERNI=T,COM TOTAL P.02 PROJECT #634 Bulletin #1 HIDDEN VALLEY PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENT INTRODUCTION This bulletin is to update residents on the status of improvements to the playground at Hidden Valley Park. The project involved removal of the old playground equipment and installation of new equipment. The new equipment is accessible to persons with disabilities. Also included with the project will be the installation of benches around the play area. WORK COMPLETED The old playground equipment has been removed and re~31aced with new equipment intended for children of vadous ages. Unlike the former playground layout, with all the equipment in one area, the new playground is divided into two separate play areas. One play area contains equipment intended for children five years old and younger, while the equipment in the larger play area is intended for older children. A new modular block wall has been built around both play areas. The hillside around the playground has been graded and new sod has been placed. The trail near the playground has been repaired and a picnic table pad has been provided adjacent to the play area. Pads have also been poured for four park benches around the playground areas. The project required removal of one tree and part of a row of shrubs, as well as the relocation of one other tree on the site. UPCOMING SCHEDULE Due to a fire at the manufacturing plant, availability of the benches has been delayed. If the benches arrive while the weather is still suitable, they will be installed yet this year. Otherwise, the benches will be installed in the spdng. CONTACT PERSONS If you have questions or concerns about the improvement project, please direct your calls to the Project Engineer, Vince VanderTop, at 604-4790 or 533-~823 ext. 15, or Tom Schuster, Contract Manager, at 533-4823 ext. 13. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 12/8/98 NOVEMBER 1998 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION II Zoning for Extended-Stol Lodgings By Joseph J. Gmer and Richard W. Redniss, AJCP Extended-stayfacilities are neither hotels nor apartments. Falling curiously in between, they become a unique land use worthy of more understanding. While such lodgings have existed for many years, recent opportunity in the marketplace has increased their appeal. According to the Highland Group, hotel investment advisers, the extended-stay niche market has entered a new phase. This segment of the market was a fraction of the overall hotel industry, appealing primarily t° upscale guests' but a mid'level and ec°n°my product began to emerge in the late 1980s. This new product has a broader range of customers and is gaining ! popularity among corporate clients. -.- ! Hotel giants Manor Care and Masriot have taken notice. - According to the Highland Group, Manor Case's extended-stay brand, Mainstay, is expected to develop 500 properties nationally over the next few Fears, ranging in size from 60 to -_ 100 units. Marriot is expected to enter the market with an average rate of $50 per night, well below the company's established extended-stay Residence Inn. Although upscale The building enveance to the Stamford, Connecticut, Homestead Village site, with a tyPical guest room interior and floor layout. Extended Stay vs. Holds or Apartments J.t. ~ ~l ~ percent are upscale facilities appealing largely to the high-end business traveler. The economy and mid-price rooms make up Ketd Extembd Stay Apartmmd 39 and 11 percent of the market segment and are expected to Re~l Tam D~y mmldy 6-12 mmths greatly outnumber upscale rooms more than two to one by Fmmblml yes yes no 2002. This issue of Zoning News will focus on these segments of Kitcim no yes yes the extended-stay market. Cdde/idmm yes y~ no A Kitchen in lvory Room Ho~sekeel~g daffy weddy no A cooking area (cook'ware included) in each guest room ~ ~ no ~ 1~ differentiates an extended-stay facility from a hotel. Each one- Restmtrmffs yes no no room unit also has a desk, telephone, table and chairs, Fret I~k 24 hn. 17 hn. 8 hn. television, full bathroom, and bed. Maid service, reception, and front desk services are limited. Laundry facilities will likely be available within the building. A meeting or gathering room and facilities have dominated the extended-stay market to this a workout area are usually found on the premises. point, growth in the niche market will be in the mid- and Extended-stay facilities usually lack conference facilities, economy-level segments, and the competition does not appear bars, restaurants,'and retail/convenience stores. They tend to be to be