The URL can be used to link to this page

080399 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 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 99-14 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Storage and/or Rental of Vehicles, 4904 Winnetka Avenue North, Johnson Van & StorageNernell Gillespie/MINCO Northwest Corporation, Petitioners * 4.2 Case 99-01 Request for a Variance to the Requirement Pertaining to Maximum Size and Number of Wall Signs and to Allow a Larger Size and Number of Wall Signs than Permitted by the Sign Code, Kmart/All Brite Sign, Inc./Master LB Associates Ltd. Partnership, Petitioners * 4.3 Case 99-08 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for School Expansion and Outdoor Recreational Facilities and Site/Building Plan Review Approval, Independent School District #281 and City of New Hope, Petitioner 5. COMMI'I-rEE REPORTS 5.1 Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: Thursday, August 19at 8 a.m. 5.2 Report of Codes & Standards Committee 5.3 Report of Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - to be scheduled 5.4 Report of Zoning Code Update Committee - to be scheduled in September 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Miscellaneous Issues 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 6, 1999. 7.2 Review of City Council Minutes of June 28, 1999. 7.3 Review of EDA Minutes of June 28, 1999. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT · Petitioners are required to be in attendance Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal, based upon the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staffs recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. · 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action~ Al If the Planning'Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: August 4, 1999 Report Date: July 30, 1999 Planning Case: 99-14 Petitioner: Johnson Van & Storage, Vemell Gillespie & MINCO Northwest Corp., landowner Address: 4904 Winnetka Avenue North I. Request Johnson Van & Storage, Inc. has requested a conditional use permit to allow the activity of a "U-Haul" truck rental and trailer service from its facility. The primary use of the site involves the loading and unloading of trucks for shipping while the "U-Haul" rental portion would be an accessory service. The site is located at 4904 Winnetka Avenue North and lies within the I-1, Limited Industrial Zoning District. The ordinance permits outdoor storage as a permitted accessory use, but requires a conditional use permit for any accessory outdoor sales and services, pursuant to Sections 4.144 (2) and 4.21 · of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. I1. Zoning Code References The Zoning Code allows open or outdoor service, sale and rental as an accessory use provided that: 1. Area limit: Accessory outside service, sales and equipment rental connected with a principal use is limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. 2. Screened from Residential: Outside sales area are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses. 3. Surfacinq: Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. II1. Property Specifications Zoning: I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District Location: East side of Winnetka Avenue, between 49th and 50th Avenues Adjacent Land Uses: I-1 Limited Industrial to the north and east, R-4 Multi-Family Residential to the south, R-1 Single Family Residential to the west across Winnetka Avenue Site Area: 335' x 953' = 319,255 square feet (7.3 acres) Building Area: 120,000 square feet Lot Area Ratios: Green = 18%, Building = 38%, Other = 44% (estimated) Planning District: No. 5; Primarily industrial land south and west of the railroad tracks, two other components include the City's Ice Arena and one apartment complex along 49th Avenue. Most were developed in the 1960s and 1970s. The primary goal is to promote and enhance the industrial land uses in a manner that compatibly relates to the surrounding residential areas. The plan states that the City will work with existing property owners and businesses to encourage the continued industrial use of the sites while resolving outstanding land use compatibility issues. The Plan also states that the building condition and poor site design of the warehouses on Winnetka are an issue and may make this a future redevelopment site. One industrial goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to accommodate the in-place expansion of existing industries, be[ responsive to changing needs of local businesses. Specific Information: The setback requirements for the property are as follows: Front Yard 75 feet Side Yard 20 feet Rear Yard 35 feet Parking 5 feet The buildings meet the setback requirements. Note the rail spur on the north side of the building and the drainage easement in the northwest corner of the property. 'IV. Background This is an after-the-fact application. Wheaton, a moving and storage company, moved into the building as a tenant in May, with a side business of U-Haul truck and trailer rental. The Fire Inspector discovered the business and contacted the Building Official, who notified the tenant that the use was not allowed in this Zoning District without a conditional use permit. After city staff met with the tenant and building owner/manager, it was determined that a CUP application would be made. The lot and building is depressed eight feet below the elevation of Winnetka Avenue, just as it was developed in 1966. This, and the steep driveway, makes for a marginal trucking and County road access situation, particularly in the winter months. The two buildings located on the site are four feet above grade with truck docks along most of the south side. Very small offices have been built for four tenants over the years. No disability access exists. Previous problems have included poor drainage at the west and north side and noise from Burger King "reefer" trucks waking residents to the south (Burger King tenant vacated the building some years ago). As is typical, the buildings like these served by rail spurs have dead-flat grades in the spur area that drain poorly or not at all. V. Petitioner's Comments The petitioner states on their application that the request should be granted so that they can conduct their business in the City and serve the community to the best of their ability. The tenant and property manager, United Properties, have cooperated with the City in the planning process since the error was discovered. The petitioner relocated the small business from Brooklyn Park to New Hope. The business is owned and operated by Vernell Gillespie, who has been in the moving business for over 50 years. Johnson Van & Storage relocates families locally and stores household goods. They are also an agent for Wheaton World Wide Moving, who moves families and their household goods from state to state as well as World Wide Relocation. The petitioner states in his correspondence that "our mission is to help families move to new locations with their household goods with little or no work for the customer. We Pack and unpack, and supply all packing materials. We also supply the trucks and the man power it takes to move their items. We give senior citizen discounts, and assist Hennepin County as well as Anoka County in placing customers in assisted living accommodations. Johnson Van & Storage does provide moving services for office relocation also." The hours of operation for Johnson Van & Storage are form 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, most Saturdays and occasional Sundays. They also have U-Hauls available to rent for customers to move their household goods themselves, in town and out of town rentals are available. U-Haul hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, Saturdays by appointment only. Planning Case Report 99-14 Page 2 7/30/99 .i. Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and one negative comment was received by staff on July 26. The homeowner directly across Winnetka from the property was very unhappy with the U-haul trucks across the front of the parking lot, in clear view of her living room. She asked why they were allowed to move in without city approval. She said the planned shrub screening is insufficient and she has written the attached letter. She stated that the late night parking lot sweeping (by machine) was violating the noise code and should not happen between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. VII. Development Analysis A. Zoninq Code Criteria Conditional Use Permit 1. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety. In making this determination, 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. 2. Other general criteda to be considered when determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit include: 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: Zonin,q District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteda specified for the various zoning districts: 1) In Industrial Districts (I-1, I-2): a) Nuisance. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon existing or future development in adjacent areas. b) Economic Return. The use will provide an economic return to the community and commensurate with other industrial uses that the property could feasibly be used for. In considering the economic return to the community, the Planning Commission and City Council may give weight to the sociological impact of a proposed use, both positive and negative. B. Development Review Team On July 14, the city staff Development Review Team expressed support of the concept, with several suggestions: · Revise full scale plan to show exact parking numbers and U-Haul rental-storage area. · Provide a 60-foot long shrubbery screening along Winnetka Avenue. · Identify U-Haul customer/visitor parking spaces (2 or 3), new ramp and public entry door. · Identify any proposed signs. Planning Case Report 99-14 Page 3 7/30/99 · Provide property owner information. · Identify hours of operation. · Identify trash storage and dumpster screening. C. Design & Review Committee · Committee was supportive of the concept. · Front screening should be 60 feet long from driveway to north, set back slightly from the driveway and public sidewalk, and angled next to the driveway. · Identify location of truck storage, customer parking, outdoor trash enclosure and snow storage. · Provide narrative identifying nature of business and hours of operation. D. Plan Description Revised plans were submitted which include the following details: · A 60-foot long arborvitae screen consisting of 16 lilacs is shown on the west property line, north of the driveway entrance. · U-Haul storage area is identified in the southwest corner of the parking lot. · Visitor and disability parking spaces have been identified on the plan and parking statistics for the property have been provided, as follows: 1999 Required Parking Warehouse 118,606 sf x .9 / 1,500 = 71 spaces Office 3,100 sf x .9 / 300 = 10 spaces TOTAL 121,706 sf 81 spaces Available Parking 108 spaces (5 Disability, spaces; 2 U-Haul visitor spaces; 101 standard spaces) · New ,ADA ramp has been identified on west (front) of building E. Planning Considerations The Planning Consultant has reviewed the request and recommends approval of the CUP request as it meets the conditions of the ordinance outlined in the I-1 Zoning District, subject to the following conditions: 1) ,All proposed signs shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 2) Plans for refuse storage shall be reviewed and approved by staff. If refuse will be stored outdoors, screening details shall also be submitted. 3) Planting specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and approval. F. Buildin.q Considerations The building is fire sprinklered throughout. The introduction of the new "public" U-Haul rental facility trips a requirement to provide "access" to the main floor and a restroom, per the MN Disability Code. These are included under a recent building permit. G. En.qineerinq Considerations The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and states that the project provides for outside storage and landscape (screening) improvements. Drainage and access improvements are not proposed. From an engineering standpoint, drainage/access improvements are desirable; however, because other site improvements are not proposed at this time, it is recommended that drainage/access improvements be considered at a future time when other site improvements are proposed. Planning Case Report 99-14 Page 4 7/30/99 A. Police Considerations The Police Department has reviewed the plan and finds it acceptable. B. Fire Considerations The Fire Department has reviewed the plan and finds it acceptable. VIII.Summary Staff is generally supportive of the request, provided that sufficient screening is provided on the west side of the property to screen the views from residential properties. The petitioner needs to identify trash storage and snow storage areas and commit to striping and parking lot signage installation and the Commission will want to discuss these issues with the petitioner. IX. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the CUP for the U-Haul rental pending public comment, subject to the following conditions: 1. All signage to be reviewed and approved by staff 2. Refuse storage to be identified. If outdoors, screening details to be submitted. 3. Size of plantings to be identified and approved by staff. Consideration should be given to more intense screening, such as a board-on-board fence in addition to the landscaping. 4. Snow storage to be identified. 5. Lot striping (in white) to be completed within 60 days, including installation of "visitor" and "disability access" signs, per the plan. Attachments: · Zoning/Address/Topo Maps · Site Plan · Landscaping · Parking · Site Statistics · Planner's Report · ~ City Engineer Comments · Petitioner's Correspondence · Resident Letter · Application Log Planning Case Report 99-14 Page 5 7~30~99 HOSTERMAN ' ~ ZONING DI ~;' I R-1 Single Fan- ~ R-2 Single and '_ ~ ~ R 3 Mediu D COOPER HIGH SCHOOL 4~ ~ :, ~ ~' High -~, ,,, ~ R-4 Densi ..... ~:~ R-5 "Senior / D~ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ~ ~ R-0 Residential R 0(PUD) Resi ~ B-1 LimitedNei ~ B-2 Retail Busir ~' Doc. ~Wo. /0049~3 ~ " , j ~ ~ EXlSTI: ~ Loo~/~ < ~ ~ _ ~3.~ '- , "":" ;'.'"C. :'>:." ::';:.~':~:~'~' " ' .... ~... . : ........... .... .... ... ~ . .-.~, ~:' .. ~"., ..~ ...--::".~:~~ 'o '-~- I , ... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : .. , ~ ":.~'.;:': · ~ ~ ..... .......:.... ..... . .... ...... ..... :.........:: ~ ...': ..... :.. .::.. ...... ..... .. . , ..:::.... '-.:...: :.'.... -...~-.....:':. ::~.).'... :.::.?~.. :.:~::.-.,:....:.: :.:~,.,:...:..:..:... ;........ ~ , t.)~;>,:.:+::.::..':..:'.:'.:'~:. = - _ _ ~/////////~ ' ~.~ . 'Cu~~ ...'..?....~__..~-.._~ ?~ ~' . :..:.'... . ~............:.. ... .... .. .. ..~...~. .. ~. ~:~ '-~:~ ~.:~...,~ :'?:~?::..;... .7: ..: .:'. '. %....:..:'.:....':. :/. '.¥?. ~,~. .. :.7-. '. ' .'.:[)4'::~'F'v... :.:' ..... ~= dtorm ~e~er d ~ec 8, T ~&, ~ 21 ~ Guy Wire 1999 REQUIRED PARKING Warehouse · 118,606 sf x .9 / 1,500 = 71 spaces Office: 3,100 sf x .9 / 300 =10 spaces TOTAl,: 121,706 sf 81 spaces Available Parking:. 108 spaces ( 5 Disability, 2 "U-Haul Visitor" + 101 standard ) PROPERTY DESQRIPTION The South 3~5 feet of the West 99~ feet of the North 3/4 of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township llS, Range 21, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 556811. A/OTtO-: h/o/er'~ Se~/er Ser~/ce~ are showwn /~ ~he,'r op?rox/rno/e Zooo//ons Frank Roos Associates, Inc. d Ave N Er~gmeers MN 55~147 Planners 010 Surveyors "A/~'~'~ ~TLrL--28--1999 ~:40 ~ 612 595 9839 P.02 /~ 'l · CO~qMUNITYPL~HNING - DIE.~I(3N MARKET RE:~E:AIRCH MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Patrick McDonell I Alan Brixius DATE: 27 July 1999 RE: Johnson Van & Storage, Inc. Conditional Use Permit Request. FILE NO: 131.01 - 99.07 BACKGROUND Jol~nson Van & Storage, Inc. has requested a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) to allow the activity of a "U-haul' truck rental and trailer service from their facility. The primary use of Re site involves the loading and unloading of trucks for shipping while the "U-haul' rental portion would be an accessory service. The site is located at 4902 Winnetka Avenue North and is lies within the I-1, Limited Industrial Zoning District. The ordinance permits outdoor storage as a permitted accessory use but requires a conditional use permit for any accessory outdoor sales and services (Code 4.144 [2]). ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Site Location Map Exhibit B: Site Survey/Proposed Site & Landscape Plan I~ECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the CUP request as it meets the conditions of the ordinance outlined in the I-1 zoning code subject to the following conditions: 1. All proposed signs shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 2. Plans for refuse storage shall be reviewed and approved by staff. If it will be stored outdoors, screening details shall also be submitted. 3. Planting spec, ifl~ions shall be submitted to staff for review and approval. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE: 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 61 ;[-595-9536 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC~WINTERNET.COM J-LL-28-19c~ t]8:41 NRC 612 595 983? P.ll3 ZONING DISTRICT MAP ~,, ~ 07/28/99 09:37 ~ :02/02 H0:152 ~' Otto Rosene Glenn,. Sc~M, ~E.. . ~mer, R~ Md(Sus~ M E~fl~ C ,RA.. S~mr Cnn~ult~nts ., Mlghael T. Off. i; St, Paul. Rochester. ~tlMM ~ St. CIOu~. MN · Mllwau~. WI :. Engineers & Architects ~,~,,: www. oonestmo, com ~'~ To: ~k McDon~d .I 8nb~t~ 49~ Winn,~ Av~n~ (U-Haul Storage) ~;, Dminag~ ~d ~m~ improw~n~.~ not ~~. ~mm ~ engn~ng ~dpoint, drainag~ :',' ".;;. 2335 ~est Highway 36 · St, Pa~i~-MN' 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311 : JOIINSON VAN ~ 8TO. GE, INC. Q ALrr M0 4~ ~~A~~ NORTH PHO~.(612~7~ F~. (6t2~7~ July 23, 1999 : Dear lVir. Doug Sandstad: Johnson Van & Storage, lno, Ires relocated its small business from Brooklyn Park, lVln to New Hope, Mu. Our business is owned and.iop~rated by President Verhell N..Gillespie. Veto bps. been in the movin$ bus/ness for o~er 50 years. Johnson Van & Storage, Inc, reloeates....f~i, '~es locally and .stores household goods, we are also an Agent for Wheaten World Wide!Movin8. We move families and their ' household goods f~om state to state as well ~ World Wide Relocati0n~ We are qualified to provide services for Mititazy personnel. ' Our mission is to help families move to new locat/om with.the/r ho~e hold 8oods with little or no work for the customer. We pack..' and unpack, and supply'ail pacldng materials. We also supply thc trucks and ti2 man pow~ it takes to move their items. We give smiior citizen d/soo/, and assist Hednepin ,county as well as Anoka county in placing customers in ass/sted living accommodations. Johnson Van & Stom~, Inc. does provide moving services for office relocation also. Yam gives flee estimates on moves, by that I mean he 8cos to the customers home and looks at all. items to be moved and gives a quote on their movin~ charges, ~ well as item~ comi~ ii'to the warehouse for storage. Johnson Van & Storage hours are from 8:0pmn to ~:00pm Monday trio. uSh Priday, most Saturdays and occasional Sundays. We also have U-HAULS avai~e to rent ~r customers to move the~ honso~, ,ld themselves, in town and out of town retttal~ arc available. ' : appoint only. * ' JOHNSON VAN & STORAOE, INC. : July 29, 1999 Re: Notice of Public Hearing; Planning Case 99-14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE AND/OR RENTAL OF VEHICLES 4904 Winnetka Avenue North; PID #08-118-21-23-0004 Dear New Hope Council Members and Planning Commission, As you meet to grant or decline the request for the above mentioned, I hope honest consideration will be given to all people and properties that will be affected by this. Pictures are enclosed to give some insight to what we must view, even then, these do not show the depth of it ail. Something was obviously wrong the weekend of May 8a & 9t~ when these vehicles and others formed an almost continuous line in, around and out of the property, creating nothing more than added burden to the Mother's Day weekend traffic that was on Winnetka. Something that us along with our out-of-state guests did not appreciate in the least since access from and to our drive was congested. Some ',vould suggest that this was not a legal move being made at this time, especially on a Sunday! In 13 years we have listened to the refrigeration units of the Burger King trucks, watched the trailer units slip and slide over the incline of the drive as they t, y to exit in the winter, and have been harassed by the person that comes and sweeps the p~.rking lot of this warehouse and the warehouse to the north. This occurs at times .later that 10:30 p.m. and lasts aw.bile. Then they will deliberately come to the street and turn around in the street dixeetl:y in front of our house i£ they suspect tha*. we are watching and are irritated at this late hour-, Now the request is to view the likes of the vehicles that are to be stored there. Few of which that are in prime condition. Then the question becomes how many will be permitted there and where will they be stored at. Recently we had 11 units of various sizes, including semi units and small trailer. As the building is a storage building, we are not opposed to its use as that, however, to permit the grounds to become a location for vehicle rental, increasing the waffle in and out of the location, we ask that the request be denied. James and Donna Pearsall 4941 Winnetka Ave. N. 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 99-14 Vernell Gillespie 6/25/99 8/24/99 10/23/99 Johnson Van & Storage 8609 Greenhaven Drive (4904 Wtka) Brooklyn Park 55445 537-3400 Ellen Morton United Properties 3500 West 80th Street Minneapolis 55431 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 11) business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver. I. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: August 4, 1999 Report Date: ,July 30, 1999 Planning Case: 99-01 Petitioner: Kmart, tenant, ~All Brite Sign, Inc./ EBL & S Corporation, landowner Address: 4300 -4350 Xylon A venue North I. Request The Kmart at 4300 Xylon Avenue North is requesting na~Variance to allow additional wall signage on the Kmart facade and a replacement pylon sign along 42 Avenue, pursuant to Sections 3.492, 3.493 (2) and 3.51 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. This request was heard by the Planning Commission at its June 1 meeting. The Planning Commission decided at that time to table the request to allow Kmart additional time to submit plans illustrating site and building improvements. Kmart submitted a letter waiving the 120-day approval time limit. This report includes analysis of the newly submitted site and building plans, as well as discussion of proposed and existing signage and criteria for a variance. The building that contains Kmart also contains a related business, Penske Auto Service, as well as a vacant bay formerly occupied by Old America. The building fronts Xylon Avenue and 42nd Avenue (Rockford ROad). I1. Zoning Code References The specific request before the Planning Commission is for variances to the Sign Code to allow larger signs on the building than permitted by the city code. The allowed, existing, and proposed signage are outlined in the Planner's report as follows: Allowed Wall Signage. The building is a multiple occupancy building because it contains space for more than one business. The sign ordinance states that the total allowable wall sign area for a multiple occupancy structure shall not exceed 15 percent of the combined wall surfaces on walls which abut streets in business or industrial zoning districts. No individual tenant identification sign may exceed 100 square feet in area. A tenant occupying a corner location fronting on two streets may display identification signs to both street frontages. Allowed Freestanding Signage. A multiple occupancy building having four or less separate and distinct occupancies may erect one freestanding sign not exceeding 100 square feet in area or 30 feet in height. The sign may identify each separate and distinct occupancy. Existing Signage. The Kmart portion of the building has the following existing wall signs that total 407 square feet in area and exist as current variances: · A Kmart logo sign 126 square feet in size. · A pharmacy sign 57 square feet in size. · A garden shop sign 72 square feet in size. · A Penske Auto Service sign 152 square feet in size. Kmart also has a freestanding sign along 42nd Avenue that is 16 square feet and complies with freestanding sign standards. The existing Kmart signs were approved as previous variances, and as such, flexibility has already been granted beyond ordinance standards. Planning Case Report Page 1 7/30/99 Proposed Signage. The following signage is proposed for the Kmart portion of the building: · Adding "BIG" and a swoop to the Kmart logo sign would increase the area of the sign to 365 square feet. · A pharmacy sign 57 square feet in size is to remain. · A garden shop sign 72 square feet in size is to remain. · A Penske Auto Service sign 152 square feet in size is to remain. · A replacement pylon sign containing a 100 square foot, internally illuminated Kmart sign and a sign that is approximately 25 square feet in size for a future tenant. The total square footage of the Kmart wall signs is proposed to be 646 square feet, creating a greater amount of non-conformity with square footage requirements than exists currently. This significantly exceeds the 100 foot maximum wall sign square footage requirement for businesses in multi-tenant buildings. It also exceeds the 250-foot maximum wall sign square footage for an individual business establishment. The vacant tenant bay formerly occupied by Old America will also require additional signage if a new tenant is found. Kmart has no plans to expand into this space. The proposed pylon will be 100 square feet and meets the code requirement. Code 4.036 relates to the standards for parking lot/driveway dimensions and layout, which are revised in this plan. Code 4.039A requires at least staff level review of this type of property modification. III. Property Specifications Zoning: B-4, Community Business Zoning District Location: East side of Xylon Avenue adjacent to 42nd Avenue Adjacent Land Uses: R-4 Multi-Family Residential to the north, B-4 Community Business (New Hope City Center and Winnetka Center) to the east and on the southwest corner of the