overwhelming. Homestead Village, an extended-stay purpose built, meaning that conversions from an apartment or lodging provider, estimates the present national corporate other hotel typically will not work. New facilities can more demand alone to be in excess of 400,O00 annual room nights, easily attend to the modern business traveler's communication Smith Travel Research and the Highland Group have found needs. Fax machines, personalized voice mail, and meeting comparable demand figures in research conducted on the rooms are available conveniences. number of rooms in extended-stay facilities, representing about Operating costs are comparably lower for extended-stay three percent of the total hotel market. In total, the extended- facilities because of the lack of food preparation, room delivery, stay niche is expected to make up about 12 percent of the a daily maid, and other guest services. Lower client turnover has rooms in the hotel industry. Among extended-stay rooms, 46 resulted in higher occupancy rates than traditional hotels. According to J.C. Bradford and Company, the average occupancy in 1996 was 80 percent for extended-stay facilities and 66 percent for ~j hotels. It has been found that maintenance costs for extended-stay operations rend to be lower because guests staying longer take better care of their rooms. A typical extended-stay facility is a two- or three-story structure with interior access to the rooms. In the more temperate southern states, buildings with exterior access have been built to help reduce construction costs. However, the recent trend has been to provide interior ha. llways for Typical building design of the Stamford, the security and convenience of Connecticut, Homestead Village site. Lejq, guests. Generous landscaping a deluxe guest room layout. often buffers against noise and provides a more residential "home away from home" appearance. Extended-stay lodging has also become a viable alternative for non-business guests. Census data show that an increasing With DownsjzJng Comes Opportunity number of American households are relocating, prompting a The effect of corporate downsizing and merging of companies need for transitional accommodations. With upscale extended- can be credited with much of the increased demand for stay hotels an expensive option, mid- and economy-level extended-stay lodging. Downsizing has effectively reduced the segments of the niche market have allowed movers a reasonably number of branch offices, driving up corporate travel to yet priced alternative. J.C. Bradford has found that as many as 25 fewer locations. Where percent of the guests of some extended-stay facilities would otherwise have found tempora_n/accommodations with family managers once made day trips 1~ f~ ~ ~ b/~ friends. to several close locations, they ~ HJgilia~ ~0~p. l14dps_ or are now traveling farther Price-conscious military personnel and government workers distances for longer periods of ~llli~ ~ lt~ ~r~ also find extended-stay hotels financially attractive, as do time. Business travelers have ~ Qf Ihe eXlellde&s~ contractors placed in new markets by government outsourcing found the convenience and n~lflt~ and families requiring location-specific and specialized health price of extended-stay facilities more suitable than full-service Rate TI~ P~ Oay care. As the mid-priCe and economy market segments grow, and as the targeted markets mature, a better understanding of all hotels, apartments, or staying l~a~ $~ users will become known. with friends or relatives. Such changes in the Cheap Land business environment have The extended-stay industry tends to locate on land cheaper than caused the mid- and economy- ~ $~ that occupied by traditional hotels. The sites may be level extended-stay market to comparatively small, accommodating as few as 60 units of expand beyond the traditional three to five percent growth rate of extended-stay housing. The Highland Group has found that the the hotel industry. Downsizing, mergers, and corporate typical project is 100 to 150 units in size. relocations have forced corporations to reduce travel accounts Land available to this growing lodging use has traditionally and focus on the bottom line. Technology has placed new been in the suburbs. As the market segment matures and is demands on workers and team-based job strategies are on the more easily identified by the industry, extended-stay property rise. Such changes require corporations to provide training that owners may find more suitable urban locations. will optimize productivity. Training can last more than five Extended-stay sites can range from