property (Marquette Bank) and Norwest Bank to the west across ×ylon Avenue, Gethsemane Cemetery to the south, and city offices, swimming pool and fire station to the west of ×ylon Avenue Site Area: 620' x 935' (including Marquette Bank lot and city parking lot) = 555,000 square feet: 12.7 acres NOTE: This is the largest piece of commercial land within the City Center area. Building Area: 116,772 square feet (Kmart occupies 80% of building) Lot Area Ratios: Proposed site design will increase green areas slightly, to the following: Green Area 12 percent Building Area 21 percent Other 67 percent Planning District: No. 11; identifies the City Center as the commercial focal point of the City. The Kmart lot is identified as a potential redevelopment site, exhibiting: · disconnection from the two adjacent shopping centers · underdevelopment, with an excess of parking that detracts from the site's appearance; satellite retail or restaurant has been encouraged · partially vacant, leading to concern about the vitality of the commercial land use · a "redevelopment site," and · in need of maintenance. Planning Case Report Page 2 7/30/99 ~. Background Kmart built this building 'in 1971. No expansions or major remodeling have occurred, although they received City Council approval for a small internal "Deli" in 1991. At that time, staff had reached agreement with Kmart representatives on a revised parking lot plan with additional greenery, but the promised site work did not happen. Several years ago, Kmart was granted staff level temporary approval to try an outdoor seasonal sale of landscaping materials along 42nd Avenue. This has continued without any official CUP application and should be addressed in the future. In the last six months, $250,000 was spent to remodel the interior for their new "BIG K" changeover. Exterior building and site renovations are now proposed and include an arched front entry parapet, a revised lot-striping layout after asphalt repairs, landscaped islands within the parking lot, a five-foot sidewalk from Xylon Avenue to the front entry, and a revised access from 42n°Avenue. Marquette Bank was built at the southwest corner of this land in 1976 and the city parking lot in the southeast corner was built in approximately 1990. V, Petitioner's Comments The petitioner states in their correspondence that "Kmart seeks a variance to increase the size of its storefront sign only. All other signs, approved under two previous variances would remain unchanged including the presently vacant 152 square foot (4' x 38') area over the space previously occupied by Old America at the northerly end of the building. Please accept the following as an amendment of Kmart's previous application response to the necessary findings for a grant of variance. Unique Conditions: All retail operations seek to obtain optimum visibility from the predominant thoroughfare upon which they located. The subject property is unique in that its configuration, depth, and width allow building orientation towards the substantially smaller Xylon Avenue North. Any conventional layout for retail use of the subject property would be forced to comport to this building orientation which in turn dictates the location of storefront(s) and principal entrance(s) towards the lesser street. To further exacerbate the compromise in brand identification resulting from orientation, street trees within the parkways along both Xylon and 42nd Avenues have matured over the years providing an attractive view but effectively screening the building signs. Variance Purpose: The purpose of the subject variance is to obtain a storefront sign consistent with Kmart's nationwide effort to update its image. The change in name and trademark has been designed to signify Kmart's renewed commitment to high quality merchandise offered at everyday Iow prices and is taking place in several thousand stores nationwide with the completion of substantial in-store remodeling designed to highlight new product lines (Martha Stewart Living, Sesame Street kids clothing, among a few) and improve the overall shopping experience (wider aisles, convenience food items, electronic shopping, etc.). The addition of the "BIG" and swoop design element to the traditional "K" is intended to build upon Kmart's existing brand identification yet convey a clear message that Kmart has changed. This process of change is the same that any successful retail provider of goods or services must consider in order to remain successful over the long term as it evolves in order to remain competitive in a marketplace that is ever changing to meet evolving customer needs. This process is intrinsic to all businesses and is by no means based exclusively upon a desire to increase value or income potential of the business. Cause of Hardship: The arguments for hardship are three-fold. First - In order for the new style sign to have a total sign area equal to that of the existing Kmart sign, you would have to reduce the height of the existing 10-foot "K" element to less than six feet. The City's ordinance sets forth the process for determining a sign's area by multiplying the overall width of the sign's widest element by the overall height of the sign's tallest element. While "boxing of the Sign" is not unusual, it fails to take into account the voids within individual canister-type signs, serving to penalize Planning Case Report Page 3 7/30/99 the. use of this more expensive type sign over the more conventional, less costly, single-cabinet ,.. "lozenge" type sign. The voids within the proposed sign account for over 28 percent of the sign's area or in the case of the proposed sign. Second - The maturation of landscape, specifically street trees along both 42nd and Xylon Avenues, has come to effectively screen Kmart's storefront from both thoroughfares over the years since Kmart was constructed. Third - The proposed installation of landscaping along the principle drive aisles from both thoroughfares will only serve to further screen the storefront as well as balance of existing signage. Effect of Variance: With the granting of the proposed variance, the City will realize a significant investment of Kmart's part in the upgraded appearance of a prominent commercial property. This also serves as an opportunity for Kmart to address inadequacies associated with the signage and complete an upgrade of the store's exterior image concurrent with the roll-out of its new image program. In short, a grant of approval would result in the following: · An improvement to the general appearance of the immediate neighborhood · Improved pedestrian accessibility · Improved vehicular circulation It would appear that a grant of the proposed variance would be anything but detrimental to the public welfare, much less, injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood." VI, Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the request were notified for the June public hearing, at which time the application was tabled until this meeting. Staff has received no comments regarding this request. VII, Development Analysis A. ZoninR Code Variance 1. The purpose of a vadance is to permit relief from strict application of the Zoning Code where undue hardships prevent reasonable use of property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 2. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 3. Additional criteria to be used in considering requests for a variance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: A) Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. B) Light and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. C) Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. D) Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. E) Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. · Planning Case Report Page 4 7/30/99 , ~ Si.qn Code Variance 1. The New Hope Sign Code states that where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this section, the Planning Commission/City Council has the power to vary the requirements of this section in harmony with the general purpose and intent hereof, so that the public health, safety and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. When considering a variance, the Planning Commission/ City Council shall make a finding of fact and grant approval based upon the following conditions: A. Unique Conditions. That the conditions involved are unique to the particular parcel of land or use involved. B. Variation Purpose. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the business involved. C. Cause of Hardship. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Sign Code and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel. D. Effect of Variance. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements to the neighborhood. E. Impairment of Liqht and Air. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or interfere with the function of the police and fire departments of the City. F. Impairment of Police and Fire Functions. That the vadance will not impair or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or interfere with the function of the police and fire departments of the City. B. Development Review Team The team recommended changes to the submitted plans, as follows: · Reduce site lighting at north boundary to one footcandle maximum and submit revised illumination contours. · Add landscaping elements to break up the "sea-of-asphalt" look and a safe pedestrian route from Xylon Avenue to the Kmart front doors. · Reduce surplus parking by expanding the building or allowing one or two detached satellite retail or entertainment uses along the street frontages. Concern expressed about the 42nd Avenue rebuild underway without acquired easements. · City Engineer noted that Xylon Avenue curb cuts MAY be changed in the future. · Staff has encouraged a new ground sign on 42nd Avenue for some time. C. Design & Review Committee The Committee was supportive of the project and suggested: · Spend some funds/invest in property to improve exterior image. · Coordinate with City on location of driveways and potential satellite retail. · Add landscaping within parking lot to mitigate the oversized sign appearance. · Property is key piece in City Center area; Committee wants Kmart to stay and thrive with new expanded retail opportunities. · Communication with and conflicting messages from the many Kmart representatives ir{ the past has not been helpful and the City wants to work with Kmart to help improve the property. D. Plan Description As a result of the meetings, Kmart submitted revised plans that include the following details: Planning Case Report Page 5 7/30/99 · A new arched front entry treatment is proposed to soften the "big box" look and includes a n~. prefinished metal, coping and new E.I.F.S., which will have side returns. The existing metal coping will be painted. · The letters on the wall signage would be internally illuminated. The original plans submitted showed that the word "BIG" would be a blue color, the "K" will be red (with "mart" inserted into the K in white) and the swoop being a yellow/gold color. The other front wall signage is red in color and will remain. · A new ground sign for 42nd Avenue has been designed with matching arch (front entry), set back 10 feet from the lot line. The sign has space available for a future tenant. · A completely new parking lot layout, after asphalt seal coating, that includes both linear and island landscaping to channel customers into the Xylon driveway along a greenway drive up to the front door. The illustrated pedestrian sidewalk is a critical part of the plan to provide a safe access from the street. The illustrated parking lot design will improve pedestrian and traffic circulation on the site and is compliant with dimensional, surfacing, curbing, and striping standards. A very favorable component of the site plan is the provision of a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk that connects Xylon Avenue to the front entry of the building. · Total parking = 667 + 15 ADA spaces = 682 spaces. The tOtal parking ratio shown is 5.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet and exceeds the code ratio requirement of five spaces per 1,000 square feet. · Pedestrian crossing signs and striped crosswalk areas and handicap ramp are shown in front of the store, with a 35-foot drive aisle. · The plan illustrates loading dock areas at the rear of the building and sufficient space for truck maneuvering. · The following landscaping schedule has been provided: Quantity Name and Description 7 Green Mountain Sugar Maple (Acer Saccharum) 2.5" Cal. B&B 10 Patmore Ash (Fraxinus P. Patmore) 2.5" Cal. B&B 6 Profusion Crabapple (Malus Profusion) 2.0" Cal. B&B Ground Cover Fleece Flower (Polygonum Bistorta) As Required 23 new trees are proposed: 6 ornamental crabapples along 42nd Avenue, 10 ash (5 each side) within the long landscaped islands, and 7 maple in the smaller islands near the front of the building. The Planning Consultant states that the landscaping shown complies with type, quantity, and size standards. The notes on the plan state that "the drawing is to be utilized for city approval and contractor use in laying out pavement striping. A complete parking lot repair plan will be prepared for construction which will indicate approximate limits of patching and details. The entire lot will be seal coated and restriped." · The plan matches the 42nd Avenue rebuild that is underway, with a new drive 220 feet east of the existing, even though easement decisions from other property owners may force the original driveway to be re-used. Kmart wants to retain its Xylon Avenue driveway in its present location, with this investment. The Design & Review Committee felt the City could show some flexibility by Planning Case Report Page 6 7/30/99 changing its future Xylon center medians or city curb cuts to align with Kmart's new entry greenway. Kmart has agreed to coordinate with the City on the final location of all curb cuts. · Thirteen new parking lot light fixtures are proposed with reduced light spillage at the residential area to the north. The Planning Consultant states that the lighting plan provided illustrates that lighting spread is a maximum of one footcandle at the north property line, which has a residential use across the street. Seven floodlights are proposed to be directed toward the building facade. Proposed light fixtures that are not directed at the building are downcast. Existing light poles are to be used with the new fixtures. E. Planninq Considerations The Planning Consultant report states that Section 3.51 of the city code states that when considering a variance, the City Council shall make a finding of fact and grant approval based upon the following conditions: 3.511 Unique Conditions. That the conditions involved are unique to the particular parcel of/and or use involved. The applicant has argued that the subject property is unique in that its configuration, depth, and width allow a building orientation towards Xylon Avenue North rather than the substantially larger 42nd Avenue. This orientation limits visibility from the predominant thoroughfare. The applicant has also explained that mature street trees along both Xylon Avenue and 42nd Avenue screen building signs. Staff believe that this site is also unique because Kmart is the largest single retail facility in New Hope. The two Kmart walls that face public rights-of-way total 13,000 square feet in size without including the additional proposed parapet. The total proposed wall signage is 646 square feet, representing only five percent of the facade. The sign ordinance states that the total allowable sign area for a multiple occupancy structure shall not exceed 15 percent of the combined wall surfaces which abut streets in business or industrial zoning districts. The proposed signage fall far below this limit. Relating to the freestanding sign, if the building contained more than four tenants, the development could have two ground signs, each 200 square feet in size, or one ground sign 300 square feet in size. Stricter standards apply to Kmart because, although the building is as large as some shopping centers, it does not contain more than four tenants. The freestanding sign proposed by Kmart is approximately 125 square feet in size, which is far below the shopping center limit. 3.512 Variance Purpose. That the purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the business involved. The applicant wishes to renovate its store, including new signs, consistent with Kmart's nationwide effort to update its image. A commitment to improve the site has been demonstrated in the submitted plans. 3.513 Cause of Hardship. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Sign Code and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel. The applicant has argued that by determining the sign area based on the widest elements of the sign, the sign ordinance does not take into account the voids within the proposed wall sign and, therefore, exaggerates the degree of variance necessary. Regardless of whether voids are included in area calculations, the size of the proposed signs would require a variance. Also, the applicant feels a hardship has been created by screening of the storefront caused by the maturation of trees along 42nd and Xylon Avenues. The applicant also points out that plantings proposed in the site plan will further screen the storefront. Planning Case Report Page 7 7/30/99 3.514 Effect of Variance. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the pub,,~ welfare Or injurious to other land or improvements to the neighborhood. The variance has been requested in conjunction with building and site improvements that will improve the appearance of the building exterior, improve pedestrian accessibility, and improve vehicular circulation. The improvements are consistent with goals and policies stated in the Comprehensive Plan, including the following: Goal 1: Maintain and improve New Hope's commercial areas as vital retail and service locations. Policy D: Promote the redevelopment and expansion of existing businesses within the City to obtain a higher level of sales and business attraction. Goal 2: Redevelop commercial sites that display building deterioration, obsolete site design, land use compatibility issues and a high level of vacancies. Policy F: Commercial redevelopment efforts to promote site designs that provide safe and convenient pedestrian movement, including access for persons with disabilities. Policy G: Establish commercial building setbacks that.improve visibility, pedestrian access, and be sensitive to the streetscape in New Hope's commercial areas. F. Engineerinq Considerations The City Engineer has reviewed the site improvement plans and made the following comments: "The site plan provides for seal coating and restriping the existing parking lot. The two existing driveway accesses onto Xylon Avenue are not proposed to be relocated, while the existing driveway access onto 42nd Avenue is shown being relocated conforming to the 42nd Avenue Project. Landscaped center islands are proposed along the main access from Xylon Avenue in front of the Kmart building. From an engineering standpoint, the following are recommended for consideration: · The relocated driveway onto 42nd Avenue conforms with the 42nd Avenue Project and is based on New Hope Center and Kmart agreeing to a shared access. At this time, it does not appear that the two property owners will agree to a shared access. Therefore, if Kmart still wants to pursue relocating its driveway onto 42nd Avenue, then review by Hennepin County is required. The County review is required due to the fact that Kmart's new driveway will be located relatively. close to New Hope Center's existing westerly drive, adjacent to Applebees (which won't be relocated if the two property owners don't agree to the shared access). However, if Kmart does not want to relocate its existing driveway onto 42nd Avenue and finance its cost, then review by Hennepin County is not required and the existing driveway onto 42nd Avenue can remain. However, it should be noted, left turns in and out will not be permitted at the existing driveway due to the new center median construction in 42nd Avenue. · The two existing driveways onto Xylon Avenue conflict with the proposed center medians in Xylon Avenue, which were considered as part of the 42nd Avenue Project when Xylon Avenue and 45th Avenue were previously included. Therefore, if the Xylon Avenue Project is reconsidered in the future, one of the following options would be considered: · Remove center medians in Xylon Avenue, maintaining Kmart's existing driveway access. · Relocate Kmart's existing driveway to allow center medians in Xylon Avenue to be constructed. Attached is the approximate location for Kmart's driveway onto Xylon Avenue if they were to conform to the previous street design, which included center medians. It should be noted, presently the existing driveway access to City Hall and Kmart, near Kmart's north property line, are offset in the opposite direction for left turns. From an engineering standpoint, it is recommended that the two driveways align with each other. Planning Case Report Page 8 7130199 ~_~11. Summary Kmart has proposed site and building improvements consistent with Kmart's nationwide effort to update its image and consistent with the City's goals for commercial redevelopment. The new wall and pylon signage is an important component of the overall improvement that Kmart has proposed for this site. The Kmart site has unique conditions relating to lot configuration and building orientation and is unique in that it is the largest single retail facility in New Hope. The signage standards that apply to this development are more restrictive than those that would apply to a shopping center with more than four tenants, even if the shopping center building was smaller. The proposed wall signage represents only five percent of the wall facing public streets. Based on the information contained within this report, including a finding that the criteria for granting a variance have been met, the City recommends approval of a variance from signage standards to allow the implementation of the submitted sign, building, and site plans. Staff commends Kmart officials for their cooperation with the City during this process. XI. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow additional signage for the "BIG K" west wall, as illustrated in the submitted comprehensive sign plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building, landscaping and parking lot/lighting improvements be completed to balance the usual effect of an oversized sign. 2. Petitioner to enter into Development Agreement with City and post a financial guarantee (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official) to insure all improvements are completed. 3. Submit final parking lot repair plan to City for review/approval. 4. Coordinate with City on final location of curb cuts. If the 42nd Avenue project does not shift the driveway location, staff recommends a modest landscape area on the east side of the existing driveway and several ash trees, as illustrated on the Building Official's exhibit. 5. Application by Kmart in the next nine months for a conditional use permit to allow seasonal plant sales, so that an approved CUP is in place for spring/summer 2000. Attachments: 6/1/99 Planning Commission Minutes re: Kmart 6/3/99 City Correspondence to Kmart 7/6/99 Kmart Correspondence to City re: 120-Day Waiver 7/18/99 Kmart Correspondence to City re: Sign Variance Criteria Zoning/Address/'ropo Maps Revised Sign Plan Front Elevations Mounting Detail Canopy Plan Detail Pylon Sign Parking Lot Lighting Photometric Data Luminaire Schedule/Notes Location of Parking Lot Lights Planner's Report Site Plan City Engineer Report General Notes Building Official Attachment Site Data Application Log Landscape Schedule Planning Case Report Page 9 7/30/99 CITY OF NEW HOPE ~-~ 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 1, 1999 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Cameron, Green, Landy, Oelkers, Sonsin, Svendsen Absent: Hemken, Kramer Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Phil Kern, Administrative Assistant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary OATH OF OFFICE Mr. McDonald administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed Commissioner Green and welcomed her to the Planning Commission. CONSENT.BUSlI~..S~S There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC99-01 ~ Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Item 5.1 / Variance to the Requirement Pertaining to Maximum Size and Number of ~J Wall Signs and to Allow a Larger Size and Number of Wall Signs Than ...... Permitted by the Sign Code, 4300 Xylon Avenue North, Kmart/All Brite Sign, Inc./Master LP Associates Limited Partnership, Petitioners Mr. Brixius stated that the petitioner was requesting an enlargement of the Kmart sign from the current large K to adding the word BIG with a swoop underneath the BIG. The increase in the front sign size would expand the existing logo from 126 square feet to a 300 square foot sign. Additional signage on the site included a Pharmacy sign, Garden Shop sign, and Penske Auto Service sign, which were previously approved by variance. The number of signs and the size requirements exceed what is allowed in the Sign Code. The request was to retain all existing signs and add the swoop and BIG to the front side of the building along XyIon Avenue. The area is zoned B-4. The total allowable wall sign area for a multiple occupancy structure, per the Sign Code, should not exceed 15 percent of the combined wall surfaces on walls abutting streets. Individual tenant signs should not exceed 100 square feet. Past approvals of variances have validated the existing sign locations and sizes. Brixius reported that after reviewing the proposed variance, consultants and staff found the request must prove that conditions involved were unique to the site, that the variance would not increase the value or income potential of the business, that the cause for hardship was not caused or created by the business in the property, that the variance would not be detrimental to the welfare to other land or improvements in the neighborhood, that there would be no impairment to light and air to adjacent property, and that there would be no impairment or interference with the function of the police and fire departments in the City. Brixius maintained that there were not unique conditions that justified an increase in signage. Conditions had not changed with regard to building Planning Commission Meeting I June 1, 1999 orientation, lot size;: tOPography, vegetations or traffic patterns. The - · purpose of the variance was an upgrade and change of image for Kmart and was merely a marketing strategy from the corporate office. No argument had been presented demonstrating hardship by the applicant as far as overall need for the variance. Approving the variance outside of a major renovation may be detrimental on the basis of ongoing conditions. Approval of this sign variance without demonstrated hardship would raise issue as far as precedent in the application of the Sign Code. No conditions or hardship were related police or fire functions. Brixius stated that a letter had been submitted from EBL&S Property Management indicating that additional improvements were anticipated to be undertaken in the amount of $100,0OO for parking lot improvements and fascia. However, the City had not received any specific plans or development applications related to those improvements. 