one to three acres in size, consecutive days, reports the Highland Group, with banking and making location near a major thoroughfare essential for telecommunication industries often requiting more than 10 visibility and convenience. Because the facilities typically do not consecutive days of annual training. Furthermore, contain retail amenities, a variety of restaurants or shopping communications technology is changing quickly, fueling the need should be within a five-minute drive. The lower-end extended- for corporate training programs. Coupled with downsizing, stay lodging facilities generate most business through drive-by companies are finding more economy in centralizing training recognition and word-of-mouth, says KPMG, advisers to the programs and bringing in out-of-town employees. Providing a real estate hospitality and construction industry. For this more comfortable location with the conveniences of home may segment, visibility becomes a major factor for success. increase productivity and reduce the stress of being away. Companies entering the low-end market early also have an upper hand in future locations within the same market area. Only 18 percent of the guests in that stay in low-end facilities Joseph J. Cimer is a planner and Richard W. Rednhs is the are corporate clients, while up to 48 percent of the clientele are · president ofRedniss & Mead---Planners, Engineers, Surveyor$, construction employees and movers. With fewer barriers to Environmental Consultants, in Stamford, Connecticut. entering this market, oversupply is predicted. 2 Opportunity Lost:. A Connecticut Case Study When Homestead Village wanted to locate in Stamford, from abutting neighbors. Plans for the site included a 123-unit Connecticut, which is home to many corporate headquarters and extended-stay lodging facility. over 14 million square feet of office space, the extended-stay Replacing the nonconforming uses with an extended-stay hotel provider was seeking typical location criteria: a parcel of land two could not be accomplished under existing regulations. Stamford to three acres in size, visibilit3, on a major thoroughfare, a planning consultants Redniss and Mead proposed an amendment population of 200,000 within a five-mile radius, and proximity to the regulations that would permit a new use within a similar to restaurants, services, and offices. The company had difficulty "footprint" as the existing nonconforming buildings. The finding a suitably priced site, but then located a nonconforming amendment would also limit the height of the new use to that of warehousing and restaurant site along a busy state route in a existing buildings. As long as the proposed use was determined to residential neighborhood, be less intensive, the local zoning board had the authority to grant Initially. it was unlikely that the extended-stay facility would the new use. be compatible with the residential area. However, a closer look Although abutting neighbors were in support, surrounding revealed nearby corporate campus-style offices and many home neighborhood associations were opposed to the precedent of a occupations, nonconforming uses, and even illegal uses situated commercial use in their backyard, and downtown businesses along the arterial road. The reuse of the warehouse and restaurant objected to a hotel-type use outside of the core area. Enough site would eliminate truck noise and odor, a common complaint discomfort was expressed to deny the proposal. Existing Regulation Communities must consider whether extended-stay lodging Within many zoning regulations, extended stay would fit will detract business from the existing hotel base. The problem better within the definition of a hotel than an apartment, is minimized because the extended-stay market segment appears Yet the use falls somewhere between, causing many to ful£tll a new demand. The business traveler on site for weeks communities to develop specific definitions. The zoning at a time may be more comfortable at an extended-stay facility. regulations for the town of Windsor, Connecticut, include a Families that are relocating may find extended-stay lodging definition and standards for R~sidence Inns. Windsor's more accommodating than staying with friends or relatives. The ordinance stipulates that the building be ~used for the presence of extended-stay facilities could also help to regulate accommodation of transient lodgers in suites having one or the use of apartments for more rooms exclusive of a bathroom, water-closet Extadud Stay Holds short-term leases and bring an compartment, laundry, pantry, foyer, communicating ~mm~S~l~,dl~d equilibrium to local housing corridor, closets, or any dining alcove with less than 70- ~ 30,1~97 markets. square-feet of floor space. A kitchen area separate from the J.t led~lldCllll~ living or sleeping areas shall be provided and cooking may be ~ Final Perspective done only in the kitchen area." il ~ The longer guests stay, the In 1996, Norcross, Georgia, adopted regulations defining ~ more amenities they desire. In extended-stay motels as "any building containing six or more Ill~l~ dm 2S9 markets where extended-stay guest rooms intended or designed to be used, or which are used, Hamewood Suites 43 facilities are frequented by rented, or hired out to be occupied, or which are occupied for ~ ~im 24 families, child play areas have sleeping purposes for guests and contain kitchen facilities for Hawdmrn Suites 20 been installed or designed into food preparation including but not limited to such facilities as W~ & the site. Some jurisdictions refrigerators, stoves and ovens." letd 332 even require play areas as a A more liberal approach in DeSoto, Texas, permits any type component of site planning. of lodging facility, including extended-stay hotels, as a special l~l~t~ Future desired amenities will use (permit required) in planned development districts. Some ~a~l Sm ~ 99 determine whether the cities, such as Atlanta, have a number of extended-stay lodging ~m~'l~l ~'~ 50 extended-stay market will facilities, but have not amended local regulations to allow for S~b I~ 49 conform to the look and feel of l~xin~l~ 10 apartments, traditional hotels, the use. H~ 8' Extended-stay hotels are built for a specific function, but We~ 5 or both. Where guest families could be adapted for apartments or senior housing if the hotel ~ 3 may desire a swimming pool or use ends. For the industry and many communities, adaptive ~M~ 1 game room, business travelers reuse would minimize the impact risks because apartments and may require a small lounge for senior housing would be similar to extended-stay facilities, l~d 225 entertaining clients. Indeed, However, communities are often unwilling to consider the [t~/ such changes are likely to push potential benefits of adaptive reuse options. ~ill~ l~ 50 extended-stay facilities into the To help support extended-stay uses, and limit the potential 5~rlm ~ $~ traditional hotel venue. for other uses, Irving, California, employs specific requirements ~rvlfl~,~ [t~,~/$~i~ ~ The marketplace for for extended-stay hotels within its zoning ordinance. Design 1~ ~9 extended-stay facilities will criteria such as a minimum lobby area, conference and meeting eventually stabilize, alleviating space, and a requirement for restaurants.would encourage hotel T0td lxt~ll St~/Hotd~ ~17 the uncertainties associated rather than apartment use in the future. The ordinance in with an emerging use. The Windsor, Connecticut, takes the same approach, allowing for *&d~l,~/rm ~ ~i:t~tl, m~l strong market demand is ~,~x~~ expected to increase as target "restaurants, recreation, or other facilities open to the general public, other than lodgers," audiences grow. Business will 3 undoubtedly continue its savvy, reach for the bottom line by But, says Fisher, the misinformation that drove the reducing costs for employee travel, and the country's aging petitions included the impression that the convent would · population will proceed southward to warmer climates, finding become a boarding house and "did not exactly reflect what temporary, shelter in extended-stay facilities. This growing the proposal was." Many people, he says, "didn't know what lodging alternative is an inevitable part of the landscape, the actual use was." Jim Schwa& A/CP Communities need only determine where it fits best. Correction [n "$inking Shopping Center to Become a Wetland" (Jul?), zowt ports Zoning News reported that the idea for converting the site back to wetlands came from University of Minnesota graduate student ' Shem A. Buss. According to Buss, this is inaccurate, instead, the 1'he Plan for SoBro idea emerged from her work in a graduate design seminar in Christine Keyling. City Press Publishing,/nc., 209 lOth Ave. S.. landscape architecture developed by Professor Joan Nassauer. Suite222, Nashville. TN37202. 1997. 