'Brixius maintained tha! city staff did not find a hardship that warranted an expansion of the sign. Two options are available for the Planning Commission to consider. First, denial on the basis that hardship is not present; second, table for one month to give the petitioner opportunity to provide additional information regarding hardship and providing additional information relating to the proposed exterior improvements. Dennis Reinhardt, New Hope store manager, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. Commissioner Svendsen asked Reinhardt which of the two options presented was agreeable to Kmart. Reinhardt stated that he was a representative of the store, but could not make any decisions for the corporation. Reinhardt stated that it was his opinion that tabling the planning case would be the best option so that the corporation, could present the additional information the City desired. The only official word regarding improvements Reinhardt was aware of was what was outlined in the correspondence from EBL&S Property Management. ' Svendsen reiterated information from the Design & Review Committee meeting by saying that the initial change would be to remove the striping on the mansard and add the word BIG and a swoop. Reinhardt interjected that the entire mansard would be repainted. The pylon sign at the entrance off of 42~ Avenue would be upgraded to show the new logo. Svendsen confirmed that improvements to the inside of the store included the expansion of pantry/grocery merchandise, realigning the rest of the store, and upgrading the fix~ures/painting/signage for a brighter, cleaner look. Reinhard~ added that the interior construction was nearly complete. Kmar~ had a lO-year lease for the entire building and would sublet the vacant Old America space. Svendsen proposed a question to the City Attorney whether the exterior upgrade could be attached as a condition of the variance. Sondrall replied that there should be an establishment of a nexus between the variance and the requested improvements. For example, plans should show that the exterior improvements would soften the aesthetics of the signage to allow the whole thing to blend together as an overall plan rather than just a signage plan. Svendsen asked for clarification that the existing pharmacy, garden shop, and Penske Auto signs would remain, and this was confirmed. Svendsen added that another sign would need to be installed when the vacant Old Planning Commission Meeting 2 June 1, 1999 America space was sublet, Commissioner Cameron asked what tabling action for one month would do to Kmart's schedule. Reinhardt stated that the grand re-opening was scheduled for June 11 so unless the request was approved by the Planning Commission at this meeting the Word BIG and swoop would not be installed before the grand re-opening. It was noted that the City Council meeting would not be held until June 14. Cameron questioned what improvements would be made with the $100,000 quoted in the correspondence from EBL&S Property Managers. Reinhardt replied that he did not know what improvements would be made, other than what was stated in the correspondence, nor did he have any time frame for the improvements. Chairman Sonsin pointed out that promises had been made in past years for improvements to the property and no significant improvements had ever been made. Sonsin stated he supported tabling the request until a firm plan was submitted to the City for exterior improvements. He emphasized that a corporate representative should be at the next meeting who has the authority to answer questions from the Commission. Sonsin maintained that the City would be looking for not orlly resurfacing and restriping the parking lot, but some other redevelopment of an under- utilized site. The City Attorney reminded the Commission that Kmart needed to address the issues mentioned in the Planner's report concerning the conditions and objectives for a variance. The site improvements alone were not a condition of the variance. The Planning Commission and City Council could deny the request if the conditions for a variance were not met, which would be justified by findings. Svendsen pointed out that a third option would be to do nothing and let the existing variances stand. Brixius responded that Kmart would then need to comply with the existing variances as previously approved. The ' new sign would need to be downsized to stay within the previous variance. Another option may be. to amend Kmart's comprehensive sign plan by eliminating the pharmacy or garden shop sign and incorporating that square footage into the BIG and swoop portion of the sign. Brixius emphasized that if this application would be tabled that additional correspondence should include indication that Kmart would stay within the approved variance for the vacant Old America space. It would be difficult to approach the Commission at a later date with the need for additional signage when that space was sublet. Included in future correspondence should be Kmart's opinion as to what justifies the, hardship; why a larger sign was warranted, and a basis for granting approval of the request. Commissioner Anderson wondered whether there Would be any other options for the sign. Reinhardt responded that corporate would need to explore that option, but no other plan had been presented at this time. Sonsin pointed out that the current variances are for square footage and not content related. The BIG and swoop could be installed utilizing the existing variance, therefore, no other variance would be required. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to Item 5.1 table for two months until August 3, 1999, Planning Case 99-01, Request for a Variance to the Requirement Pertaining to Maximum Size and Planning Commission Meeting 3 June 1, 1999 Number of Wall signaand to Allow a Larger Size and Number of Wall Signs Than Permitted by the Sign Code, 4300 Xylon Avenue North, Kmart/All Brite Sign, Inc./Master LP A~aociatea Umitod Partnership, Petitioners. Discussion ensued regarding the 120-day time limitation. Sondrall requested that a letter from Kmart's corporate department should be submitted waiving the 120-day limitation. Voting in favor: Anderson, Cameron, Green, Landy, Oelkers, Sonsin, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Hemken, Kramer Motion carried. Sonsin pointed out that revised plans would need to be submitted to the City and the applicant must meet with the Design & Review Committee prior to the July or August Planning Commission meeting. PC98-16 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Consideration of An Item 5.2 Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035 by Reducing the Lot Area Size Requirement for Two Family Dwellings, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that staff was recommending that this ordinance be referred to the new Zoning Code Update Committee. Sonsin added that the City Council reviewed the ordinance amendment and felt there were too many non-conforming lots in the City and referred the issue back to the Codes & Standards Committee. The Committee discussed the issue at its last meeting and was recommending that the new Zoning Code Update Committee review the matter. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to Item 5.2 refer to the Zoning Code Update Committee Planning Case 98-16, Request for Consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035 by Reducing the Lot Area Size Requirement for Two Family Dwellings, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor: Anderson, Cameron, Green, Landy, Oelkers, Sonsin, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Hemken, Kramer Motion carried. PC99-04 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Consideration of An Item 5.3 Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code by Increasing Area Limitation for Signage Fronting on Freeways, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald reported that at the time the Sign Code was updated in 1998 there was one omission. The old Sign Code allowed 200 square feet of signage for business along Highway 169. This portion of the code was overlooked with the new Sign Code and stated that signage should be 100 square feet. This amendment increases the'area for signage along Highway 169 to 200 square feet so that it is consistent with the previous code. Planning Commission Meeting 4 June 1, 1999 4401Xylon Avenue North City Hall:' 612-531-5100 City Hall Fax: 612.5~,-~136 · 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 June 3,1999 Mr. Edward Lipkin Mr. Dennis Reinhardt Mr. Kevin Gillette EBL&S Development Corp. Kmart All Brite Sign, Inc. 230 S. Broad St., Mezzannine 4300 Xylon Avenue North 5223 Lakeland Avenue North Philadelphia, PA 19102 New Hope, MN 55428 Crystal, MN 55429 Subject: Sign Code Variance Application Dear Messrs. Lipkin, Reinhardt and Gillette: As you are aware, at the June 1 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission tabled your request for a vadance to the Sign Code, per your recommendation, for two months to the August 3 Planning Commission meeting. This tabling should allow sufficient time to address the Sign Code issues that were discussed at the meeting as well as submitting complete parking lot improvement plans. The Planning Commission indicated that they were inclined to deny the variance and encouraged Kmart to do three things: 1. If you want to proceed with the original sign plan, you should address the attached criteria in the Sign Code and justify a hardship. 2. Consider reducing the size of the sign request and work within the parameters of the variances previously granted. 3. Present a detailed plan for parking lot and/or other site/exterior building improvements with the intention that the additional improvements would soften the impact of an over-sized sign on the site. Per the attached Planning Schedule, if Kmart desires to attend the July 6 Planning Commission meeting, Kmart would need to address these issues and submit parking lot plans and/or a narrative response by June 11 and attend the June 17 Design & Review Committee meeting. For the August 3 Planning Commission meeting, plans and/or narrative would need to be submitted by July 9 and attendance at the July 15 Design & Review Committee meeting would be required. If you intend to wait until the August Planning Commission meeting, you should send correspondence to the City stating that Kmart is waiving the 120-day application time limitation pdor to July 6, otherwise the City will have no alternative but to place the matter on the July agenda. Please see the excerpt from the Zoning Code for more information. The Planning Commission has requested that someone from the Kmart corporate office be in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting who has the authority to speak for the corporation. Family Styled City ~ For Family Living Messrs. Lipkin, Reinhardt, and Gillette Page 2 June 3, 1999 If you have any questions prior to that time, please contact me at 612-531-5119. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Director of Community Development Enclosures: Planning Commission Schedule Excerpts of Sign Code Excerpts from the Zoning Code cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Doug Sandstad, Building Official Planning Case File 99-01 -FANCTIER DEPT~LOP~NT ,~'ER VICE_v. July 6, 1999 VIA FACSrMR,E TRANS! ~TTAL · REGULAR. MAIL : City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN $5428-48!~8 Attn: ,Kirk McDonald, D~ ctor of Community Development Kmart #3045 $i~n Variance APl dicatim! Dear Mr. McDonald Pursuant to our convcrsatio a last week, I nm pleas~ to advise that I believe w~ will be able to work out the issues in ~onnection with K mart's application for a variance from your sign code. Please accept this letter as ~ .otice of Kman's iment to waive the'statutory 120-day application resl~nse limit in order that we may s ~bmit aH the ~ry materiah to the city for the August Planning Commi~ion meeting. Please do not he~itate in co~tacting me at (714) 258-~808 with any questions. E 'LOPMI~NT$~RFICF~ V. E. Love I$42 M A*'e .m~ Sult* $.~. ?us~i~ Coliforni~ 927~. (/14) 2,M-l g~. FAX ("/I,0 2~-24~1 ~ct W1:;c~S:88 666~ LO 'Ini' ~'~'~L : 'ON ~ S~]3If'~I~S ~ ~I:~H31~-t : WO~-~ FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SER VICES, INC. l. and~D~tloprn~nt Comultant~ July 18, 1999 Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director City of New Hope Department of Community Development 4402 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 554284898 Re: Kmart Sign Variance Your File No. 131.01 - 99.02 Dear Mr. McDonald: Pursuant to our conversations over the past few weeks, i am pleased to submit the following for your consideration in connection with Kman's above referenced application for sign variance. Kmart seeks a variance to increase the size of its storefront sign only. All other signs, approved under two (2) previous variances, would remain unchanged, including the presently vacant 156 square foot (4'x 38') area over the space previously occupied by Old America space at the northerly end of the building. Please accept the follo~ving as an an~endment of Kmart's previous application response to the necessary findings for a grant of variance. Unique Conditions: All retail operations seek to obtain optimum visibility from the predominant thoroughfare upon which they located. The subject properts.' is unique in that it's configuration, depth and width, allow a building orientation towards the substantially smaller Xylon Avenue North. Any conventional layout for retail use of the subject property would be forced to comport to this building orientation which in turn dictates the location of storefront(s) and principle entrance(s) towards the lesser street. To further exacerbate the compromise in brand identification resulting from orientation, street trees within the parkways along both Xylon mad 42"d Avenues have matured over the years providing an attractive view but effectively screening the building signs. Variance Purpose: The purpose of the subject variance is to obtain a storefront sign consistent with Kmart's nationwide effort to update its image. The change m name and trademark has been designed to Signify Kmart's renewed commitment to high quality merchandise offered at everyday low prices and is taking place in several thousand stores nationwide with the completion of substantial in-store remodeling designed to highlight new product lines (Martha Stewart Living, Sesame Street ki.is clothing, among a few) and improve thc overall shopping experience (wider aisles, convenience food items, electronic shopping, etc.). l$42 Bell Avenue. Suite SK. Tustin. California 92780. (714)258-180#. F.4X (714) 258-2401 Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director July 18, 1999. Page 2 of 3 The addition of the "BIG" and sxvoop design element to the traditional "K" is intended to build- upon Kmart's existing brand identification yet convey a clear message that Kmart has changed. This process of change is the same that any successful retail provider of goods or services must consider in order to remain successful over the long term as it evolves in order to remain' competitive in a marketplace that is ever changing to meet evolving customer needs. This · process is intrinsic to all businesses and is by no means based exclusively upon a desire to increase value or income potential of the business. Cause qfHardship: The arguments for hardship are three-fold. First - In order for the new style sign to have a total sign area equal to that of the existing Kmart sign, you would have to reduce the height of the existing 10'-"K" element to less than 6'. The city's ordinance sets forth the process for determining a sign's area' by multiplying the overall width of the sign's widest element by thc overall height of the sign's tallest element. While "boxing of the sign" is not unusual, it fails to take into account the voids within individual canister-type signs, serving to penalize the use of this more expensive type sign over the more conventional, less costly, single-cabinet or "lozenge" type sign. The voids within the proposed sign account for over 28% of the signs area or in the case of the proposed sign Second - The maturation of landscape, specifically street trees along both 42~a and Xylon Avenues has come to effectively screen Kmart's storefront from both thoroughfares over the years since Kmart was constructed. Third - The proposed installation of landscaping along the principle drive-aisles from both thoroughfares will only serve to further screen the storefront as well as balance of existing signage. Effect of Variance: With' the granting of the proposed variance, the city will realize a significant investment of Kmart's part in the upgraded appearance of a prominent commercial property. This also serves as an opportunity for Kmart to address inadequacies associated with the signage and complete an upgrade of the store's exterior image concurrent with the r011-out of it's new image program. In short, a grant of approval would result in the following: · An improvement to the general appearance of the immediate neighborhood · Improved pedestrian accessibility · Improved vehicular circulation It would appear that a grant of thc proposed variance would be anything but detrimental to the public welfare, much less, injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director July 18, 1999 Page 3 of 3 I would like to take this opportunity to ti,ank.you, Doug Sanstcd. members of the City Staff and the Planning Commission for their patience and efforts to get this matter resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Please do not hesitate in contacting me at (714) 258-1808 with any questions or concerns. I look forward tO meeting you in person before the Planning Commission hearing nex-t month. Sincerely, xc: V.E. Love Mike Theiscn Richard Moore Gerald Dykstra Frank Schuster i ZONING DI I-1 CHURGH 50~H AVE N OF ~'~'~.. ~' ~ /' /~:' R-2 Single an~ ~ R-3 Medium E . ~ 48Th ~VE Z a~TH AV~ N '48T~ o,. - R-2 ¢ COOPER ~VE N HO...o. ~ ~,~HSOHOO. ...... ~' ~ -" [ R 4 High Den HOPE 5 HIGHViEW 47~AVE N '~ ~ ....... ~ R-5 "Senior/I R- t NEW HOPE DEL DR < ~ z ELEMENTARY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o,oo. ...... ~ ~ ~". ~n,.~.._ Residenti : '2 R'4~ ~ ~-~ Umito0 N -~ B 2 Retail Bu ~.T.- ~- ' ~ R-1 _ ' R-0 ~ . ,~ ~o~o.~, ~ B-3 Auto erie -"~ ' ' ..... ~ B 4 Commun .... - ~I-1 Limited -- .:: - +:. t I-2 General Ir ~ o~~ '- ~ Op Sp 4.~T~'I' ~ AV~ N ......................... ~'"'~3 ~"'~'~'~'~ ', ~ . ~~ ~ I i~L~, - , ., , , ~ . . ' .......~"'~"-~--~ ........ r-'-'. ............. ?, ........ · . ~ ff,~ ~.~.~ ..... ~ ...... O00PER . ~1 ~ ~ ,~ I : , · , ~ ~ -'~ ' OH SC ................................... i ~-~'] :"~i-]'~f~'i ~'~r~"~".~"~l SUNNYSII ] F ....... ~ .......s ~ ..... ~ .......': )".. /~'". /t... ,'~ x ~ ' ~ ~*~*~, ,~,~,~ ~ '-- ~ ~' ~ .... ~ ~ 'r 1 PARK . ! : ......... ~ ......... ~ ~ .......... ~ ..... ~ ~ ~~t~ 'wi ~ - i .......... ...... .."' .......................................... "---,. , ~ A~ ~' .......................... ~ ....... : ........................... I ............... ~ ' ' ..... ~ ............................ "'~: ' ~"~'~ ~ T~" ' -NTARY ~'~ )L : '~~m ~'-'~ .-"-;s ....... I~,~ '~'~' ~ --- .' ~ ~.~,~: ........... ........ ; i ~ ......... ~.:- , ~ ~., .......... ,. ~ ~,. =.~-~. .~ .~,..,..~,~ g~g.~,,~,~ ........ ... ~, '-';"&'-'~-" 'r"'~l IZ' ....... ............... "~~ -"'' ~ .....' ~- :' ~' ~" '~ "-'' '~'" ~, ~.' ....................... ICE~E ~ . - ~ ,sm ~ ........................................................ .-.. ,,.' ............. .... :, .................................... ........... - .. ........................... HALL ~.-.-.~ POOL zi . FIRE STATION : ~ L ........... ': ~ ~-~ ........ ~ ........... ~ _._ .. _'-"" ----------.-.--,~._ ..:._ ~.~ ,~, ............... : ................. - ........ ,. .............. . ..................... PROPOSPD SIGNAG~ - :~65 S.~. ~XISTING' SIGNA~ - 126 S,~, FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16' = t-O" I~XISTING 5IGNAGE - 72 $.1= EXISTING 5IGNAG~: - 57 $,1=. ~ - NOTE: SOUTH ELEVATION PENSKE AUTO SIGNAGE - 150 ~.1=. {TO REMAIN UNCHANGED} EXISTING $IGNAGF' - 152. ~.1=. I l' NEW .. ~ -- PREP IN, MF=TAL COPING ,;~ ..! u~w ~---~;~,~-~<.~ \ / -'7"-,.~ ,. .. ,.i.~.~. \ ~'"' X\ / /, / ~ ,, ~ ~XISTING CONSTRUCTION ~' tO ~ EN~RGED FRONT ELEVATION ~ ~ALE: 1/8' = 1'-~ I INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED ~ ~LOURE$CENT LIGHTS, TWO CIRCUITS REQUIRED ~ ,, , / ~ 1/2" x 1 1/2" 15OLTS AND WASHERS ('4.) 5/8" x 5 1/2sI EXPANDING ANCHOR RACEWAY- ESOLTS AND WASHERS {HILT! OR EPOXY TYPE PER UISC) 1/2" E.M.T, .KING EUILDING SIGN 'WP CONNECTOR WALL LETTER HOOK~ UP TO BALLAST x 3" x 1/4" ALUMINUM ANGLE IRONS PER LETTER NOTE: ON A TILT-UP SIGN FASTNER' TO E~E 1/2" EXPANDING ANCHORS TYPICAL MOUNTING DETAIL NO SCALE 115 IDE~. V.I,F. EXIST. ~.~ I II~: BT' OTI-IEf~. PAINT ,... NOTE I I CENTER LIGNT ON j j 5~JF:M:::'ORT ~,T MID ;5PAN , · REI"~TE I~N.LA,ST ~N [tJ~TERPROC~ ENCL. ~ITW 3/4" ~ CCNDU1T IJJITW 2 fl2 TO NOTE 2 f2Cv' C1RC~T ~A T.5.~. 3/4' 5F, ALTITE ~[JIT i 3/.4" ~UIT ~~ -r~ SECTION PARTIAL C. ANOP'T' PL~N'DET,AIL C,N',tOPT NOTES: L E.C,. ,SI-IALL DI~CT EXISTING K~ART 51¢.~ ~ ,~tALL A,~ ~EQUIEED. IF ADDITIONAL CIRCUITS ARE II~I:;IglRED, ~. ~:. ~.L ~ c~cu~ ~ ~ r<~ L~.~¢.... ~.:-'!~.. :~:~._ .? ::i':~)' EZPS CAP 100 S.F. INTERNALLY I'LLUMINAT~D SIGN P~CAST CAP' PROPOSFD PYLON $1~N NO SCALE · NCTE~ '~ .... I. EXI~Tft~ Clfi~I:2:UIT5 AI~ FEI::) F:~-~'I C,4:)NTti~LLEI::) POt~'I'ION OF P~tEL LP-N E.(2. 514~LL ~1~ ~ IN~T~LL ~O~LI~T~ ~ CIRCUIT5 ~ FL~LI~T~ 5~L BE FE~ ~ T~E LUMIN E T~ ~lCS ~EDE~ 5N~LL DE 3 ~ '1 ~ ~D ~N ~ BT ~A~ FIELD ~~T~TI~. E.C. ~L '~RIFT IF EXISTI~ ~EDE~ ~ A ~D ~t~ ~TTOALL ~LES. IF~TOO NOT, A~G~~I~ILL ~A~ TO~E ~D ~HEO dCA~ ~LDED) J~T INSIDE ~ THE 4. IN-LINE ~1~ 5H~LL ~E I~T~LED IN E~CH POLE JUST INSIOE THE H~D~LE F~ EAC~ CIR~IT 5. EXISTt~ ~OLES, ~O CIRCUITI~ ~ ~ TO ~AIN. ELECTRICAL C~TACTOR ~ALL ~O~ EXISTI~ L~IN~I~5 ~ND FU~IS~ ~ND INST~LL NE~ ~IT5 ~5 INDICATED IN L~IN~I~ ~REDULE ~ITR NECE55ART B~TS. LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE SYMBOL TYPE QTY LUMINAIRE QTY ~ B 9 GBR-5-1OOO-MHR-CT. 18 m. C 4- GBR-2-1000-MHR-CT 4 ~ D 7 0FL-WB-IOOO-MH-F 7 *THE LUMINAIRES SHALL BE PURCHASED FROM WLS. LIGHTING SYSTEMS, P.O. BOX 100519, FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76185. PHONE: 1-800-6..53-8711 FAX: 1-187-735-4824- ~UL-~-1999 ~98:~ N~C 612 595 98~ P.14 JUL-~-1999 88:46 NAC 61~ 595 983? P.15 . JUL-~7-99 TUE 08:56 AM PROF BO RSSOC FAX NO, I 24B BBB 1044 ?, 02/02 il GENERAL NOTES: 1) THE FOLLOWING REFERENCE DRAWINGS WERE UTIUZED TO COMPLETE THIS DRAWING. A) RICHARD I_ BOWENS AND ASSOCIATES; GRADING PLAN, UTlUTY PLAN, ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN, SITE PLAN, AU. DATED 11-24-71. B) RAMSEY COUNTY, 42nd AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PLANS, CITY OF NEW HOPE, COVER SHEET, EASEMENT SKETCHES, LANDSCAPE PLAN &: DETAILS, CURB AND GUTTER PLAN DATED 1-25-99. C) EXHIBIT B DOCUMENT, KMART CORPORATION, DATED 12--21--71, REV. DATE 2-21-72. 2) THIS DRAWING IS TO BE UTlUZED FOR CITY APPROVAL AND CONTRACTOR USE IN LAYING OUT PAVEMENT STRIPING. A COMPLETE PARKING LOT REPAIR PLAN WILL BE PREPARED FOR CONSTRUCTION WHICH WILL INDICATE APPROXIMATE UMITS OF PATCHING AND DETAILS. THE ENTIRE LOT WILL BE SEAL COATED AND RESTRIPED. 3) THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED UTIUZING THE USTED REFERENCE DRAWINGS AND A SITE VISIT. THE DRAWING WAS NOT PREPARED FROM AN ENGINEERING SURVEY. WHEN THE CONTRACTOR COMPLETES THE STRIPING LAYOUT AND FINDS ANY DISCREPANCIES IN DIMENSIONS, HE SHALL INFORM THE ENGINEER. EXISTING TREi (Tm.) XYLON AVENUE (66' R.O.W.) (3 LANES) SITE DATA TABLE KMART STORE AREA: 94,500 S.F. VACANT STORE AREA: 22,272 S.F. TOTAL SHOPPING CENTER BUILDING AREA: 116,772 S.F. TOTAL PARKING: 667 SPACES + 15 HC SPACES -- 682 SPACES TOTAL PARKING RATIO: 5.8 SP/IO00 S.F. KMART PARKING RATIO REQUIREMENT: 5.0 SP/IO00 S.F. I REGRADE AREA AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE WALKING ROUTE TREE AND GROUND COVER LEGEND SYMBOL QUANTITY NAME AND DESCRIPTION GREEN MOUNTAIN SUGAR MAPLE ~ 7 (ACER SACCHARUM) 2.5' CAL.-B&B PATMORE ASH (~ 10 (FRAXINUS P. PATMORE) 2.5" CAL.-B&:B PROFUSION CRABAPPLE I~ 6 (MALUS PROFUSION) 2.0" CAL.-B&B I GROUND COVER FLEECE FLOWER (AS REQUIRED) (POLYGONUM BISTORTA) JUL-28-1999 ~8: ~ h~C 61~ 595 9839 P. 05 ~ ~ A~NNINO - DE~I~N - NIA~KE:T RIESEARE:H PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Cynthia Putz-Yang I Alan Brixius DATE: July 28, 1999 RE: New Hope - Kmart Sign Variance FILE NO.: 131.01 - 99.02 BACKGROUND The Kmart at 4300 Xylon North is requesting a variance to allow additional wall signage on the Kmart facade and a replacement pylon sign along 42"~ Avenue. This request was heard by the Planning Commission at its June 1 meeting. The Planning Commission decided at that time to allow Kmart additional time to submit plans illustrating site and building improvements. This report includes analysis of the newly submitted site and building plans, as well as discussion of proposed and existing signage and criteria for a variance. The building that contains Kmart also contains a related business, Penske Auto Service, as well as a vacant bay formerly occupied by Old Amedca. The bUilding fronts Xylon Avenue and 42r~ Avenue (Rockford Road). Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B -Site Plan Exhibit C - Comprehensive Sign Plan Exhibit D - Lighting Plan and Light Fixture Details Exhibit E - July 18 Letter from Fancher Development Services, Inc. RECOMMENDATION Based on the information contained within this report, including a finding that the criteria for granting a variance have been met, we recommend approval of the variance request to allowadditional signage as illustrated in the submitted comprehensive sign plan with the condition that site improvements be completed as illustrated in the submitted building and site plans and the developer enter into a development agreement with the City and post securities to ensure completion of the project. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST, LOUIS PARK. iVlINNESOTA 5541 PHONE 612-595-963~ FAX 612-B~J~-9837 E-MAIL NAC~WINTeRNET.COM JUL-28-1999 08:42 NAC Gl2 595 98~? P.06 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Renovations. Interior remodeling was completed recently at a value of approximately $200,000. Exterior building and site renovations are now proposed and include an arched front entry parapet, a revised lot-striping layout after asphalt repairs, landscaped islands within the parking lot, a five-foot sidewalk from Xylon Avenue to the front entry, and a revised access from 42"~ Avenue. Site Plan, The illustrated parking lot design will improve pedestrian and traffic circulation on the site and is compliant with dimensional, surfacing, curbing, and striping standards. The access on 42n~ Street has been moved further east to be consistent with County improvement plans. The site plan illustrates loading dock areas at the rear of the building and suffioient space for truck maneuvering. The landscaping shown complies with type, quantity, and size standa~s. The lighting plan provided illustrates that lighting spread is a maximum of one footcandle at the north property line, which has a residential use across the street. Seven floodlights are proposed to be directed toward the building facade. Proposed light fixtures that are not directed at the building are downcast. Existing light poles are to be used with the new fixtures. A very favorable component of the site plan is the provision ora five-foot wide concrete sidewalk that connects Xylon Avenue to the front entry of building. Allowed Wall ~Signage. The building is a multiple occupancy building because it contains space for more than one business. The Sign Ordinance states that the total allowable wall sign area for a multiple occupancy structure shall not exceed 15 percent of the combined wall surfaces on walls which abut streets in business or industrial zoning districts. No individual tenant identification sign may exceed 100 square feet in area. A tenant occupying a comer location fronting on two street may display identification signs to both street frontages. Allowed Freestanding $ignage, A multiple occupancy building having four or less separate and distinct occupancies may erect one freestanding sign not exceeding 100 square feet in area or 30 feet in height. The sign may identify each separate and distinct occupancy. Existing $ignage. The Kmart portion of the building has the following existing wall signs that total 407 square feet in area and exist as curt'ant variances: · A Kmart logo sign 126 square feet in size. - A Pharmacy sign 57 square feet in size. · A Garden Shop sign 72 square feet in size. · A Penske Auto Service sign 152 square feet in size. Kmart also has a freestanding sign along 42~ Avenue that is 16 square feet and compiles J-1_~_-28-19E~_~ ~:,4~ ~ GI~ 595 98~? P. ~ with freestandir~ sign standards. The existing Kmart signs were approved as previous variances, and as such, flexibility has already been granted beyond Ordinance standards. Proposed Signage. The following signage is proposed for the Kmart portion of the building: · Adding "BIG' and a swoop to the Kmart logo sign would increase the area of the sign to 365 square feet. - A Pharmacy sign 57 square feet in size is to remain. · A Garden Shop sign 72 square feet in size is to remain. · A Penske Auto Service sign 152 square feet in size is to remain. · A replacement pylon sign containing a 100 square foot, internally illuminated Kmart sign and a sign that is approximately 25 square feet in size for a future tenant. The total square footage of the Kmart wall signs is proposed to be 646 square feet, creating a greater amount of non-conformity with square footage requirements than exists currently. This significantly exceeds the 100 foot maximum wall sign square footage requirement for businesses in multi-tenant buildings. It also exceeds the 250 foot maximum wall sign square footage for an individual business establishment. The vacant tenant bay formerly occupied by Old America will also require additional signage if a new tenant is found. Kmart has no plans to expand into this space. The proposed pylon sign exceeds the 100 square foot maximum standard by providing a total of approximately 125 square feet of signage, including a future tenant sign. Variance. Section 3.51 of the City Code states that when considering a variance, the City Council shall make a finding of fact and grant approval based upon the following conditions: 3.511 Unioue_Conditions. That the conditions involved are unique to the parb'cular parcel of land or use involved. The applicant has argued that the subject property is unique in that it's configuration, depth, and width allow a building orientation towards Xylon Avenue North rather than the substantially larger 42"~ Avenue. This orientation limits visibility from the predominant thoroughfare. The applicant has also explained that mature street trees along both Xylon Avenue and 42"4 Avenue screen building signs. Staff believes that this site is also unique because Kmart is the largest single retail facility in New Hope. The two Kmart walls that face public rights, of-way total 13,000 3 JUL-28-1999 08:43 NAC ~12 595 985~ P. ~ square feet in size without including the additional proposed parapet. The total proposed wall signage is 646 square feet, representing only five percent of the facade. The Sign Ordinance states that the total allowable sign area for a multiple occupancy structure shall not exceed 15 percent of the combined wall surfaces which abut streets in business or industrial zoning districts. The proposed signage fall far below this limit. Relating to the freestanding sign, if the building contained more than four tenants, the development could have two ground signs, each 200 square feet in size, or one ground sign 300 square feet in size. Stricter standards apply to Kmart because although the building is as large as some shopping centers, it does not contain more than four tenants. The freestanding sign proposed by Kmart is approximately 125 square feet in size, which is far below the shopping center limit. 3.512 Variance Pumose. That the purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the business involved. The applicant wishes to renovate its store, including new signs, consistent with Kmart's nationwide effort to update its image. A commitment to improve the site has been demonstrated in the submitted plans. 3.513 Cause of Hardshio. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Sign Code and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel. The applicant has argued that by determining the sign area based on the widest elements of the sign, the sign ordinance does not take into account the voids within the proposed wall sign and, therefore, exaggerates the degree of variance necessary. Regardless of whether voids are included in area calculations, the size of the proposed signs would require a variance. Also, the applicant feels a hardship has been created by screening of the storefront caused by the maturation oftreas along 42~ and Xylon Avenues. The applicant also points out that plantings proposed in the site plan will further screen the storefront. 3. 514 Effect of Varis__.nce. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements to the neighborhood. The vadance has been requested in conjunction with building and site improvements that will improve the appearance of the building exterior, improve pedestrian accessibility, and improve vehicular circulation. The improvements are consistent with goals and policies stated in the Comprehensive Plan including the following: 4 JUL-28~1999 08:4B NAC 612 595 983? P.09 Commercial Goals Goal I: Maintain end improve New Hope's commercial areas as vital retail and service locations. Policy D: Promote the redevelopment and expansion of existing businesses within the City to obtain a higher level of sales and business attract/on. Goal 2: Redevelop commercial sites that display building deterioration, obsolete 8its design, land use compatibility issues and a high level of vacancies. Policy F: Commercial reclevelopment efforts to promote site designs that provide safe and convenient peclestn'an movement, including access for parsons with disabilities. Policy G: Establish commercial building setbacks that improve visibility, pedestrian access, and be sensitive to the streetscape in New Hope's commercial areas. CONCLUSION Kmart has proposed site and building improvements consistent with Kmart's nationwide effort to update its image and consistent with the City's goals for commercial redevelopment. The newwall and pylon signage is an important component of the overall improvement that Kmart has proposed for this site. The Kmart site has unique conditions relating to lot configuration and building orientation and is unique in that it is the largest single retail facility in New Hope. The signage standards that apply to this development are more restrictive than those that would apply to a shopping center with more than four tenants, even if the shopping center building was smaller. The proposed wall signage represents only five percent of the walls facing public streets. Based on these findings, we recommend approval of a variance from signage standards to allowthe implementation of the submitted sign, building, and site plans. 5 07/28/~ 12:23 [~ '02/06 N0:159 Pr~t:~to G. Bone~r~, RE. · Jose~ C. And=filS, RE. · Marvin L, Sor~la, RI · :'~ ~t~y R WIIfl~son. RE,. L.S.. ~rt A lot~tth, A~es M. RI~ · Allan l~k $chmidL R~ Engineers & Architects ~,ae: www.~estme.r~m · To: ~rk Mc~d Subject: K-M~ Sim ~ "' .::; Date: J~y 28, 1~ existing driveway ~ces~s onto Xylon Avenue ~e not ~~ m ~ rel~, while ~e existiag d~veway ~cess ohm 42~ Avenue ~ ~hown ~ing ml~at~ mnfo~ng ~o t~ 42~ '" ~wnne ~roj,et. ~dma~ eerier i~l~d~ a~ pm~ed along th, ~n ~ from X~lon Av~nu~ ~d in front of th~ K-Mm bnilding. From ~ ,n~n~n~ ~d~int. ~ following is recommended for con~id,m~ion · The ml~at~ ~veway Ohm 42~ Avenue eonfo~s wt~ ~e 42~ Av~ue Pmj~t ~d is ": b~d on N~w Ho~ Cen~r ~d K-M~ ~ing to a ~h~ ~c~. At ~is ti~, it d~ not is mquir~. ~e Count~ review is ~uir~ duc ~ ~e f~t ~at K-~'s new d~veway will dfiv, way 0nm 42~ Avon, e~ ~n. ~ow,v,r, it ~hould ~ not~, !,~ mm~ in md out . will not ~ ~~d at ~, ,x~ting ~iwway d~, to ~ n~w ~n~r m~i~ con~tmefion in Avenue ~d 4~h Aven~ were ~evio~ly inclu~. ~fom, if ~e Xylon Avenue Proj~t is ~con~id~ in the furore, one of ~e followin~ op~on~ would ~ considered. . · R~l~at~ K-Mm'a ~xi~ dfiv,way to ~low ¢~nmr m~di~a M Xylon Av~nu~ to ~ ~ns~d. At~ is ~e approximate I~ion for K-M~'s ~veway Ohm Xylon Avenue if ~ey were to ~nfo~ ~ ~e previous s~t dcsi~, which included cen~r medi~. 07128199 12:23 ~ '03106 N0:159 It should be noted, presently the existing driveway ac~ss to City Hall and K-Mm't, near K- Mart's north property line, are offset in the opposite direction for left tums. From an engineering standpoint, it is recommended that the two driveways aligned with each other. ~'i '.! ,I ',.! i 07128/99 12: 23 I~: 04106 NO: 159 .,. . ~ dim ~ ...... 07/28/99 12:23 ~] :05/06 N0:159 07/28/99 12:23 ~ :06/06 N0:159 922. POOL · NE ACTUAL LOCAT DEPENDENT ON DETERMINA TiOr-~ i ~i:!;:~::i:~'~ .... ,. :. ,,~,.-~,, .... :-. ~: ;> 42nd STREET CURRENTLy BEING IMPROVED BY THE COUNTY. PLEASE SEE CC~_ IMPROVEMENT PLANS DETAILS. 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 EBL&S Dev. Corp. 99-01 Edward Lipkin 6/7499 8/6/99 20 $. Broad St, Mezzanine 4/8/99 4/19/99 6/18/99 8/17/99 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Dennis Reinhardt Kmart 5/7/99 7/6/99 9/4/99 4300 Xylon, NH 55428 waived per Kevin Gillette letter 7/6/99 All Brite Sign, Inc. 5223 Lakeland Ave N Crystal 55429 Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. A. Assign each application a number. B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). C. List the date the City received the application. D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver. I. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: August 4, 1999 Report Date: July 30, 1999 Planning Case: 99-08 Petitioner: Independent School District #281 & City of New Hope Address: 8230 47~h Avenue North I. Request The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for school expansion and outdoor recreational facilities and site/building plan review approval, pursuant to Sections 4.054(1), 4.21, and 4.039A of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. II, Zoning Code References Independent School District #281 and the City of New Hope are requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment to accommodate building expansion and site modifications to Cooper High School. The expansion will include two gymnasium stations, restrooms, a storage and concession room, two additional tennis courts (five existing), two new baseball scoreboards, 21 additional parking spaces, and new landscaping. The entire project would be phased over three years. The school is located in the R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District which permits public, educational, and religious buildings under Conditional Use Permits (4.05411]). Any school expansion requires CUP approval. III. Property Specifications Zoning: R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District Location: East of Boone Avenue between Zealand and Virginia Avenues and between 47th and 49th Avenues. Adjacent Land Uses: R-1 single family homes surrounding the school, New Hope Elementary and Highview Schools and Crystal Free Church Extended Campus at the southwest corner Site Area: The high school property is four square blocks in size and contains 1,532,663 square feet or 35.18 acres Building Area: 20,300 square foot addition (existing building size not provided) Lot Area Ratios: Staff estimate that lot coverages of this proposal will be: Green = 66% Building = 12% Other = 22% Planning District: No. 8; Compatibility issues between the residential neighborhood and the school (trespassing, littering, and noise) were identified in the Comprehensive Plan, and the City will work closely with the School District to monitor and mitigate existing problems. Specific Information: 21 parking spaces will be added to the existing 442 spaces on the site with this project, as recommended by staff = 463 total. Ponding has not been provided on-site and a Watershed Commission variance that was approved in 1995 with the stadium required off-site ponding on the downstream "Brandell" property. Staff have been working with an industrial owner next to the Brand~ lot for a land swap involving an easement that enlarges the ponding area and options. A similar variance with the Watershed is being requested with this expansion and water/ponding issues will be addressed in the Development Agreement between the City and School District. IV, Background The E. J. Cooper High School was built in 1963, before most of the City was developed. It has been a focal point for education, theatrical, musical, artistic, school and community athletic and civic events like the Special Olympics over the past 3~ decades. The recent construction of the stadium has kept the campus modern, accessible and competitive. School District cooperation on the changes to 47th and Zealand Avenues improved the safety of local streets. Last year, an outdoor sculpture garden was created in the southeast corner of the site. In July 1998, the City Council and EDA considered a resolution to modify the TIF District to include the Cooper High School property in an area where TIF funds could be expended for purposes of financing the construction of gyms on the site. The City of Plymouth previously approved TIF funds for the construction of gym facilities at Armstrong High School. The resolution to add Cooper to the TIF District was not approved by the Council in 1998 and the general direction given was for the School District to develop more complete plans and cost estimates. Over the past year, representatives from the School District and Cooper have been meeting with city staff to determine the type of facilities that would best 'meet City and School District needs and still keep costs at a minimum. On April 19, 1999, the City Council conducted a work session to discuss this subject and the School District presented three options to the Council and requested consideration of TIF funding to finance the project. The Council was supportive of the plans, and directed staff to pursue the TIF amendment once again. On June 28, the City Council approved a TIF amendment allowing funds to be expended for a future gym project at Cooper High School. The amendment to the City's TIF plan was the first step in the process of developing gyms for the City and the School District. Staff was directed to continue working with the petitioners on a development agreement and plans for the gyms addition. The option that the Council supported was Option 2, which allows for two full-size basketball courts, two regulation volleyball courts striped over the basketball courts and two fixed bleachers, two rows high on each end, with total seating for 200. Option 2 also included storage areas and access to existing restrooms in the school. The gyms would be located on the north side of the building and would be. accessible to the public through a corridor between the existing school building and new gyms. The plans also call for the replacement of the existing five tennis courts on the north side of the building, with the School District funding the rebuilding of the five existing courts and the City funding the construction of two additional courts. Total estimated cost for the construction of the new gyms, including site improvements, fees, testing and contingency is $2,768,000. Total estimated cost for seven tennis courts is $354,000. This TIF plan amendment would allow for the use of tax increment funds in an amount up to $3,250,000 from the Districts to pay all or a portion of the costs of the construction of the recreational facilities at Cooper High School. The proposal is that the City would fund the development cost and the School District would own and maintain the property. The City and School District would enter into an agreement for joint usage of the gym space, with the gyms being available for public use in the evenings, on weekends, and during the summer months. An agreement would also be entered into regarding the use of the tennis courts. V. Petitioner's Comments The petitioner states on the application that the request should be granted because th'e project will be a benefit to both the City as recreation facilities as well as the School District for both physical education and extra curricular facilities. Planning Case Report 99-08 Page 2 7/30/99 ~ ?1. Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the request have been notified and some residents have reviewed the plans at City Hall with favorable comments. One resident has called with an objection to the scoreboard at 49th and Virginia Avenues. VII. Development Analysis A. Zonin.q Code Criteria Conditional Use Permit 1. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety. In making this determination, 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. 2. Other general criteria to be considered when determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit include: 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 Residential Districts, R-1,2,3,4,5, R-O: a) Traffic. Non-residential traffic is channeled into thoroughfares or onto a street abutting business or industrial uses leading directly to thoroughfares, and not onto minor residential streets. b) Screeninq. The proposed use will be sufficiently separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing homes will not be materially depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. c) Compatible Appearance. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. B. Development Review Team · Concept plan was supported. (Tennis courts are not illuminated.) · All like the new disability access walkways from parking lots and street to the tennis courts and ball fields. · A windscreen was recommended on the noah side of the new tennis courts. · Shingle Creek Watershed Commission approval is required. (A 1995 variance may be expanded for this project.) Planning Case Report 99-08 Page 3 7/30/99 Drain tile was recommended under the northeast ball field. · Downsize restroom fixture counts to meet minimum standard in state plumbing code. · The identifying of "FIRE LANES" must be added to the plans, near hydrants and main sprinkler room Fire Department connection. · Underground electric and a drinking fountain was recommended by the tennis courts. · More storage space in fewer buildings around the campus was recommended. C. Desi.qn & Review Committee · The Committee supported the project. · The Committee wanted a recheck and clarification of the parking calculations that differed from the 1995 stadium plans. · They requested an elevation drawing and details on the proposed scoreboards. D. Plan Description Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting and most recommendations are incorporated into the revised plan as follows: · Setbacks. The following setbacks are acceptable to the proposed development. Side Yard (Zealand and Virginia Avenues) 30 feet Rear Yard (49th Avenue) 35 feet The proposed building addition is greater distances on all three sides than the minimum required. The actual setback from Zealand Avenue is 620+ feet, from Virginia Avenue is 280+ feet, and from 49th is 360+ feet. Parking. The proposed plan would add 19 parking stalls between the elementary and high school sites to bring the combined total of available parking to 626 parking stalls. When staff compared the existing counts to the previously approved Cooper stadium plans, discrepancies were found. The applicant attributed the discrepancies to minor design modifications with the stadium project. To date, the existing parking has not been problematic and staff believes the additional 19 stalls will adequately meet the parking demand of the addition. Concrete curb and gutter will surround the lot expansion. The following parking summary is shown on the plans: High School Existing parking 403 spaces (includes 10 HC) Existing bus/car parking 7 bus/14 car spaces Existing overflow parking 25 spaces (includes 1 HC) TOTAL PARKING 442 spaces (12 HC) Required accessible spaces 11 with one van accessible Elementary School Existing parking 165 spaces (includes 2 HC) Required accessible spaces 6 with one van accessible TOTAL COMBINED EXISTING PARKING 607 spaces (14 HC) High School Parking Modifications Existing parking removed 17 spaces (includes 2 HC) Existing overflow parking removed 25 spaces (includes 1 HC) Proposed net parking added 63 spaces (includes 2 HC) TOTAL PARKING MODIFIED 463 spaces (includes 11 HC) Planning Case Report 99-08 Page 4 7/30/99 .... Elementary School Parking Modifications Existing parking removed 2 spaces Accessible spaces added 4 spaces Parking Modified 163 spaces (includes 6 HC) TOTAL COMBINED PROPOSED PARKING 626 spaces (includes 15 HC) · Tennis Courts. Five (5) tennis courts currently exist on the site on the north side of the building near Virginia Avenue and are proposed to be replaced with seven (7) new tennis courts. The courts will include a concrete maintenance strip around the perimeter, electrical service and a water fountain. Trees are proposed to be planted along the east fence line of the courts to serve as a buffer from the single family homes on Virginia. The courts are not lighted. The Parks & Recreation Department has recommended that windscreening be installed along the north fence line to improve the use of the courts. The windscreen is not shown on the plan and that detail will be resolved between the City and School District in the Development Agreement. · Trailway. An eight-foot wide bituminous path will be installed around the building expansion to provide access to the ball fields and tennis courts from the building and the new parking lot area. This trailway will be ADA compliant. · Gym Addition. The proposed addition is approximately 176' x 110' (plus storage) or approximately 20,300 square feet. The addition is on the north side of the school and includes two basketball courts with divider curtain, restrooms, concession area and separate storage spaces for the City and School District. The public will access the facility on the west side from the parking lot. A corridor will separate the new addition from the existing building which will allow the main school facility to be shut off from the public when the gyms are open to the public. Building materials for the interior of the building addition are listed on the plan and include concrete block with painted interior and wood gym floor. · Exterior Building Materials. The building materials will be consistent with the existing building and consist of brick, aluminum windows, prefinished metal coping and downwardly directed wall pack lights. The Planning Consultant states that these are acceptable materials. Wall pack lights aimed down are noted on the north elevation (2), west elevation (2), and east elevation (2). · Baseball Fields. The existing baseball field infield northeast of the addition will be raised to improve drainage and the six-foot chain-link fence will be removed and replaced. The plan shows two baseball backstops with 30-foot centers and 20-foot wings with overhangs. Future three-row bleachers are shown behind the backstops. Also shown on the plan is a batting cage and sand volleyball court with timber border and drain tile. · Miscellaneous Building/Future Additions. A future mechanical room is shown on the east side of the existing school building, a future wrestling room is shown on the west side of the building, and a future storage building is shown north of the proposed gym addition. The storage building is 1,250 square feet in size and requires Council approval because it exceeds the 900 square foot requirement (staff has encouraged a larger storage building rather than several smaller buildings). · Scoreboards. Two baseball/softball scoreboards are proposed for the athletic field and will be accessory to the ongoing facilities. One would be located in the northeast corner of the site. This would be screened with trees and shrubbery to minimize the impact on the adjacent properties. A general detail of this board is shown on the landscaping plan and indicates that the back of the scoreboard will remain visible to some degree even with the landscaping. A scaled drawing with dimensions and height should be provided. Per the Planner's report, evergreens have been proposed as the main element of'screening. The evergreens would provide year-round screening and would eventually grow to hide more of Planning Case RePort 99-08 Page 5 7/30/99 the scoreboard. An alternative to provide more immediate screening may be the use deciduous trees which would provide an overstory canopy. The canopy would screen more of the board in the summer months but would not be a very effective buffer in the winter months. The most effective alternative should be decided by the Planning Commission. The other scoreboard would be located along the west fence line and would have a minimal effect on adjacent properties. The applicants have confirmed that neither scoreboard will be equipped with audio equipment. Landscaping. The following landscape schedule has been provided by the petitioner. Plant Materials List Common Name Scientific Name Qty. Size Root Patmore Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 'Patmore' 7 2.5" cal. BB Black Hills Spruce Picea glauca densata 5 10'-12' ht. BB Pyramidal Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis 'Pyramidal' 23 6' ht. BB Mentor Barberry Berberis x mentorensis 15 30" ht. Cont. The landscaping plan shows 19 six-foot Pyramidal Arborvitae to be planted along the east fence line of the tennis courts on the west side of Virginia Avenue. This would provide a buffer between the courts and the residential neighborhood directly east. Seven Patmore Ash have been proposed for the area between the general parking lot and 47th Avenue North. Plantings have also been proposed to screen the new scoreboard proposed for the northeast corner of the site. The screening would consist of 15 Barberry, 5 Black Hills Spruce (10-12'), and 4 Arborvitae and should downplay the impact of the scoreboard. · Rooftop Equipment. Rooftop equipment will be minimized and should consist primarily of exhaust fans and future condensers. If air conditioning is ever installed, ground mounted equipment would consist primarily of electrical transformers, as needed. · Security. Security for the addition will include the installation of magnetic locks and proximity keys, as well as video cameras. These will be installed at the main entries to the building. The security systems will allow the City to use the new facility without needing to access the entire building. E. Planning Considerations/Planning Consultant Remarks The City of New Hope is participating with the School District on this project as the gymnasium expansion would be used cooperatively between the District and the community. In return for financial participation, the City will receive access to the gyms and meeting areas when not in use by the high school. Compared to the investment of a community center, this is a very cost-effective solution to providing more recreational facilities to the community while improving the facilities of Cooper High School. Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria. The Planning Commission and City Council will consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use and in determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit, they must find that: 1. 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 Plan of the City. The New Hope Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies the Cooper High School and New Hope Elementary sites for public and semi-public land uses. The sites are located in Planning Planning Case Report 99-08 Page 6 7/30/99 District 8 as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The school's use is consistent with the City's long range 'Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Plan provides policy statements regarding public and semi-public facilities throughout the community. The two following statements, found under the Parks policy section, support the expansion: 4) Special interest groups expressing the need for more diversified recreational facilities present a challenge for the City. In response to this challenge, the City will investigate the following efforts to offer greater diversity of recreational facilities: a) Partnering with adjoining communities or the School District to provide special use facilities without duplication. b) Continue to provide multi-use facilities to allow a greater range of uses at existing parks. c) Identify opportunities for special use facilities when planning park upgrades or redevelopment. 6) The City has maintained a successful cooperative relationship with both lSD 281 and the northwestem suburban communities surrounding New Hope in providing both recreational facilities and programming. These cooperative relationships will be maintained and expanded upon to accomplish the following objectives: a) Promote full utilization of existing programs and facilities. b) Avoid duplication of programs and facilities between communities. c) Provide a great diversity of recreational facilities and programs in a cost-effective manner. d) Focus community investment on facilities not already offered through the cooperative ventures. 2. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. The majority of the building expansion would occur in a way that would create minimal impacts to the surrounding properties. The building expansion will occur at the center of the site keeping the setbacks well in excess of the ordinance requirements. The building materials will be compatible with those of the existing building. In addition, landscaping and screening will be provided to create a buffer between the adjacent properties. 3. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standard~ contained in this code. Detailed review of site plans has been provided and outlines compliance with applicable zoning regulations including setbacks, parking, and landscaping. 4. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Staff believes the proposed expansion is consistent with existing land uses and will add attractiveness to the campus without depreciating the values of the adjacent properties. 5. Zoninq District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts. All criteria outlined under the R-1 District for conditional uses have been met and are outlined below in detail. 6. In Residential Districts: a) Non-residential traffic is channeled into thoroughfares or onto a street abutting business or industrial uses leading directly to thoroughfares, and not onto minor residential streets. Planning Case Report 99-08 Page 7 7/30/99 Traffic from the existing high school parking lot is directed onto 47th Avenue which has be~. improved to facilitate the traffic of the stadium facility. From 47th Avenue the traffic is directed to Winnetka (a minor arterial) and Boone (community collector) Avenues. The expansion should not be disruptive to the existing circulation system. b) The proposed use will be sufficiently separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing homes will not be materially depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. The building expansion will occur in the center of the site made of materials compatible with the existing high school. New landscaping will also be added to provide a buffer from the adjacent properties. These improvements will enhance the image of the campus and should not negatively impact the surrounding homes. c) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The building expansion will be built with materials consistent with the existing high school building. F. En.qineerin.q Considerations/City En.qineer Comments The project provides for the following: · Gym expansion, including two basketball courts with seating for approximately 50 people. · Reconstruct five existing tennis courts and construct two new courts. · Regrade baseball infield and construct new scoreboard outside the existing centerfield fence. · Construct bituminous trails serving tennis courts and baseball field between the expanded parking lot north of the school and Virginia Avenue. · Plant boulevard trees along 47th Avenue. · Expand parking lot north of high school. From an engineering standpoint, the following is recommended: · Storm water runoff shall comply with Shingle Creek Watershed requirements and will likely be connected with the variance that was approved for the football field construction in 1996. Watershed approval will likely be reviewed at the August 12 meeting and finalized at the September 9 meeting. · The increase in traffic volume, due to the gym and tennis court expansion, will be minimal compared to the overall traffic volumes generated at Cooper High School. The parking lot expansion (approximately 20 stalls), north of the high school, will adequately serve the new gyms. The two additional tennis courts could slightly increase traffic volumes on Virginia Avenue; however, the amount is negligible. In the future, when the City considers reconstructing Virginia Avenue, an adequate roadway width is recommended to provide a permanent parking lane along the school property. The existing street width is 30 feet, which is not adequate for a drive lane in each direction and a parking lane (minimum recommended roadway width is 32 feet wide). G. Building Official Considerations This expansion is tied to the installation of fire sprinklers in 100 percent of the building by 12/31/2000. The new addition will start this work. The application states that the School District is in the process of designing a fire protection sprinkler system for the entire Cooper High School and that the installation will take place over a maximum period of three years. The initial phase will be installed during the summer of 2000. Planning Case Report 99-08 Page 8 7/30/99 ? H. Le.qal Considerations The City Attorney has met with city staff and representatives of District 281 to start preparing a Development Agreement, which will define which entity pays for what part of the project, and a Facilities Usage Agreement, which will outline the terms and conditions of use of the facility for each entity. I. Police Considerations The Police Department has reviewed and has had input into these plans. J. Fire Considerations The Fire Department has reviewed and has had input into these plans. (Fire issues covered under Building Official Considerations.) VIII.Summary City staff and consultants find that the proposed site modifications will positively affect the campus and the community. The proposed building changes are consistent with the city code requirements, while the new landscaping will provide the adjacent properties with a buffer from the campus. The City extends its appreciation to the School District for its cooperation on this project. IX. Recommendation Staff recommends approval, pending public comment, of the CUP Amendment request for Cooper High School expansion, subject to the following conditions: 1. SChool DistriCt to enter into Development Agreement with City outlining cost responsibilities of each entity. 2. School District to enter into Facilities Usage Agreement with City outlining the terms and conditions of use of the facility for each entity. 3. The Planning Commission should comment on the screening proposed for the northwest corner of the site to determine whether coniferous or deciduous screening would be most effective in screening the scoreboard, and petitioner to provide dimensional drawing of scoreboard. 4. School District to coordinate with City re: potential addition of windscreens for the north side of the tennis courts. 5. Approval of the plan by Shingle Creek Watershed District and resolution of storm water/off-site ponding issues with City. Attachments: Zoning/Addressrropo Maps Site Survey/Notes Site Plan Parking Summary Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control Landscape Plan Landscape Schedule Tennis Court Screening Detail Scoreboard Planting Detail Scoreboard Elevation Floor Plans City Engineer Comments Building Materials (Interior) Building Official Exhibits Building Elevations Application Log Planner's Report Planning Case Report 99-08 Page 9 7~30~99 : ' --ZONIN ~OUSEOF ~a HIGH SCH~ ~o'" R-t .... NEW HOPE - ~ ~ I-1 Lir ~ I-2 GE .__,~ ~ OF BETH EL . '~ CF~ETE~Y ............ ~. :,..-~'~." ~lS ~ ', ~ .. L........~,,~.~.... ~ ~ · ~ ......... i -. -' · /,.X'~'' .~ ............ ~,,,,~ ~ Id '~, ~ :lIS ,. ," ; t ~ , ; , ' " ~ ~W~I~T ~'~ ~" ~",.~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~-- {'~ ': ~:~1;'~ ', ~'~¥~ ~ ' .-' ~ '" ', ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ' ~1~/' ' : ....... ~ ~ ' ~ I ~ = : ' : ............. .-< '~'.Y ~ ,~/ '-~.' "...' ,' -" "-. ~ : .~,~, ,R~, ~/ ~ --r ...... r '~'""=--'~ ,~".~1 ~ ¥" ~ ,'~ .. x ~ /. '--- .... ~ .... L--~.--~.-~--,~'~F" + = ~ , . ,~ , ., . . ..... , ~, ~ ..... ~ ........ , · ., ............... ~. ~ ' ' , ~ ....... - ~' , ~ ~-----~ ~t ~I ~i ...... . ~ :~ . . ~ .. -. /~. -. . ~ ................ . ,~ ~ ,~,~ ~t ,I / PARR ~ ~ ~,~ ,__- .... - ~ ~ ~ · . ~ ~ ~ .......... .. . ,. ~ ~.~ · ~ ,. ...... ~. .~ ..... ~. .~ · ........... J ........... '/~ ~ ~ ........ -~ ' .....2 ."-.. .. · ' ...... ~ '-r ........ F "F-~"~ ~ ~-'~"-~ ~ ~-- ~ --. ~. ? ......... ~ ~ ;~-.~ ~ . '~ .~ 7~ ~ _ ~ -- ]-- - .~$- ~ ...~ ~ ~ , , ~ ..... z~7: ~ , ........ = · r · ' ..... ....... ~ ..... ' ' ' ' [ ~ ~ I .... : , , ~,~. ., , . , , ~,. · ~ ~ :~ ,, , ~ ~ ~ . . . .............. ,-, ;~ .~---,,-- l t~n,~l : ~ ,., ~ ~ .~ l~ ~ ..... -~=.= ............ ....... ~ t ....................... , ~, ,l~t,~=~:.l_,._!_.~ ...................................................................... . ...................... .... ~ ........................ . ............................................................................ ~ :-~"'~'-', -~-'~-~:: : ....... "~'~ 1 ~ F~"~ ~ ~ , ~ F~"-?~i-'~ ...... ~ ........ ~ ' .......... - ............ ' ~R ~...~ N.. ~, ~ ~ ~ ..... $ ..... , , ........ ,- .... ~ ~m ~_~ ...... · r--- · ,--,--, , ..... -~ ~-~ ~ : L ........ · ; ; L~_L~.~?.L.~...-~.-., ....... : ' ~ ~._~. ...... ~i ',,~/~i '- ; ,~ ~o~ HIGH SCHOOL -: ....... . HOPE ~ ~"~ ..... ; : _UTHERAN ;~'~; ' ' ' ~,4~ CHURCH ~ ...... ~- : ~,~fi4~} ~~ ~'~:'~;,~ ,.~ , : ~ ~ ...... ~ = ......... ~ .... ~:~j~ ; ._ 4~41 · ' .:. ....... ~ ~ ..............................~ , 4 ~ ........ t : ; ~ , : ' . t ............ - HIGHVIEW ; SCHOOL~ ~ '*' ......... " ' ........ = ........... , .__= ...~. ~ ........... ... ............................. ~--~..-~- * ............ "'~ ..... ~ "~'--'-~" ..... ' ..... '""~ " ........ ~'i r~-~ ...... ~ ;" ~ : .-~, ..... "-= ..... ' ..... ~-~';'i~ i ~ ~' 7~ ~ ~ ~~ ~-*"~"~ ~'~ ~ :~; ,-~.~ ......~---=--f-~'-'t-'~ ....... /~/'.~-7-: i ..... , ....... ~.- ..... ='-"" ' .... ~ ........ ~ ' ' ' ' ~I' '[ I '- ..... . '-m'-'~' ~ ........ ~ .... ~ ~ '~ ~i~ ~ ~ NEW HOPE ~ ,,....%~.~ ........ ' ~ ,-- .... ~ ..... : ~ E~MENTARY ~-i~ "-.~ ~ ~ -z ......... / ..... ~ ~ .........~ ......... , i-- ~ ...... I ' J~ : ......... ~ ......... ,. SCHOOL ~ ." f/I , ~JJ .. ..... ~ i~i~;~ ~ .... ....~..c~,..,.~--~ ....... ~ ...... ~.S~g~-'~;~ ',~ ......... , .... ' "' ....... ' ........ ' ' ..... ' ....... ...... ' ...... ' .... ..... - .... ~ i ~: ~ .............. O. ~1 ~ ~ ........... . .... ' ~t ~ ~ ....... r~- i ........ ~ ~ ....... ~ ....... ~ ~ ~ :.~R.~',. ~ ~.{~. ~ .... ....-~.-= ..... = .... , .~ .~$ ............. ? _ · . . . , ' ...... ~ ........ ; :,~,~ ~ '. - ~ i ~ ; ~ h ~ ' ~--,--~ .... ~,n~--~.~ .................... ................ --( (- i ' , ~ .-~-.---f""~-'"m ~ , i , .......................... ............ ~ , ........ ,-.=-~ ?-,-,,.',~ ~?. ~.,, ~ tI~ L. - ~ ....... ~ ....... '-' · / - ' ~ ..... ~'"~' ''~ .... r ' .... ' ~...., ...... ~, ..... ~ ...... , .............. ~ im~ r ..... ,-...(~ ~TERY~~' -~= i ~ J ,..-.,-~¢ ~ i~.. ~ ~xL ........... . ............... =~-~ ......... ......... ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · '. / ~ ~ ........ : , ~ , ' CIV C .. ' ........... ~ ...... ~ ........... =.NTER PARK ~. ~.~..~ "~ ~ . . ',~ ?"~ ~---,... / ' ' r~':'~'7 .. .... ,-*~"i..h '*~"-,"~ , ,, ... ...... .... ,_. , ;:, ..,. ..... i ~ p:'~--, ~i'~ /~/~ >, '~ ~ NEW ~O~-'E ' ..... ' :" ~"" ' ~ .... ~;:::3 , ~ 4~-~ · ~17 : ; ' ~ C~PER S~NIOR HIGH the Southeast C)uorter, oll in Section 7, Township 118, Range 21, Hennepin County. Idinnelota: lubject tO streets.. PARCEL AREA: 1,§32,663 square feet or 35.1851 square feet, to street ea.$wnent lines as sh<:~m. GENERAL NOTES: All dimensions are in feet and decim31s unless other-wise indicated. Dimensions under three feet are not necessarily dra~n to scale. Orientation of this bearing system is assu*ned. Street rights-of-way and easerrents shown are per county maps, Minnegasco drawing, and doctx~ents provided by City of Ne~ No title policy, Certificate of Title, or abstract was Hope. available; therefore additional easements, if any, are not shown, and other matters of record n'~3y not be reflected in this survey. Verify legal description before use in documents. Obtain current title work and veri. fy easements before constructing improvements. Elevations are on a sea level dat~xnper City of New Hope control and Clark Engineering level loop run in 1993. Site bench marks as sho~n. Railings, roof overhangs, projecting col Lrms, trim (including 8" x 1'0" vertical precast concrete fins), recessed doors/ windows, and other building details are cmitted or simplified; verify os necessary for design and construction. Shrubs, brush, landscape rocks,.and parking/traffic signs are not shown. Trees under 2~ dia. ars generally not shown. Idinor surface features may be cmitted due to snow cover at time of survey. Underground utilities are sho~n based on visible surface features, partial Iocator n~3rks, available site plans and records of City of Ne~ Hope and Minnegasco. Underground telephone cables ars sho~m per Iocator marks only as accurate records are not available, and are not ccrnplete. TV cables are not shown. Drain tile lines are generally not shown. Private underground electric cables and irrigation lines exist on site but are not sho~n as c~-~lete records were not available. Other private utilities rnay exist. Abandoned utili[ies on site are not sho~n. Utilities in adjacent street rJ~hts-~f--way. . art no! necessar!ly c(rr~lete. .~.. utility HIGH SCHOOL EX~TING PARKING: 403 SPACES (INCLUDES 10 HC) EXISTING BU~CAR PARKING: 7 BU~t14 CAR ~ACES EXISTING OVERFLOW PARKING: 25 SPACES (INCLUDF~ 1 HC) 'rr~T,, ~'*,RKING: 442 SPACES (12 HC) k=~..~,r~ED ACCESSIBLE SPACES: 11 W/ONE VAN ACCESSIBLE F' "- '~""" ,',v ,',,',HOOL EXISTING PARKING: 1~5 SPACES (INCLUDES 2 HC) REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE SPACES: 6 WI ONE VAN ACCE~,IBLE _.. ,.., ........ ,:_~ ~ i'ING PARKING: ~,07 SPACF~ (14 HC) HIGH SCHOOL PARKING MODIFICATIONS EXISTING PARKING REMOVED: 17 SPACES (INCLUDES 2 ItC) IF~Ie','~C, OVERFLOW PARKING REMOVED: 25 SPACES (INCLUDES 1 HC) P~;~rg, ED NET PARKING ADDED: ~3 SPACE8 (INCLUDES 2 HC) TOTAL PARKING MODIFIED: 463 SPACES (INCLUDES 11 HC} ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PARKING MODIFICATIONS EXISTING PARK)NG REMOVED: 2 SPACES ACCESSIBLE SPACES ADDED: 4 SPACES PARKING MOOIFIED: 1~3 SPACES (INCLUDES ~ HC) TOTAL COMBINED PROPOSED PARKJNG: ~2~ (INCLUDES 15 HC) NOTE' EXISTING PARKING DISCREPENCIES FROM THE PREVIOUSLY SUBMJ '~'' "~F= STADIUM PLANS MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO MINOR DESIGN MOOtFICAIK)NS DURING THE STADIUM CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT DEVELOPMENT PHASE. THE ABOVE QUANTITIES REFLECT CURRENT AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS. PLANT MATERIALS LIST COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME QTY SIZE ROOT Pitmore Ash Fraxinu$ pennsylvanica 'Patmore' 7 2.5" cai. BB Black Hills Spruce Picea glauca densata 5 10'-12' hr, SB Pyramidal Arborvitae Thuja occldentali$ 'Pyramidal' 23 G' ht. BB Mentor Barberrj Barbaras x mentorensis 15 30" hr. Cont. A~flgR$ON-JOIIN$OH A$$OCIA T~$. INC. Z > PLANT MATERIALS LIST COMMON I~ME SCIENTIFIC NAME QI'~ SIZE ROOT Pitmom A~h Frlxinu~ PenneylVtni~ 'Patmom' ? 2.5" c.I. BB 481'H Black HilI~ Spruce Picll glIucl derma~a ......... 6' ' 10'-12' hr. BB PYr&'mid&l Arb0rV'~tle Thuj, occident~li' 'Pyramidal. 23 6' hL BB ~_ Mentor Barber~ .... BMtaed~ x mlntorenl~ ..... ,." ~16- 30.. hr. ConL SPRUCE (TYP} · 1 · · 2 · ..q COMbIUNi?Y I~L. ANNINO De'~II{3N - MAIRKET RE:~EAIRC, H MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk NIcDonald FROM: Patrick McDonell ! Alan Brixiu~ DATE: 27 July 1999 RE: Cooper High School Gym Expansion CUP Request. FILE NO: 131.01 - 99.08 BACKGROUND Independent Sci3ool District #281 and the City of New Hope have requested a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) Amendment to accommodate building expansion and site modifications to Cooper High School. The expansion will include two gymnasium stations, restrooms, a storage and concession room, two additional tennis courts [f'we are existing], two new baseball scoreboards, 21 additional parking spaces and new landscaping. The entire project would be phased over three yearn. The school is located in the R-l, Single Family Residential zoning district which permb public, educational and religious buildings under Conditional Use Permits (4.054 [1]). Any school expansion requires a CUP for approval. The City of New Hope is participating with the school district on this project as the gymnasium expansion would be used cooperatively between the district and the community. In return for financial participation, the city will receive access to the gymnasiums and meeting ames when not in use by the high school. Compared to the investment of a community center, this is a very cost effective solution to providing more recreational facilitle~ to the community while improving the facilities of Cooper High School. The school met with the Design and Review sul:xxxnmittee on July 20th to discuss various issues related to the eite and building plane. Following the meeting, revlm~l plans were submitted which are the basis of this review. ATTACHMEN'I~ Exhibit A: Site Location 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK. I~IINNESOTA Be41 6 PHONE 612-59!~-9636 FAX 612-5~B-9837 E-MAIL NAC~ WlNTERNET.COM Exhibit B: Site Survey Exhibit C: Site Plan Exhibit D: Landscape Plan Exhibit E: Extedor Elevations RECOMMENDATION Based on the aforementioned review, the proposed expansion and site modifications to the High School appear to create a positive improvement to the campus and community. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the CUP Amendment request to Cooper High School subject to the following conditions: 1. Windscreen$ shall be provided for the north side of the tennis courts. 2. Documentation of Shingle Cmc,~ Watershed Approval shall be submitted pri°r to issuance of a building permit. 3. The Planning Commission should comment on the screening proposed for the northwest corner of the site t~ determine whether coniferous or deciduous screening would be most effective in screening the scoreboard. ISSUES Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria. The Planning Commission and City Council will consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use and.in determining whether to approve or deny a Conditional Use permit, they must find that: 1 ) Comorehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisior~ of and has been found to be consistent with the official Comprehensive Plan of the City. The New Hope Comprehensive Land Use Plan iderYdfies the Cooper High School and New Hope Elementary sites for public & semi-pubSc land uses. The sites are located in Planning District 8 as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The scbo~ use is consistent with the City's long range Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Plan provfdes policy statements regarding publ'= and semi- public faciliSes throughout the community. The two following statements, found under the Perks policy section, support the expansk~n: 4. Special interest groups expressing the need for mom diversiffed recreational ~ present a challenge for the City. in response to this challenge, the City will invesSgate the following efforts to offer greater cTrversity of recreational facirYdes: a. Partne~ng with adjoining communiMs or the School District to provide special use facir~ties wittmut dupr~cation. b.Con~nue to provide muff-use facilities to allow · greater range of uses at existing parks. c. Identify op~n'~les for special use facili~s when planning park upgrades or redevelopment. 6. The City has maintained a ~1 coo~ relationship with both lSD 28f and fire northwestern suburban communities surrounding New Hope in providing both ~al facil~ and programming. These coopem§ve relationships will be maintained and expanded upon to accompl~h the a. Promo~ full utllizalYon of existing programs and faclliSe~ b. Avoid duplication of programs and fe~T~ between communities. Provide a great diversity of recreational facilities and programs in a cost-effedJve manner. d. Focus community investment on fecil~ not already offera¢l 2) .C~31z}g.~l~. The proposed use is compatible ~ its adjacent land uses. The majority of the building expansion would occur in a way that would create minimal impacts to the surrounding propell~$. The bullci~ expansion will occur at the center of the site keeping the ~ well in excess of. the ordinance requirements. The building materials will be compaSble wi~ those of the exisSng bufding. In addison, landscaping and screening will be prowded to create a buffer between the adjacent pro~. 3) performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in this Code. in subsequent secSon8 of ~Js report, detailed review of site plans has b~n provided and outlines comprtance with applicable zoning regulations including setbacks, park/rig, and landecep/ng. (4) LNo Deoreaiatian in Value. The proposed use will not tend to o~ actualN depreciate ffi® area in which it is proposed. Staff believes the proposed expa~ is coneis~nt with existing land uses and will add attracSv~ness to the campus without depreciating the values of the adjacent (5) _Z0ninq.Distric~ Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts. Ail criteria ~ under the R- ~ District for ~ uses have been met and are outlined below in detail. (6) !