48pp. Free by calling 615-244-7989. South of Broadway (SoBro) has been a neglected "land of How Many Sisters promise" in Nashville in the words of this report on a charrette Make a Family? for the area sponsored last year by a local alternative newspaper, the Nashville Scene. Many of the area's problems will sound it was all a misunderstanding, says Joliet, Illinois, planning familiar: issues of surface parking, a potential split resulting director Don Fisher. In the end, he says, that is what caused from a proposed new highway corridor, and the need to rebuild most of the 103 people who signed a petition opposing a a sense of urban neighborhood character with the appropriate variation in use for a group of nuns to wish they had not. Of mixture of uses. Yet SoBro also has the unique opportunities of those signers, only four opposed the permit during the meeting an area that includes the Tennessee State Capitol and life in the at which the city council unanimously approved it on October shadows of downtown skyscrapers. The resulting guidelines are 6. Variation in use is the term of art in the Joliet zoning both instructive and reasonably creative, including the emphasis ordinance for the special-use permit that now allows the on the need for a "boulevard, not a corridor." Franciscan Sisters of the Sacred Heart to house up to seven nuns in their home in a single-family residential neighborhood. The zoning board of appeals recommended council approval in Siting Criteria for a 4-3 vote on September 24. Personal Wireless The Joliet ordinance allows up to three unrelated Service Facilities individuals to live in the same home in a single-family Prepared by Kreines and Kreines, [nc., in cooperation with the district. Three nuns already occupied the house, but they Cape Cod Commission, 3225 Main St., P.O. Box 226, Barnstable, wanted to bring in a fourth sister and also allow up to three MA 02630. June 199Z 50pp. Free with $5 shipping charge for visitors at any time. The variation, says Fisher, lasts only out-of-state orders. while the nuns occupy the 3,000-square-foot house. The Distilling lessons and ideas from dozens of other attached conditions state that the variation will cease communities, the Cape Cod Commission managed to craft whenever the Franciscan sisters leave the property, and that trend-setting standards in one of planning's evolving new if the home ceases to function as a "nunnery," another term dilemmas, the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities. defined in the ordinance, it would revert to single-family This document is the result ora project the commission pursued residential use. Any other proposed use, Fisher says, "must with funding from the Massachusetts Department of Housing go before the zoning board" and would require approval by and Community Development. Readers with Internes access the city council, can supplement this useful handbook by finding the Fisher adds that if, at any time, the use becomes a nuisance, commission's model bylaws for such facilities on its web site, the ordinance specifies that the permit "shall be recalled for a www.capecodcommission.org. possible revocation" by the zoning boa.rd and city council. Because of these provisions, he Says, the planning staff assumed that the variation would not pose a problem. CJtySpace~ An Open Space Plan for Chicago Zoning News i ...... hly new*l .... published by the American Planning A.tsociarion. City of Chicago, Department of Planning and Development, Subscriptions are available ~'br $55 (U.S.) and .$75 (foreign). Frank S. So, Executive Directon William R. Klein. Di ....... f Research. Strategic Planning Division, 121 North LaSalle Street, Room zo.,.g ~v~o, i~ p~odu=a ~, a~^, .5i~. sch~,.b and Mike ~.vid~o, £ditom Sh .... 1003, Chicago, IL 60602. :M'mstrong. Barry Bain, Jerome Cleland, Fay Dolnick. Sanjay Jeer. Meg-an Lewis, Matya Morris. 8ecla Ret21aff, Reporters: Cynthia Cheski, Assiatant Editor; Lisa g .... Design .,d The Ci9~pace Plan is the result of an intergovernmental e~odo~rio,, initiative created m expand open space in Chicago. The CitySpace Copyright ©1998 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The American Planning As.maiation ha~ headquarters otiS:es at 1776 Project was initiated by a partnership that included the City of Ma.ssachuaerts Ave.. N.W., Washington. DC 20036. Chicago, Chicago Park District, Forest Preserve District of Cook .All rights ret, creed. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any ......i ...... i ...... hanical, including ph .... pyin$ ..... ding. o~ by any i,fo .... io~ County, and the Chicago Board of Education. The plan sets forth ~sociation.age and retrieval sy ...... ithout permission in writing from the American Planning development goals, priorities, and implementation strategies, ~'ri,,ea .... ~y,~ed peper, i.~ludi.~ 50-r0~ ~,,~ed ~b~ targeting land along inland waterways, vacant lots, and land · .d ~0~ po ..... s ........ {~ surrounding public schools. 4