_n Residential Districts: a) Non-residential traffic is channe~ into thoroughfares or onto a street abutting business or industrial uses leading directly to thoroughfares, and not onto minor residential streets. Traffic from the existing High School parldng lot is directed onto 47th Avenue which has been improved to ~ the traffic of the stadium Pacility. From 47th Avenue b~e traffic is directed to Winnetka ('A' Minor Arterial) and Boone (Community Collector) Avenues. The expansion should no~ be disruptive to the existing circulation system. b) The proposed use will be sufficiently separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing ~ will not be materially' depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of The builcJ'ng expansion will occur in the center of the site made of materials compa#ble with the existing High School. New landscaping w~ll also be added to provide a buffer from b~e adjacent properties. These improvements will enhance the image of the campus and should not negeSvely impact the surrounding homes. c) The ~e and eite shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. The bufiding expans~n will be built with materials consistent with the existing high scflool building. Setbacks. The following setb~ are applicable to the proposed development. Side Yard (ZealandNirginia Avenues) 30 feet Rear Yard (49th Avenue) 35 feet The proposed building addition is greater distances on all three sides than the minimum required. The at, al setback from Zealand Avenue is 620+ feet, from Virginia Avenue is 280+, and from 49th is 360+ feet. Parking. The proposed plan ~:~ld add 19 parking stalls beb.'.~n the elementa~ and high school sites to bring the combined total of available parking to 626 parking stalls. When staff compared the existing counts-to the previously appn~ved Cooper stadium plans, 90/1~0'd £E86 E6S E~9 3dH ~£:$$ 6SS~-6E--~f discrepancies were found. The applicant attributed the discrepancies to minor design modifications with the stadium project. To date, the existing parking has not been problematic and staff believes the additional 19 stalls will adequately meet the parking demand of the addition. Landscaping. The landscaping plan proposed nineteen Pyramidal Arborvitae to be planted along the east fence line of the tennis courts. This would provide a buffer between the courts and the residential neighborhood directly easL Plantings have also been proposed t~ screen the newscoreboa~ proposed for the rx:alheest comer ofthe site. The screening would consist of Barberry, Spruce and Arborvitae and should downplay the impact of the scoreboard. Additionally, seven Patmore Ash have been proposed for the area between the general parking lot and 47th Avenue North. Grading, Drainage and Utilil~e~. The direction of water flow is indicated on the grading plan. Drain file was recommended for the northeast ball field but may not be necessary. This issue should be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. There were no other concerns raised with the grading of the project. Building Materials. The building materials will be consistent with the existing building and consist of brick, aluminum windows, prefinished metal coping and downwardly directed wall pack lights. These are acceptable materials. $corebom'ds. Two baseball scoreboards are proposed for the athletic field and will be accessory to the ongoing facilities. One would be located in the northeast comer of the site. This would be scresrted with trees and shrubbery to minimize the impact on the adjacent properties. A detail of this board is shown on the landscaping plan and indicates that the back of the scoreboard will remain visible to some degree even with the landscaping. Evergreens have been proposed as the main element of screening. The evergreens would provide year-round screening and would eventually grow to hide more of the scoreboard. An alternative to provide more immediate screening may be the use of deciduous trees which would provide an overstory canopy. The canopy would screen more of the board . in the summer months but would not be a very effective buffer in the winter months. The most effective alternative should be decided by the Planning Commission. The other scoreboard would be located along the west fence line and would have a minimal effect on adjacent properties. The applicants have confirmed that neither scoreboard will be equipped with audio equipment. Trail way. An 8-foot wide bituminous path will be installed around the building expansion to provide access to the ball fields and tennis courts from the building and the new perking lot area. This treiiway will be ADA compliant. Tennis Courl~. Two tennis courts will be added directly west of the five courts that currently exist. 'i'he district has proposed trees to be planted along the east fence line of the courts. After the Design and Review subcommittee review, windscreening was proposed for the north fence line which would improve the use of the tennis courts and also serve as a visual screen for the new building addition. CONCLUSION Our office believes the proposed site modifications will positively effect the campus and the community. The proposed building changes am consi~ent with the city code requirements while the new landscaping will provide the adjacent prope~ies with a buffer from the campus. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Cooper High School CUP Amendment request subject to the conditions outlined in the recommendation Section of this report. pc: Doug Sandstad Mark Hanson 9~/98'cl ~86 S6S E~9 3~H ~:~ Principal~: Otto G. 8onestroo. PE.. Joseph C. Anderlik, PE. · Marvin L. Sorvala, Glenn R Cook, PE. · EoDert G. Schunic~t, PE. · Jerry A. Bourdon, ~E. · Rosene Robert W. Rosene, PE., Richard E. Turner, RE. and Susan M Eberlin. CRA., Senior Consultants Pfefferle, Michael T Rautmann, RE. * Ted K.Field, RE, · Kenneth ~ Anderson, ~E. · Mark R. Rolfs, RE. · Sidney ~ ~illiamson, PE.. L,S. · Robert E Ko,smith · Agnes M. Ring. Allan ~Jck Schmidt, Offices: SL Paul, Roches[er, ~Jllmar and St. Cloud, MN · Milwaukee, ~1 Engineers & Architects ~,,~ ..... MEMORANDUM To: Kirk McDonald From: Mark Hanson Subject: Cooper High School Gym Expansion Our File No. 34-Gen E98-18 Date: July 28, 1999 The above project provides for the following: Gym expansion, including two basketball courts with seating for approximately 50 people · Reconstruct five existing tennis courts and construct two new courts. · Regrade baseball infield and construct a new scoreboard outside the existing centerfield fence. · Construct bituminous trails serving tennis courts and baseball field between the expanded parking lot north of the school and Virginia Avenue. · Plant boulevard trees along 47th Avenue. · Expand parking lot north of high school. From an engineering standpoint, the following is recommended. · Storm water runoff shall comply with Shingle Creek Watershed requirements and will likely be connected with the variance that was approved for the football field construction in 1996. Watershed approval will likely be reviewed at the August 12, 1999 meeting and finalized at the September 9, 1999 meeting. · The increase in traffic volume, due to the gym and tennis court expansion, will be minimal compared to the overall traffic volumes generated at Cooper High School. The parking lot expansion (approximately 20 stalls), north of the high school, will adequately serve the new gyms. The two additional tennis courts could slightly increase traffic volumes on Virginia Avenue; however, the amount is negligible. In the future, when the City considers reconstructing Virginia Avenue, an adequate roadway width is recommended to provide a permanent parking lane along the school property. The existing street width is 30', which is not adequate for a drive lane in each direction and a parking lane (minimum recommended roadway width is 32' wide). 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 65?636-4600 · Fax: 651-~6-1311 7-28-99 SI-HNGLE CREEK WATERSlq~.D MANAGEMENT COMMISSION PRO~I/CT REVIEW SC 99-19: lSD 281: COOPER ,HIGH SCHOOL Owner: Independent School District 281 Robbinsdale Area Schools Education Servic~ Center 4148 Winnetka Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427-1288 .Pu. rpose: Approval of a Storm. water Management Plan for redevelopment of a portion of an existing school site. I,o~. tion: 8230-47'~ Avenue North, New Hope. Exlflbits: 1. Project Review Application submitted by Mark Hanson, City of New .Hope, dated Su~y 28, 1999. 2. Gradin§, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan prepared by A/A, dated July · 23, 1999. 3. Project Review SC 94-8. Findings: 1. The proposed project involve~ the construction of approximately 0.4 acres of new parking area, 0.5 acres of new build/ng, 0.3 acr~ of new tennis courts, and 0.3 acres of new pedesuian walkway, Approximately 0.4 acre~ of existing parking a~a will b~ lost due to construction of the new building. Following project completion, approximately 1.1 acres of new impervious 2. A complete project review application has not been received. 3. The site is the same as reviewed under SC 94-8. Under SC 94-8, Cooper High School received a variance from Commission standards for water 4. The applicant has .r~l. uested a variance for the currant proposed ze. development, also for water quality ueatment standards. Specifically, this varianco is required because the applicant has no feasible location on site for construction of a stormwater/ze, atment pond for the proposed parking areas. PRO,~ECT REVIEW SC 99.19: 1SD 281: COOPER HIGH SCHOOL Stormwater treatment will not be required for the proposed tennis courts as they will drain as unconcentrated flow over land to an existing storm sewer. This same storm sewer will also collect roof drainage from the proposed building addition. In the past, the Commission has allowed (without a variance) roof drainage to leave development sites without treatment. 5. The applicant has expressed a willingness to use alternative treatment options to provide some wa~er quality improvement to stormwater leaving the site. The current proposal will be to tie into the existing storm sewer on the western portion of the site to route some of the paridng areas (existing parking area to be resurfaced) through a grit chamber constructed under the 1994 review. Additionally, a Stormc~tor has been specified for collection of runoff from the new parking areas. However, the applicant has initially agreed to look at other options due to the Commission's unlikely approval of a Stormceptor application. Preliminary discussions with the developer have led to a concept approval at staff level of the use of a grassed swale to collect unconcentrated drainage from the new parking areas. This will need to be discussed at the Commission's meeting. 6. There i.,,o ooOpl in on the,ite. 7. There are no wetlands on the site.~~/~s'ss~ is the WCA LGU. 8. A satisfactory Erosion Control Plan has been received. Recommendations: No action pending receipt of: 1. Commission discussion of variance request. 2. A Variance Escrow in the amount of $2,000. 3. Revised Grading Plan incorporating use of grassed swale for drainage from proposed parking areas (if approved by Commission). 4. An Operations and Maintenance Plan which will maintain stormwater treatment device(s). The plan shall be provided to the City in the form of a recordable agreement that assures the designated opezation and maintenance procedm'es will be faithfully executed. PROJECT REVIEW SC 99-19: LSD 281: (~QOPER HIGH $CI=!.OOL MONTGOMERY WATSON Engineers for t~e Cora~ssion 7~-28-99 Eric I. Thompson, P.E. Date SHINGLE CREEK WATERSlq'ED (For Omce Use Oa~7) ] "' MANAG~NT COMMISSION ApplicaUo~ Ho. ~--/~ PROJECT REVIEW APPLICATION Date Received ~-~'-~ OWN'ER NATURE OF Name To~ ~a]'e:! ,_,~_ F-~ Wetland AI~eration Ad.eM Ed.ca~inn ~.vtc~ C~nisF ~ S~wat~M~gem~tPl~ (Si~* >5 ac~s for ~-~ ~ly or a1~8 ~fnn~e~ Sv= ~h >lSac~z~rs~l~familyde~d) N~w Hop~; ~ ~4~7-1~R8 ~ ~dUse~endmen~ PROd-~CT INFO~TION " Name G.Vm Addition Project gugineer Location Cooper Hiah School, Hame 0an Johnson/Patrick Sarv, er 8Z30 47th Ave. North Company Anderson/Johnson Assoc. New Hope, I~1 55428 Phone (612) 544-7129 Area of PropertY 35.19 Acres Fax (612) 544-0531 Project Des~iption See Attatched AU'I~OI~FZ&TION - To be completqi by City Requested Ci~z E ~ cslc~a~o~, fees or escrows, and o~er rela~d ~o~on ~ ~ ~ S~gle Cr~k Wa..Eed M~a~.t Comml.io. Name ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o Mon~ome~ Wagon Title / ~ ~ ~ ~~, ~ 55441 ~; 612-693-~0 Date See revere side ~or Management S~d~ds ~d ~e~llst of r~ed Re~z~ 2-4-98 l~1111111/~11111 i1 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 Cooper High School gyms , 99-08 Indep. School District #281 7/7/99 9/5/99 11/4/99 4148 Winnetka 55427 Tom Walerius 504-8037 Barb Lehman i~. 9019 Glen Edin Ln N ~' Brooklyn Park 55443 ~!~:' 493-9667 :~i~: Greg Dehler ~! Wold ~ 305 St. Peter Street St. Paul 55102 651-227-7773 Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. A. Assign each application a number. B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). C. List the date the City received the application. D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver. I. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) J. List. the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before Memorandum To-' Planning Commission Members From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Date: July 30, 1999 Subject: Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on CouncilIEDAJHRA actions. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. 1. July 26 CouncillEDA Meetings - At the July 26 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Resolution Acceptin.q Resi.qnation of John Cameron from the New Hope Plannin.q Commission and Extendin.q Appreciation for His Service-: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Resolution Authorizinq Release of Financial Guarantee for Post Haste Shoppin.q Center/Bright Start Daycare Project, 9440 36~h Avenue (Planninq Case 98-02): Approved, see attached Council request. C. Planninq Case 99-13, Request for Variance to Front Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of Second Story and Addition to Front of Gara.qe, 8949 Northwood Parkway: Approved. D. Project #659, Discussion Re.qardin.q Bid Received for Fire Station Roof Replacement and Tablinq Action on Bids: Tabled for 60 days, see attached Council request. E. Project #474, Resolution Approvin.q Purchase Aqreement to Acquire Property at 7500 42"d Avenue North by Direct Purchase or Condemnation: Approved, see attached EDA request. 2. Codes & Standards Committee - Codes & Standards did not meet in July. 3. Design & Review Committee - Design & Review met to review plans for the U-Haul CUP and Kmart improvements. Representatives from Cooper met with the Committee the following Tuesday morning at a special meeting. 4. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - The Committee did not meet in July. The Joint Water Commission Plan has been submitted to the City Engineer for review. When comments are completed, they will need to be reviewed by the Committee and then a Public Headng held in September or October, as this Plan needs to be formally adopted as an amendment to the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. 5. Zonin.q Code Update Committee - City staff and consultants will meet again on August 6 to continue discussion at the staff level on areas of the Code that need to be modified. A Committee meeting will be scheduled sometime in September. 6. Resignation of John Cameron - With the resignation of John, the Planning Commission will have one opening. This position is being advertised in the SunPost and onthe City's web site. (see attached) 7. September Planin_~ Commission - Anticipated applications: A. Walgreens at 42~ & Winnetka (see attached plan) B. Joint Water Commission - Water Supply Plan C. Gymnastics CUP at 3941/61 Quebec Avenue 8. Project Bulletin - Enclosed are project bulletins regarding 42nd Avenue improvements, 5340 Winnetka Avenue, 5546 Sumter Avenue, and 5629 Wisconsin Avenue. 9. Miscellaneous Articles - Excerpts from Zoning Bulletin and Zoning News. 10. Miscellaneous Issues: A. City staff continued to work on the following potential developments: 1) Navarre building expansion 2) Valspar building expansion 3) Lasky property 4) Artec building expansion 5) A.C. Carlson plat and rezoning or CUP 6) Potential Keelor Steel expansion Attachments: John Cameron Post Haste Shopping Center Bond Release Fire Station Roof Replacement ,7500 42~ Avenue (Ardel Engineering) Purchase Planning Commission Ad Walgreens Project Bulletins Miscellaneous Articles FOR ~un¢ Deptrcm~t Appn~ed ror'~4~x~ )4end~ ~Uon Commun~ Development 7-26-99 Consent ~~ lt~ No. ~ Ki~ McDonald 6. ~ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING RESIGNATION OF JOHN CAMERON FROM THE NEW HOPE PLANNING COMMISSION AND EXTENDING APPRECIATION FOR HIS SERVICE REQUESTED ACTION The attached resolution accepts John Cameron's resignation effective July 8, 1999, and extends appreciation for his years of service on the Commission. BACKGROUND Cameron has informed the City that he is resigning from the Planning Commission due to a move back to Pennsylvania and to pursue new challenges in his career. Cameron was appointed to the Planning Commission in January 1998 and has served on the Commission for one and one-half years. Cameron was appointed to the Commission as a result of a code change in 1997 where leaders from the business community could serve on city commissions. Cameron worked for Liberty Diversified Industries, but was a resident of Brooklyn Park. Besides serving on the Commission, John also served as a member of the Codes & Standards Committee, which is a subcommittee of the Planning Commission that studies and makes recommendations regarding changes to the Zoning Code and other portions of the City Code. Liberty Diversified Industries 5600 N. HIGHWAY 169 · MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55428-3096 · U.S.A. · (612) 536-6600 · FAX (612) 536-6685 · Mr. Kirk McDomdd 4401 Xyloa Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 I am writing this letter to let you know that my wife and I hnve decided to lenve Minnesota and r~um m [~lll~'yl¥~ni~ W~ ~ ~lljo~ our ~ hel~, but mi~ ~ family. Vi~ ~ be leaving the week of July 19, 1999. Therefore, I am offering my t~sipntion from the Cit~ of New Hope Planning Co--'on. Working with yOU add yoLu' staff alld the o~er ~ of the plnnning Commission has been a very iaformafive alld enjoyable expmence. I wish all of you the best. Sincerely, coolvc RZg U T FOR ACTION ~tma Depazm:ent ~ for,Mm ~4enda Secuon Communi~ Development [ ~ Consent lt~ No. ~ M~onald ~ // -26-99 6. t5 RESOLUTION AU~ORIZING REL~SE OF FINANCIAL GUA~TEE FOR POST HASTE SHOPPING CENTE~BRIGHT ST~T OAYCARE PROJECT ~0 36m AVENUE NORTH (P~NNING CASE 9~2) ACTION REQUESTED Staff re~mmends ~at ~e Ci~ Coun~l approve a resolution releasing the final finan~al guarantee on the Post Haste Shopping Center/Bright Sta~ Day. re improvemena at ~0 36= Avenue (Planning Case 98-02). ~e final release would be subje~ to the payment of final adminis~at~e/~nsul~nt expenses incu~ed over the last ~ree months on this proje~, whi~ have not yet been bill~. It is sta~s opinion that the developer has ~mpleted all of the requir~ improvemen~ to the prope~. POLICY/PAST P~CTICE It is the Poli~ and past prac~ of the Ci~ to require a financial guarantee for specific site improvements/amenities to insure that improvemen~ am ~mpleted and to release ~e financial guarantee when the improvemen~ have been ~mpleted. BACKGROUND The Post Haste Shopping Center improvements and a ~e amendment to all~ ~mmercial day.re ~nters by ~nditional use pe~it in a B~ Zoning Distdct for Bdght Sm~ Day. re were approved by the Coun~l in Ap~l 1998. At ~at ~, a finan~al guarantee in the amount of $112,~0 was ~sted by the owner and day.re provider for ~e insmlla~on of public improvemena and on-site amenities, including pa~ing lot. sidewalk, and land~pi~ improvemen~ and for the grading and installation of playground equipment. In .July 1~98. ~e s~pi~ ~nter ~ner and Bdght Sta~ Day.re r~uested a release or reduction on the financial guarani. ~e Ci~ E~in~r and Building O~cial inspected the pmpe~ at that ~me and reposed that ~e ~ of ~e impmvemena had been ~mplet~. but r~mmend~ retaining some funds to insure that all ~ was ~mpleted. ~e Council redu~ ~e odginai amount to be held down to $10,000. The owner has now r~uest~ that this final amount be release. ~ (~nt'd.) MOTION BY ~I~ONI~ ~' , Request for Action Page 2 ~'~7.26..~'~ As you are aware, the code amendment to allow a daycare center at this site was not without controversy. In June and July of 1998, staff received calls from several property owners adjacent to the site requesting that additional landscaping and screening be provided. City staff and consultants met with the neighbors at that time and generally agreed that some additional landscaping/screening would be desirable. Some neighbors requested additional plantings and some requested that slats be inserted into various sections of the chain link fence to screen their view. Subsequent to meeting with the neighbors, staff met with the owner of the center and Bright Start and requested that they consider installing additional plantings/screening. The shopping center owner also met with several of the abutting property owners. The owner then submitted the attached July 22 correspondence and plan to the City which outlines the additional work they agreed to do. City staff and consultants indicated agreement with the plan. Within the past several weeks, the additional screening work has been completed, per the plan. -. The City Engineer, Building Official and Planning Consultant have all inspected the site .and have found all of the improvements have been completed and are recommending release of the remaining funds. There are two minor issues regarding ADA parking signs and the payment of a small amount of administrative expenses (not yet billed), and the resolution releasing the financial guarantee is subject to those minor items being completed. Staff informed several of the neighbors who have had concerns about this project that they would be 'notified when the request to release the final funds was on the Council agenda and they have been mailed a copy of this information. A'I'I'ACHMENTS · Owner's Letter Requesting Release of Secudty · City Engineer Correspondence · Building Official Memo · Planner's June 25, 1999 Memo · Owner's July 22, 1998 Letter re: Additional Screening · Planner's July 15, 1998 Memo re: Revised Plan Kirk McDonald City Of New Hol~ 4401 Xylon Ave. N. New Hope, MN. 55428 Re: Release ofbond for Brite Start build out Dear Mr. McDonald, We have fiually completed all the improvements we a~reed to perform. Please release the $10,000. bond as soon as possible. Thank you and your stafl~ for your help and cooperation in my renovation efforts at Post Haste Square. All of you have been ~reat to work with. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at the corporate off,ce # 88~- 8088 ext. 2, or my cellular # 701-8088. Thank you! Property Mav~ of Caribou Corner, LL(~ / · MEMO TO: Kirk McDonald. Doug Sanclstad ~ROM: Vince Vander Top DATE;: April 19, 1999 SUBJECT: Britt Star (Poste Haste) Our File No. 3-l-Gen E98-09 We have reviewed the site and the status of proposed impmvemenu. AJI improvements including landscaping appear to be completed. The followin,~ minor items were noted: I. A new si~ wu installed on the west side of the property. Some bituminous patching and excess soil removal is still requited. 2. The fence screening is not completed as noted in your previous review. 3. Some "bird ba~hs" were noticed in the bituminous pavement. Several were located a~ the northwest comer of the building and one was located neat the entrance of Britt Stat. Correcting these "bird baths'"' would requite extensive milling and tepavin$. We recommend accepting the parking lot as constructed; however, in the final bond release, it should be noted that the "bird baths" could uitimazely reduce the life of the pavement in that area and create a nuisance for tenants. cc: Mark Hanson End of comments 2'335 ~/est Hig/'~wa¥ 36 · St. Paul, MN 55115 · A~I.L~L.~tnn. e.,-. ,~, ........ PLAT BOND REVIEW TO: City Manager DATE: July 21, 1999 FROM: Doug Sandstad 'PLAT': Poste Haste Shopping'Center Day Care Center BOND AMOUNT: $10,000 Number of Lots: One FACILITIES / LANDSCAPING REQUIRED: Curbing OK Sod OK ". Trees & Shmb~: OK Driveways OK Sidewalks "* 95% Done- Disability ramps & approved signs needed for 5 Disability parking spaces. Grading OK Structuree: OK Other OK Bluetine Drawing~ in CD Blueprint File: One set I have, on ~ day 7-21-99, in~l:~ected the project for comDletion .of all work covered by the bond we retain. It is alNXoDriate to RELEASE ALI~ of the security. Property owner/Contractor must complete detail noted above ~', within 30 days. I have consulted with the City Engineer on this: YES.._X .... NO . cc: City Engineer McDonald file G: bofiles~olatbond.doc 2/98 I · ' CQMMUNI?Y ffL. ANNJN~ - o['liofl - blANKET IIIII,ARC'I.q MEMOWDUM TO.' IOrk McOoneld · · DATE: June'25,. 1 g99 FILE NO.: 131.01 - ge.01 BACKGROUND '" 0n July 13; 19ge,'thi M~pliMnt. City staff, 8r~l IxoOertY~..~ tothe 8rigl~t Start Oly Care met to di~:uM additional K~eening of the Bright' 5t~ t pl~ equipment. The etWchecl imndKape pWn wee agreed to it ~tet time. It Ihould be noM4U~at the Poste HMte ~hopping Center Mnce ie IoMted between eight M'N:I twenl y.~ i~ its north and eelt MC4:)M'tY lirlee. Moit M the lencleMping ihown on lhe let MMpi p!en outeicle the 198U1=8 A site visit on June 21, 1'990; ~ ~ the"al:~lcaflt hts comp4i~ with most of the tinct me sawnk~ .=:epmble. - 5.??5 'WAYZATA .BOULEVARD, SUITE 5S5 ST. I-OUI~ IIAHIK.'.MINNESOTA SSA I PHONE tl :~.SOI-Ol~' FAX' e I 2-.SOS.-O837 I";MAII.. NAGO WINTi'RNET,COM McDo~ld :~-ion A~'e. ~'. P[~ ~d ~he ~c~o~ Iay°uc n~ co ~ nei~ ~d ~eiy ~lay~d ~ wi~ a s~ ~d ~ pl~n~ ~ ~ ~l m ~e f~e ~ ~S ~ the E~s ~d No~. Tom ~~ ~ l ~ to ~e ~h on S~y. :9.1998. ~ ~ ~y No~ of ~e play~ We mu~ ~ ~t ofpJ~c ~ps s~Md ~ ~1~ m ~e f~ce ~ ~ N~ ~ to b~ ~h~r vi~ ~i~F~ ~d ~o Blue Sp~e (~ l~ ~' ~ shoMd ~ ~M ~ ~ on ~l~ would mcel~ compiler ~e BI~ Sp~e ~ c~7 We m ~e7 ~ac~'~d me~8 ~e si~e u w~ m~y decid~ ~ ~s w~ ~e ~ ~t~ve. ~'e ~ ~ to ~ No~ who We ~ 3~19 7o~ Ave. No~ ~d [h~ vehemently' ~u~s~ s~s in ~e f~ce ~ ~u~ one 30" ~~ (Glob~ T~) ~e~ ~b~ L~ ~. ~ey o~y ~ one ~~ p~tM ~7 ~ ~ did no~ The m~ ~ ~62~ w~ not home ~ we ~d not ~m a c~e to ~k ~ ~ ~r did we ~e w~ ~ ~e ~ bilk ~l ~s to ~e play~ To ~ bilk ~eir ~ p~smS 30 I~ ~ of p~c ~o~c~ibb ~ of~, Mlid ~ ~dy q~ ~e f~e or ~ ~t n~ ~ause P~e We me 7o~ ~u~ on ~s ~ayo~ ~d l MB ~ve tc [~1~ wi,hia a mon~ of I ~ w~t m ~e it cl~ ~ ~ ~e m no way ~j up o~ ~ ~ ~ ~~e17 m ~ ~ ~t ~ of ~ ~p or ~ve ~e f~ ~ ~ ~y c~ ~i~y if ~ n ~ m ~ of ~u ~o~. I.w~ ~ wo~ M~ ~ L4:.q: FAX .i.' ':'0.1, 30::$ ~G.1I qL'~S4,:#I.~R 1 0T fence on :he property [i~e which ,vouid assure complete I hope thss layout meets the C'-tie~ a~d Cou~eis ~. p~ova{. I £eel I have met ::11 :~tciin{{ Bright Statm a.,ud :hete~ore there should no~ be may .,~u'th~ ptobietus :: Y~avu~ rele'a.med o~et ~en some uuaor ~old.backs ,"e{at~in{ the pazk~g lot ~nishLu~ touc?.es. T.~ar.k you for ail yo~ ume ~nci e~ott Lu :esolvm{ '~s.sues ~d ptobiems th~ have :or...e uu ae,,.h, Start btuldout. TO: K]~ ~ · ' FROM: Cynthi~ Putz-Y~ I Allfl Brixiu~ FILE NO: 131.01 - g~.01 mdI~,,K~diOUND Circle. Thi~ ~ i. illLBImt~ in the ~ c~ Ihe Be.. ATTACHMENT~ Orclinlfl~ ee4:lion 4.033 (3) (el) (ill faf' arm of two foilov~nO M~'nat~ree, eitl'm' e end denee enough to provide an dllctive aa'een to · minimum Imi~ht of ~ix hint 5775 WAYZA"FA BOUI-LrVAIqD. IUITE 555 IT. I.GUll IIARK, MINNESOTA ' 554 I · PHONE 81 3.BOB-0818 IrAX 8! 2-595-963.7 E,MAII. NAC(~WINTERNET.COM · rom ~ne c~ IbM tTee, it ~ die, which would ~ IclditioMI ~ In ~hi. 4.. Upon in--on, I:)ieoN d fill, Induding oona'ete, w~l visible to the no'th of the In reiponee to the ~ M l~e neigl't)orl, wi tuggelt lhe foll(:Mtng Ic~Jons be taken. chein I'.'~k M)nce. The IietW:l fenm wcxaid providi l(~inO faur ~ ebove · creen 1:4yo")d the height of the flnoe m"KI ofl~ ~ ~ M ~ f~M. ,Some of theee ihrube ooulcl be plented w#hin Ihe I'enoKl eme if ~il plenting 4. Rm~ve m~y pleoee of cement fill ~ am vilible in the ~ notth of the pc: Merk Hm o-tS.-,tcJgd~ 15:34 ~ . 612 5'gJ5 .- E~ B: ~V~ LA.SCAPE PLAN lt]l T ItOR ACTION Depart=eat *l re ed Oevd r 'uon ¢ommuni~ Development 7.2~.~ & Planning lt~ No. McDonald ~ ~ 8.~ )N REGARDING BID RECEIVED FOR ~E STATION ROOF REP~CEMENT AND TABLING ACTION ON BIDS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 659) ACTION REQUESTED S~ff mques~ to discuss wi~ ~e Ci~ Coundi ~e bid r~ived for ~e Fire S~Uon ~f mpla~ment. The Ci~ A~omey is r~mmending ~at a~on on ~e bid ~ ~bled unal such a~ ~at ~ related legal issues are m~lv~. POLICY/PAST P~C~CE The direcaon from ~e Council in ~e past has ~n to ~ke whatever measures am n~ssa~ to co~t the deficiencies with the Fire S~aon r~f. BACKGROUND At the May 10 Council meeang, the Ci~ Council appmv~ a moaon dimming ~e Ci~ Engineer to prepare plans and specifica~ons for ~e repair/replacement of ~e Fire S~on ~f and also authorized American Engineering Testing, Inc. to ~o~ tesang and d~umen~tion wo~ on the ~f. AET's wo~ was completed and plans and s~ifi~aons were pm~ by ~e Ci~ Engineer. At ~e June 14 Council m~ang, the Ci~ Council appmv~ ~e plans and s~aons and ordered adve~sement for bids. Bids were o~ned on July 21 and one bid was ~iv~, as foll~s: Company Bid Alternate Fomhen & Pete~n ~., I~. $3~,432.40 $1,400 (Alternate 1 is for a ~0 mill mf ~mbmne ~ickness. The base bid includes a 45 mill ~f memb~ne.) Per ~e Ci~ Engi~fs ~s~~, ~e engineers pmlimina~ esamate for ~e proje~ was $;250,000. Sin~ the odginal ~~, un~ms~n items were found ~at ne~ to ~ includ~ which increased the cost of the proje~. The p~ is ~mplex due to ~e limi~aons on teadng ~ one s~ion of ~f at a time and mainlining the ~n~s inside ~ building. Based on ~e pmlimina~ es~mate and fa~om added a~er the esamate, ~e engin~r s~tes ~at ~e bid received is a ~m~aUve pdce. (cont'd.) MOTION BY ,,, ~ND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 7-26-99 ~ Per the City Attorney's correspondence, the repair of the Fire Station roof is necessitated because of the use of an insulation product called phenolic foam. Specifically, when this insulation product becomes wet, it results in corrosion to the metal decking upon which the insulation has been installed. The corrosion has resulted in a deterioration to the roof's thickness which can minimize the structural integrity of the entire building as pointed out in the City Engineer's June 30, 1999, memo (see attached). The history of this problem has been set out in the Building Official's April 14, 1999, letter, a copy of which is also attached. The City was not made aware of any problems with the roof until the City received a four-page fax from Roofing Consultants of Virginia, Inc. (RCV). This company was retained by the manufacturer of the phenolic foam, Johns Manville (JM), to investigate for problems relating to the use of their phenolic foam product. RCV conducted tests on the Fire Station roof on September 30 and October 1, 1998. On April 20, 1999, the Building Official sent a letter to RCV requesting written results from the 1998 inspection. The City subsequently received an April 28, 1999, letter from JM proposing a repair solution and attaching a report from RCV regarding their inspection of the roof in 1998. The City Attorney further states that the City has not yet responded to the settlement proposal set forth in the April 28, 1999, Johns Manville letter because an independent evaluation before a response needs to be made. This evaluation was done by American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET). Based upon AET's own independent evaluation of the roof's condition, it appears that the settlement solution proposed by the April 28, 1999, Johns Manville letter falls far short of a satisfactory solution. The June 9, 1999, report prepared by American Engineering Testing, Inc. under the direction of the City Engineer indicates the metal deck roofing has deteriorated as much as 66% from its original thickness. In other words, the metal decking is a 22 gauge wide rib decking that has a designed thickness of .0295 inches. The study done by AET indicates the thickness of the decking has diminished to .010 inches in at least one location on the roof. As a result of the testing made by AET, the City Engineer has indicated the structural capacity of the deck has been significantly reduced and must be completely replaced within a short period of time. However, in speaking with the City Engineer, it is his opinion that a delay until the spring of 2000 is acceptable relative to the safety and usability of the building. Lastly, the City Attomey states that despite the fact the City has prepared plans and specification for the roof · repair and requested bids, a contract for repair cannot be awarded at this time and recommends that action on the bids be tabled until the first meeting in October. In the intedm pedod, the City Attorney will initiate settlement discussions and/or litigation if settlement discussions break down regarding replacement of the roof pursuant to the plans and specifications for repair of this roof and the bids the City has received in response to said plans and specifications. Before the City proceeds with repairs, the City must provide the responsible parties with an opportunity to propose a satisfactory correction in order to perfect the City's dght to sue under our bond. The City Engineer states that with the existing condition of the metal decking, temporary measures would be required for the roof to get through another winter. Replacement of the roof this year, particularly in the apparatus bay, is desirable this year if the legal issues can be resolved. FUNDING The funding for the repair/replacement of the Fire Station roof will be paid out of the Insurance Reserve Fund and ultimately will be reimbursed to the City from the responsible parties. ATTACHMENTS · July 20, 1999 City Attorney Letter · July 21, 1999 City Engineer Letter re: Bid , July 20, 1999 City Engineer Letter . · June 30, 1999 City Engineer Letter re: AET · June 7, 1999 AET Report · Apdl 28, 1999 Letter from Johns Manville re: Proposed Solution ' · April 14 & 20, 1999 Building Official Letters · Plans & Specification Excerpts JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. /Otor#eys Ut [.~w 8f12fl EDINBROOK CROS~iNG, STE. 201 BROOJO, YN P~C. ~A SS443-1999 TELEPHONE (612) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (612) 493-5193 E-MAIL C,O,~ON L. J~qsr~* jss~jsspa.com WILLIAM G. SWANSON STEYEN A. SONDRALL ¢. Af. DF~ PLoUO~ DEAN A. TRONGARDI' JUUE A. TRILL Ot~ COUNSr:L Loee~sO. BiYNu'r^D July 20, 1999 Kirk McDonald Community Development Director City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New .Hope, MN 55428 Re: Fire Station Roof Repair/John. Manville Corporation Our File No.: 99.53050 Dear Kirk: This letter will summarize our actions in connection with repair of the fire station roof. The repair is necessitated by the use of an insulation product called phenolic foam. Specifically, when this insulation product becomes wet, it results in corrosion to the metal decking upon which the insulation has been installed. The corrosion has resulted in a deterioration to the roof's thickness which can minimize the structural integrity of the entire building as pointed out in the City Engineer's June 30, 1999 memo (see attached). The history of this problem has been set out in the Building Official's April 14, 1999 letter, a copy of which is also attached. Basically, the City was not made aware of any problems with the roof until we received a four page fax from Roofing Consultants of Virginia, Inc. (RC~. This company was retained by the manufacturer of the phenolic foam, John, Manville (JM), to investigate for problems relating to the use of their phenolic foam product. RCV conducted tests on the fire station roof on September 30 and October 1, 1998. On April 20, 1999, the Building Official sent a letter to RCV requesting written results from the 1998 inspection. The City subsequently received an April 28, 1999 letter · from J'M proposing a repair solution and attaching a report from RCV regarding their inspection of the roof in 1998. We have not yet responded to the settlement proposal set forth in the April 28, 1999 Johns Manville letter. We needed an independent evaluation before a response can be made. This evaluation was done by American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET). Based upon '- c~f-, ~ r. AET's own independent evaluation of the roof's condition, it appears that the settlement A,,.,...M'~'"S"'h' solution proposed by the April 28, 1999 Johns Manville letter falls far short of a ~Qualifmd ADIt Nmm~l satisfactory solution. The June 9, !9(~J report prepared by American £nsineering Testing, Inc. under the direction of the City Engineer indicates the metal deck roofing has deteriorated as much as 66 ~ from its original thickness. In other words, the metal decking is a 22 gauge wide rib decking that has a designed thickness of .029:~ inches. The study done by AET indicates the thickness of the decking has diminished to .010 inches in at least one location on the roof. As a result of the testing made by AET, the City Engineer has indicated the structural capacity of the deck has been signifr, antly reduced and must be completely replaced within a short period of time. However, in speaking with the City Engineer, it is his opinion that a delay until the spring of 2000 is acceptable relative to the safety and usability of the building. Despite the fact we have prepared plans and specifications for the roof repair and requested bids, a contract for repair cannot be awarded at this time. Therefore, I would recommend that action on the bids be tabled until the first meeting in October. In the interim period we will initiate settlement discussions and/or litigation if settlement discussions break down regarding replacement of the roof pursuant to our own plans and specifications for repair of this roof and the bids we have received in response to said plans and specifications. Before we proceed with repairs, we must provide the responsible parties with an opportumty to propose a satisfactory correction in order to perfect our fight to sue under our bond. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the content of this letter or the at-,achments hereto. Ve~.truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall J£~$£s SWA,'~SON & SOSDR,~LL, P.A. Enclosures cc: Dan Donahue Prirtclp41$: Otto G. ~lonestroo. PE. · Joseph C. Al~(~erlik, pE.. Mwvl~ ~ SOlVe. ~E. · ~oOert ~ Rosene, PE. aha Sus~ M. EberJm. C.P.A., S~ior Consulters Michael T ~autmann. PE. · Ted K.Fiel~. ~E. · K~t~ ~ ~n~rson. ~E. · ~k ~. ~olfs. ~E. · Si~ P ~illlamson. PE. L.S. · Roar[ F. Kotsml~ · A~S M. Ri~ · ~c~ P R~ ~E. · Engineers & Architects o~,~: st paul. Rocfles,er. ~i,lmar and Sr Cloud. MN. Milw~kee. ~1' July 21, 1999 Mr. ~rk Mc~nald Ci~ of New Ho~ ~01 Xylon Argue No~ New Hope, ~ ~428 Re:New Ho~ Fi~ Sm~on R~f R~lac~em Ci~ ~ojec~ No. B~ File No. ~4-99-106 Dear Kirk: Bids for the project were opened today at 11:30 a.m. One bid was submitted for the project. The bid was submitted by Forshen and Peterson, Inc. in the amount of $304,432.40. Ten copies of the bid tabulation are attached. The engineer's preliminary estimate for the project was $250,000. Since the original estimate, unforeseen items were found that needed to be included which increased the cost of the project. In discussing the bid with Jeff Soutar of Forschen and Peterson, Jeff said that they feel confident that their numbers are good and that they did not miss anything big. Jeff attended the Pre-bid meeting held on July 13, 1999 at which time a walkthrough of the project was done. The project is complex due to the limitations on tearing off one section of roof at a time and maintaining the functions inside the building. Based on the preliminary estimat~ and factors added after the preliminary estimate, the bid received is a competitive price. With the existing condition of the metal decking, temporary measures would bc required for the roof to get through another winter. R~lacernent of the roof this year, particularly in the apparatus bay, is desirable this y~r if thc lc~al issues can be resolved. If you should have any questions on this matter, please call me at (651) 604-4895. Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROS~NE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. J~ry D.~er~ch, P.E.~ Cc: Mark Hanson - BRA ~ J~osefle PrOlecl Name: N,.ew Hoj~e Fire Slaliofl Roof Repairs I I~reby cef1~/~ Ih~$ is ~ ex~l ~& ~e$ Pr~l ~.: 659 Fi~ No.: ~-9g-1~ ' ' ' ~. f7~/ B~f ~. 1 F~ & P~ CO ~ T~: Ud~ ~ U~ Pm To~ 1 ~ ~ f~ 45 ~ EP~ ~~ SF I~ ~.~ ~.~.~ (~) ~ 1~ ~.7~ ~,072.~ ~ ~ H~o ~.H ~.~7.~ ~) ts ~.~.~ S3.~.~ 9 ~ ~ ~. ~, ~. to ~am ~ LS ~.~ ~.~ T~ 0a~ B~: $~,432.~ ~to~le O~ No. 1 10 Pm~ms~EPDM ~ ~ ~ ~ 45 ~ E~M (~) L$ $~;~.~ T~ ~[~ B~ ~. 1: &l,~.~ Tolal Base Bid: $304,432.4G Told.Nlemale 8~d No. t: $!,400.0G Co~backx Nm ad Addme :or~he~ & Pe~e~t CO Inc 1912 4th Ave Anoka. MN 55303 Phom~: (612) 421-4209 Fa~ (612) 5064)765 Signed By: Wallel' W. Tille: CEO Bid Secu~ily: Bid 3409106L~ BT-1 ~ ~. MN 5~28 ~ ~ pu~ of~ ~ ~g is m ~ ~ · d~~ to r~ ~ w~ forc~ on the wi~d n minim~ wind ~ of~ mph. 2l~S West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 15113 · 651'636-4600 · Fax: 611-636-1311 ( EDA ItI Ui T leOit ACTION Orlglnattn~ Dep~t Approved t'or'A~enda A~enda Secuon EDA Community Development ~ , 7-26-99~/ Item ~ro. B3rKirk McDonald RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEI~ENT TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AT 7500 42N° AVENUE NORTH BY DIRECT PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 474) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests that the Economic Development Authority approve the enclosed resolution prepared by the City Attorney which approves the Purchase Agreement to acquire the property at 7500 42"~ Avenue North by direct purchase or condemnation. The resolution authorizes the Executive Director to acquire the property by direct purchase, per the terms Of the agreement, which includes a $482,000 purchase and all reasonable closing costs associated with the purchase of the property. If direct purchase from the property owner is unsuccessful, the resolution authorizes the Executive Director to. commence eminent domain proceedings to acquire the property. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE Since the early 1990s, the City has taken a number of actions to acquire the three industrial properties located at the northeast comer of 42"~ and Quebec Avenues for redevelopment purposes. The City acquired and demolished the Electronic Industries building at 7516 42"~ Avenue in 1993, and the City acquired and demolished the Foremost building at 7528 42"~ Avenue between 1993 and 1995. Over the years, the City has had a number of conversations with the property owner, Terry Jensen, regarding the' potential acquisition of the property at 7500 42'~ Avenue. The environmental cleanup and future commercial redevelopment of the three industrial sites located at the northeast comer of Quebec Avenue and 42n~ Avenue is identified as a goal of the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND At the June 28 EDA meeting, the EDA approved a motion directing staff to prepare a Purchase Agreement for the acquisition of the property at 7500 42"~ Avenue North. The agreed upon purchase was $482,000, which was a compromise between the owner's appraisal of $545,000 and the City's appraisal of $432,000. The City also will avoid paying relocation expenses due to the unoccupied status of the building. (cont'd) MOTION BY ,, , ~"OND ~ Request for Action Page 2 7-26-99 Per the City Attorney's correspondence, the Purchase Agreement for the property consists of three documents: 1. Commercial-Industrial Purchase Agreement (form), 2. Addendum of Seller's Representations and Warranties, and 3. Additional Terms and Conditions to Purchase Agreement. The Purchase Agreement provides for a $500 earnest money payment to the property owner, which has been made. No closing date has been provided, as that date will be determined on when the title work can be performed and the timing on the completion of the environmental study on the property which is being completed by Northem Environmental, the City's environmental consultant. Regarding the Seller's Representations and Warranties Addendum, clause f. deals with the contamination issues. The property owner is not required to indemnify the EDA for any contamination caused by the City or Electronic Industries, however, it does require him to indemnify the EDA for contamination to the property caused by him, his tenants, or any persons that have owned or rented the property pdor to his ownership. The Northern Environmental report should resolve this issue. Concerning the addendum for Additional Terms and Conditions, there are vadous dates that should be included in the contract. The closing date needs to be established 'and a deadline for the Northern Environmental report should be set. Paragraph 6 covers the condemnation issue by indicating there is a present threat of condemnation in connection with this acquisition in the event the property cannot be obtained by direct purchase. The resolution approving this agreement has a reference to condemnation, which will provide the property owner with the ability to defer capital gains on this transaction if he satisfies the time limits for reinvestment of the proceeds from this deal per the Internal Revenue Code. The resolution states that the EDA has determined that the acquisition of this property is reasonably necessary to the furtherance of the goals and objectives of the 42'~ Avenue TIF redevelopment plan/project and that the acquisition of this property will be for the benefit of the public health, welfare and safety of the citizens of New Hope. The resolution states that Minnesota Statutes authorize the EDA to acquire the property by direct purchase in lieu of eminent domain proceedings and states that the EDA approves the Purchase Agreement and its addenda to acquire the property by direct purchase for $482,000. The resolution states that it has been determined the additional $50,000 over the EDA's appraisal amount is an equitable compromise between the two appraisals and also constitutes consideratiOn for the property owner's waiver of reimbursement for relocation and moving expenses and appraisal fees required by the Purchase Agreement. Lastly, the resolution states that Minnesota Statutes gives the EDA the authority to acquire property by power of eminent domain and that the EDA has determined it is necessary to acquire this property by either direct purchase or eminent domain proceedings. The property owner has reviewed the Purchase Agreement and is in agreement with the terms and conditions of the agreement and has executed said agreement. Northern Environmental has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the property and has determined that there is no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) in connection with the property except for the contamination associated with the Electronic Industries site and some staining off the northeast comer of the building. Based on the findings, Northern Environmental has recommended that: Request for Action Page 3 6-27-g~, 1. Remedial activities should continue and the City should seek a UNo Association" letter from the MPCA related to the contamination from off-site sources. 2. A soil sample should be collected from the area of the stain and be analyzed. The City is proceeding on both of these recommendations and the City Manager has requested a "No Association" letter from the MPCA. Northern Environmental will now be proceeding with the soil analysis, which will constitute the Phase II work. FUNDING The initial purchase of the property, which is located in the 42"~ Avenue TIF District, will be funded internally and those funds will be repaid either upon the sale of the property and/or with grant funds. AI'rA,CHMENTS · Resolution Attorney Correspondence · Purchase Agreement and Addendums · Northern Environmental Phase I Executive Summary EDA RESOLUTION NO. 99-__ RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AT 7S00 42ND AVENUE NORTH BY DIRECT PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION BE IT RESOLVED by the Economic Development AuthoriW in and for the City of New Hope, Minnesota as follows: WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope (hereafter the EDA) was organized and established within the City of New Hope by Ordinance No. 89-7 adopted by the City Council on March 27, 1989 under authorization of Minn. Stat. §469.090 et. seq., and WHEREAS, the New Hope City Council on December 23, 1985 approved the adoption of Redevelopment Plan 85-2, Redevelopment Project 85-2 and Tax Increment Financing Plan 85-2 by its Resolution No. 85-129, and WHEREAS, the EDA was transferred control, operation and authori.ty over Redevelopment Plan 85-2, Redevelopment Project 85-2 and Tax Increment Financing Plan 85-2 pursuant to HRA Resolution No. 89-4, City Resolution No. 89- 73 and EDA Resolution No. 89-3, and WHEREAS, the property located at 7500 42nd Avenue North hereafter legally described is included in t. he Redevelopment Plan, Redevelopment Project and Tax Increment Financing. Plan area: The East 1 O0 feet of the South 3 S0 feet of Lot S, Auditor's Subdivision No. 324, Hennepin County, Minnesota except road and alley. PID No. 17-118-21-22 0006, and WHEREAS, said redevelopment plan and redevelopment project were established under the authority of Minn. Stat. Chap, 462 pursuant to various studies undertaken by the City of New Hope which have shown that certain redevelopment activities, goals and objectives in the plan area are warranted and would not have occurred through private development alone, and WH_._~, the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope does hereby determine that the acquisition of this property is reasonably necessary and convenient to the furtherance of the goals and objectives of the redevelopment plan and redevelopment project, and that in its judgment the acquisition of this property will be for the benefit of the public health, welfare and safety of the citizens of New Hope, and WHEP, F.A.~, an appraisal of this property, ordered by the EDA, has been completed establishing a fair market value for the subject property of $432,000.00, and WHEI~EA$, the Property Owner has had an appraisal completed indicating $545,000.00 as the fair market value for the property, and WHEP, EA$, the Property Owner may also be entitled to reimbursement for relocation and moving expenses and appraisal fees, and WHEREAS, based on the differences in the appraisals and the uncertainty regarding the Owner's right to relocation expenses and appraisal fees the Property Owner has requested an acquisition price of $482,000.00 for the property, and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. §! ! 7.232 authorizes the EDA to acquire the subject property by direct purchase in lieu of eminent domain proceedings, and as a result the EDA hereby approves the Purchase Agreement and its addenda (EXhibit A attached) to acquire the property by direct purchase for $482,000.00. It is further determined the additional $50,000.00 over the EDA's appraisal amount is an equitable compromise between the EDA's and the Property Owner's appraisal and also constitutes consideration for the Property Owners waiver of reimbursement for relocation and moving expenses and appraisal fees required by the Purchase Agreement, and WHEEEAS, Minn. Stat. §469.101, Subd. 4 gives the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope the authority to acquire property by power of eminent domain under Minn. Stat. Chapter 1 ! 7, and WHEEF. A.~, the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope has determined it is necessary to acquire this property by either direct purchase or eminent domain proceedings, and NOW, THEEEFOEE, 8E IT P,E$OLVED by the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope as follows: 1. Thatthe Executive Director is hereby directed and authorized to sign and deliver to the Property Owner the Purchase Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A and to acquire by direct purchase per the terms of said Purchase Agreement the property at 7500 42nd Avenue North in the City of New Hope, legally described as follows: The East 100 feet of the South 3S0 feet of Lot S, Auditor's Subdivision No. 324, Hennepin County, Minnesota except road and alley. PID No. 17-118-21-22 0006. In addition to the $482,000.00 purchase price, the Executive Director is authorized to pay all reasonable.closing costs associated with the purchase of property. 2. If direct purchase from the Property Owner is unsuccessful, the Executive Director is authorized and directed to commence eminent domain proceedings under Minn. Stat. Chapter 117 to acquire the subject property. Adopted by the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope this 26th day of July, 1999. W. Peter Enck, President Attest: Daniel J. Donahue, Executive Director 3 ffENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. A~orneys At Law 8525 EDINBROOK CRO~iNG, STE. 201 TELEPHONE (612) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (612) 493-5193 ' Gop~ L. $~NS~N* E-MAIL j~jsspa, com W~M G. S~ A. SO~ c. ~ ~ ~uly 8, 19~ D~ A. ~A. ~ ~i~ ~c~nald Co~i~ Development Dieter op co~s~ Ci~ ofNew Ho~ Lo~s Q. aa~ ~01 ~ylon Avenue ~o~ New Ho~, ~ 55428 ~dei Engulfing ~h~ A~ement O~ File: ~. l I I 11 De~ Ki~: Enclosed is the purchase agreement for the Ardei Engineering property. It consists of three documents: 1. Commercial-InduStrial Purchase Agreement (form), 2. Addendum Of Seller's Representations and Warranties, and 3. Additional Terms and Conditions To Purchase Agreement. Regarding the Purchase Agreement, I have provided for a S500.00 earnest money payment. Therefore, you will need to arrange for a check in that amount for Terry Jensen. Also, no closing date has been provided. We will need to determine the closing date based on when title work can be performed and the timing on the completion of the Northern Environmental study for the property. Jensen will also need to initial paragraph 11 of the Purchase Agreement_relating to the number of addenda making up the agreement. ~ing the Seller's Representations and Warranties Addendum, clause f. deals with the contemination issues. Basically, Sensen is not required to indemnify the EDA for any contamination caused by the City or Electronic Industries, however, it does require him to indemnify the FDA for contamination to the property caused by him, his tenants or any persons that have owned or rented the property prior to his ownership. I believe this accurately reflects the understanding we had with him on this issue. The Northern Environmental report should resolve this issue anyway. Concerning the addendum for Additional Terms and Conditions, there are various dates that should be included in the contract. Again, the closing date needs to be established and a deadline for the Northern Environmental report should be set. Also, Paragraph 6 covers the condemnation issue by indicating there is a present threat of condemnation in connection -m~ ~ ,., s~.~. with this acquisition in the event the property cannot be obtained by direct purchase. Also, s4,=,o~ s..-s~ the resolution approving this agreement at the July 26~' meeting will have a reference to ,~:~i~ ~a s,~,m condemnation. That will provide Jensen with the 'ability to defer capital gains on this July 8, 1999 Page 2 transaction if he satisfies the time limits for reinvestment of the proceeds from this deal per the Internal Revenue Code. Contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosed documents. V~our$~ Steven A. Sondrall JffNS~ SWANSO~ & so~t~.t., P.A. Attachments Phil Kern City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 J RE: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Former Ardel Engineering Site, 7500 42nd Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota 55428 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Northern Environmental Technologies, Incorporated (Northern Environmental) has performed a i Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Former An:lei Engineering site, at 7500 42nd Avenue North in New Hope, Minnesota. Figure I depicts the general location of the property. One unoccupied building, with manufacturing and office areas, is presenL Past occupants of the property have included Soley Iron Works, Ardel Engineering and Manufacturing, and Reger Grinding. Pdor to development in the early 1960s, the property was used agriculturally or was undeveloped. Dudng operation as a metal working shop, chemicals used are believed to have consisted pdmadly of small quantifies of heavy lubrication oils and machine coolant. This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was performed in conformance with the scope and J limitations of the American Society of Testing and Materials Standard Process E 1527-97. · This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has revealed no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECe) in connection with the property, except for: REC 1: Contamination assodated with the adjacent release site has been documented at the subject property. Equipment associated with remedial activities is currently in operation to' treat contaminated groundwater in the area. j REC 2: Staining was observed off the northeast comer of the building. RECOMMENDATIONB I Based on the findings and conclusions of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Northem Environmental recommends the following: J REC 1. Remedial activities should continue and the City of New Hope should seek a *No Association' letter related to the contamination from off-site sources. I " REC 2: A soil sample should be collected from the area of the stain and should be analyzed for the presence of contamination. ! " In addition, trash observed in the wooded area off the northwest comer of the building should be I removed and disl3OSed of properly. If additional information regarding past site activities or potential off-site sources of contamination becomes available, this information should be reviewed and the need for additional assessment should be rHvaluated. I Should you have any questions regarding the scope or conclusions of our assessment, please contact us at 635-9100. I Sincerely, Northern Environmental-. I Technologies, Incorporated E~cl,vironmental Scientist// Oof,~las J. Bergstro~n, PO, CHMM I Director, Special Projects LRF/njf Attachments ~ 1999 Norlflem Envimnmenlai Te~tnologi#, In~. I 2 City of New Hope: New Hope News http://www.ci.new-hope, mn.us/whatsnew/shownews.html?fname=-news 129 Business. Community. C.,o~'e~m~em. · Services ~at's New. Home · Search, Contact Us New Hope News Vacancy On New Hope Planning Commission July 22, 1999 The City of New Hope has a vacancy on its Planning Commission. The Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council on matters affecting zoning, platting, commercial/industrial expansions and redevelopment, and public improvements. Regular meetings are held by the Planning Commission on the 1st Tuesday evening of the month. Residents or persons within the business community are encouraged to apply. Interested persons should contact the City Clerk at (612) 531-5117 for an application and complete commission description. Final appointment will be made by the City Council following application interviews. rHomelrBusinesslrCommunity][Contact Usl[Government][City Services][What's New] [Search & Site Map] © MCMXClC City of New Hope, MN 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428 - (612) 531-5100 - httD://www.ci.new-hooe.rnn.u~ - citvhall @ci.new-hope.mn.u$ WINN[TKA AVENUE NORTH f _- (' ~ ,~'~-, ....... '1 - m , -~ WINNETKA ~ X. Physical Project No. 547 Bulletin #2 CITY OF NEW HOPE PROJECT BULLETIN 42"° AVENUE NORTH (C.S.A.H. 9) 'STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. S47 Project Status Work on the 42~ Avenue Improvement Project is moving along despite the wet weather, but there have been some delays. In some cases contractors could not work because of the weather, and in other cases they were late to the project because they had to respond to storm damage in other nearby cities. MoSt of the work so far has been concentrated on the southern two lanes of the roadway between Boone Avenue and Winnetka Avenue, and along the east side of Boone Avenue between 40u' and 42"a Avenues. 42"~ Avenue has been reduced from four lanes (two in each direction) to two lanes with one in each direction to allow for construction to occur on the southern two lanes. This project requires coordinating the relocation of many utilities. On the weekend of June 4-5 the intersection of 42r~ And Winnetka was excavated so storm sewers and water mains in the intersection could be replaced. Dudng this water main work there was a disruption of water service to several area ,businesses. It is not anticipated that the intersection will have to be closed nor water service disrupted again dudng the project. Other completed.utility work includes the removal of all the overhead electdc lines and their placement underground by NSP. U.S. West is currently relocating fiber optic cable in the project area. Once all the power and communication utilities have been relocated, the storm sewer work can be completed and the south lanes of the street reconstructed. The other area of activity has been along the west side of Gethsemane Cemef~ery where the new ponds have been excavated. Grading around these new ponds is completed. Upcominq Work As soon as the south two lanes of 42'" Avenue are reconstructed, the traffic will be shifted to the southern two lanes and work will proceed on the northem lanes of the roadway and the medians. The completion of the southern lanes and the shift in traffic is expected to occur in mid August, weather permitting. When the traffic is shifted to the southern lanes of 42~ Avenue, Winnetka Avenue will be reopened to its full width (however it will be necessary to close the dght lane again for a short time while radius in the northwest comer of the intersection is reconstructed). The new enhance to Gethsemane Cemete,,,! aligned with Xy!on Avenue, wi!! also be opened with the completion of the southern lanes of 42"d Avenue. The intent of the City is to keep at least one lane of traffic, in each direction, open on 42"~ Avenue throughout the entire project. The area around the new ponds along Boone Avenue will be seeded in the next few weeks. The City fully anticipates that the entire project will be completed during this construction season. Contact Persons If you have questions or concerns during the street and utility improvement project, please direct your calls to the Project Engineer, Tom Fidler, at (651) 604-4810 or Tom Schuster, Contract Manager, at (612) 533-4823, ext. 13. City.of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Phone: 531-5100 Projects~547'~Project Bulletin ~ 6-29-99 PROJECT 653 Bulletin #1 5340 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH Overview The City acquired the property at 5340 Winnetka Avenue in June from a willing seller. The property is an oversized lot with 38,200 square feet. A survey is currently underway. Once the survey is complete, the Council and staff will begin to evaluate a number of redevelopment options for the property. Site Upkeep The site will be maintained by the City of New Hope. During the warmer months, the property will be mowed and maintained on a scheduled basis, with special clean-ups being conducted in the spring and fall. During the winter months, the driveway and sidewalks will be cleared on a Iow priority basis. City staff will be checking the house and site periodically and the Police Department is also observing the property on a daily basis through regular patrols of the neighborhood. The City is requesting that neighbors living near the site please contact the persons listed below if you observe something unusual occurring on the property. Contact Person If you have questions or concerns during this project, please contact Susan Henry, Community Development Specialist, at 612-531-5137, or Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at 612-531-5119, during regular working hours (8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.) or contact the Police Department, at 612-531-5170, during the evening hours or on the weekends. The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents in the area that may be impacted by the demolition during this project. The City will keep you informed about any future activities that are to take place on the site. Thank you for your cooperation. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 7/2/99 PROJECT 646 Bulletin ~2 5546 SUMTER AVENUE NORTH Overview The City Council awarded the demolition contract to the Iow bidder, Farr Construction, at the June 28 Council meeting. Following some localized fire training in July, the buildings will be tom down. Demolition will be accomplished by the end of August. Site Upkeep The site will be maintained by the City of New Hope after demolition takes place. During the warmer months, the property will be mowed and maintained on a scheduled basis, with special clean-ups being conducted in the spring and fall. During the winter months, the driveway and sidewalks will be cleared on a Iow priority basis. The City is requesting that neighbors living near the site please contact the persons listed below if you observe something unusual occurring on the property. Construction Schedule New Hope City Code states that construction activities can occur on the site between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends or holidays. Contact Person If you have questions or concerns during this project, please contact Susan Henry, Community Development Specialist, at 612-531-5137, or Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at 612-531-5119, during regular working hours (8:00 a.m.- 4:30 p.m.) or contact the Police Department, at 612-531-5170, during the evening hours or on the weekends. The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents in the area that may be impacted by the demolition dudng this project. The City will keep you informed about any future activities that are to take place on the site. Thank you for your cooperation. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 7/2/99 PROJECT NO. 612 ' Bulletin No. 4 ~ 5629 Wisconsin Avenue North ~, Update Construction will begin in July on a three-bedroom, single-family, accessible home on the vacant lot at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue North. The home will be fully accessible for individuals with disabilities. The construction contract was awarded to the Iow bidder, Michlitsch Builders, at the June 28 New Hope City Council meeting. Construction will completed by early fall. The City will market the home over the next couple of months. The buyer must meet stated qualifying criteria. Construction Hours New Hope City Code states that construction activities can occur on the site between 7:00 a.m.' to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends or holidays. Site Upkeep The City is responsible for ensuring the site will be mowed and maintained during the summer and fall months. City staff will be checking the house and site periodically and the Police Department is also observing the property on a daily basis through regular patrols of the neighborhood. The City is requesting that neighbors living near the site please contact the persons listed below if you observe something unusual occurring on the property. Contact Persons If you have questions or concerns during the project, please call Susan Henry, Community Development Specialist, at 612-531-5137, or Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at 612-531-5119, during regular working hours (8:00 a.m. -4:30 p.m.) or contact the Police Department at 612-531-5170 dudng the evening hours or on the weekends. The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents in the area that may be impacted during construction on this project. The City will keep you informed about any future activities that are to take place on the site. The City feels that the construction of a new home on this site will be a good addition to the neighborhood. Thank you for your cooperation. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 7/2/99 Page 2- June 10, 1999 Z.B. Z.B. June 10, 1999- Page 3 Free Speech-- Owner challenges ordinance prohibiting commercial signs subject to regulations that might be impermissible in the realm of noncommer- in residential areas cial speech. There was no question Schu!tz's corhmcrcial speech was lawful, · ' and her sign wasn't misleading. It was also clear, though, that the city had a MICHIGAN (4/27/99) -- Schultz lived in the city of. Rochester Hills. She ran legitimate interest in regulating commercial signs to maintain the nature and a business out of her home selling health and beauJy products, character of residential neighborhoods. Schultz's property was zoned single-family residential, but the city's zon- The appeals court undervalued the relationship between the city's goals ing ordinance allowed home businesses as long as they dido't create a nui- and the ban on home-occupation signs. There was no doubt that signs or bill- sam:e, become more than an incidental function of the house's use, draw traffic boards on a person's property, by their very nature, could be considered an other than weekly deliveries, take place outside the house, require paid em- aesthetic harm. Unlike oral speech, signs took up space and obstructed views, ployees, or have any signs. Schultz attached a large yellow sign to a tree in her distracted motorists, displaced alternative uses for land, and posed other legiti- yard that stated: "Nu Skin and Interior Design -- Opportunities Available -- mate problems. The city wasn't concerned about the content of the message on Earn Extra $1; $." commercial signs; it was concerned about the visual characteristics of such The city cited Schultz for violating its zoning ordinance by maintaining a signs. The city left open ample means for home business owners to pass their sign for her home business, commercial messages on to consumers by advertising, sending direct mail, or. Schultz asked the court to dismiss the charge against her, arguing the ordi- having a sign in a commercial area. name violated her right to commercial speech under the First Amendment. The city's ordinance didn't have to be the least restrictive means to achieve Commercial speech was different than political speech. Restrictions on corn- its interest, which meant the city didn't have to prohibit all signs from residen- mercial speech were valid if the speech concerned a lawful activity, the rial areas to support the ban on commercial signs. The types of signs the city government's restriction was justified by a substantial interest, the regulation allowed in residential areas were consistent with the character of residential directly advanced that interest, and the regulation was no more extensive than neighborhoods, and were different from home occupation signs because they necessary, were either noncommercial, informational in nature (such as street signs), or Schultz claimed the sign was an effective advertising tool and alternative temporary signs (such as garage sale or real estate signs). methods of advertising had proven too expensive and ineffective. She also argued the ban on home-occupation signs didn't advance the city's claimed City of Rochester Hills v. Schultz, Supreme Court o[ Michigan, Ho. 110294 rem;on for banning them because the city allowed other types of signs in resi- (1999). dential areas, including signs at subdivision entrances, real estate signs, model see also: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission home signs, political signs, and signs for garage sales, among others, of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S. Ct. 2343, 65 L.E&2d 341 (1980). The court dismissed the charge against Schultz, finding the city had the fight to regulate commercial signs but couldn't ban them completely, see also: Metromedia Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 101 S. Ct. 2882, 69 The city appealed, and the appeals court affirmed. According to the ap- L.Ed. 2d 800 (1981). peals court, the ban on home signs didn't protect the character of residential neighborhoods as the city had claimed. It stated that banning home-business Conditional Use m Company wants to house tigers, cougars, and leopards signs didn't stem the growth of hbme businesses, it just prevented homeowners in agriculture zone from posting such signs on their property. The appeals court said the ban didn't MINNESOTA (4/20/99) -- The Center For Endangered Cats was a for-profit advance the city's interest in aesthetics because the city allowed in residential provider of exotic cats, such as tigers, cougars, and leopards, for educational areas a variety of other signs that were no more or less aesthetically offensive and entertainment purposes. The cats appeared in lectures, theme parks, sports than home-business signs, shows, and television programs. The number of cats housed on the premises The city appealed to the state's highest court, varied, and at times, the Center had as many as 25 cats. DECISION: Reversed, and returned lo the trial court. The Center had operated since 1989, but in 1996, it moved to a rural, agri- The ban on home-occupation signs might directly advance thc city'.~ inter- culturally zoned part of Forest Lake ToWnship. The Center's owners thought esl in preserving the character of its residential neighborhoods. Thc trial court the use was permitted because one of the permitted uses in agricultural zones had tl ~ve the csty a chance to estabhsh a hnk between the purpose and the was "Animals--Commercial Training." effec~its ban on commercial signs in residential areas. The township disagreed and told the Center it had to apply for a condi- Because commercial Speech was different thau political speech, it was tional t, sc porn' ,crale as a nature center. The Center applied Page 6--June 10, 1999 Z.B. Z.B. June 10, 1999- Page 7 pre ,~ably, received income from the property. That the variance would allow the injuries he was claiming were to the general public and not unique to the Rosses to increase the return they received from their property did not, the trust's property. however, mean their property couldn't yield a reasonable return without the Bell v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Gloucester, Sttprerne Judicial Court of variance. Massachusetts, No. SJC-07897 (1999). Goldstein v. City of South Portland, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, No. ~ee also: Harvard Square Defense Fund Inc. v. Planning Board of Cambridge, Cum-98-595 (1999). 540 N.E. 2d 182 (1989). see also: Twiggv. Town of Kennebunk, 662 A.2d 914 (1995). see also: Barvenik v. Aldermen of Newton, 597 N.E. 2d 48 (1992). see also: Leadbetter v. Ferris, 485 A.2d 225 (1984). Site Plan Approval -- Owners claim town waited too long to act on their: applications Appeal -- Can abutter challenge permit for Iow.income h?using? CONNECTICUT (4/20/99) -- Center Shops of East Granby Inc. wanted to MASSACHUSETTS (5/6/99) ~ The Gloucester Housing Authority wanted build a convenience store on its property in East Granby. Three individual to build Iow-income housing. Bell was trustee of a trust that owned property owners wanted to build a gas station on an adjoining lot. abutting the authority's property. In September 1996, Center Shops applied for site plan approval for the The authority applied for a comprehensive permit for the project, and the convenience store; the individual owners applied for site plan approval and a zoning appeals board scheduled a public hearing. The board didn't hold the special permit for the service station. Center Shops agreed to a 65-day exten- hearing within 30 days as required by state law, so the authority's application sion for the zoning commission to act on its site plan application for the conve- was considered automatically approved, nience store "to coincide with the time line for the special permit application" Bell appealed to courl. He asked the court to void the authority's per- for the service station. mit, claiming he never had a chance to oppose the Iow-income housing State law required zoning authorities to either approve or deny site plan project because the zoning board never held a public hearing. According to applications within 65 days of filing unless lhe applicant agreed to an exten- Bell, the authority's application didn't address whether the proposed hous- sion. Zoning authorities also had to hold a hearing on special permit requests lng was compatible with the neighborhoOd. He also claimed the proposal within 65 days of filing and had an additional 65 days after the hearing to issue didn't provide for the "highest'and best" usc of public land, didn't address a decision. other potential Iow-income housing solutions, and didn't conform Io the The commission scheduled a February 1997 public hearing on the special neighborhood's layout, permit and site plan application for the gas station, but it didn't publish notice The board asked the court to dismiss Bell's appeal, arguing he had no right of the hearing until a few days before the scheduled date -- in violation of state to challenge the auth0rity's permit because he wasn't "aggrieved" by the permit's law. At the hearing, the commission rescheduled the public hearing until the issuance, end of the month to give it time to republish proper notice of the hearing. The Bell responded that he was aggrieved by the permit because his property notices for the next hearing, however, didn't provide a time for the hearing, as abutted the housing authority's proposed location, required by state law. The individual owners refused to participate in the hear- The court awarded the board judgment without a trial, finding Bell had no lng and refused to agree to any more extensions. The commission denied the right to challenge the authority's comprehensive permit because he didn't show applications for both the service station and the convenience store at its next the proposed project would in any way affect the trust's interests, meeting. Bell appealed. Center Shops and the individual owners sued the town, seeking a court DECISION: Allimed. order requiring the zoning commission to issue site plan approval for the con- Bell had no right to challenge the authority's comprehensive permit, venience store and a special permit and site plan approval for the service sta- Bell didn't show the permit's issuance violated any legally protected tion. According to Center Shops, its application fi~r site plan approval was property interest. He merely claimed the authority's proposal didn't con- automatically granted when the commission didn't approve or deny lhe re- sider whether the project was compatible with the neighborhood and didn't quest within 65 days after it was filed. The individual owners claimed its spe- show the project would be the best use of public land. Even if these claims cial permit application was automatically granted when the commission didn't weren't mere speculation, Bell had no right to challenge the permit because hold a public hearing wilhin 65 days. The individual owners claimed the Page 8 -- June 10, 1999 Z.B. commission's hearing didn't qualify because the notice the commission pub- lished didn't include a scheduled time for the hearing. The commission claimed it wasn't bound by the statutory time limits with regard to Center Shops' site plan application because Center Shops had tied its application to the individual owners' application for the service station. The commission also claimed the individual owners' special permit application wasn't automatically approved when the commission didn't act on it within the spe/:ified time because state law didn't specifically state that special permit applications were deemed granted under such circumstances, as it did for site plan applicfitions. The court agreed with Center Shops and the owners and ordered the com- mission to issue site plan approval for the convenience store and a special permit and site plan approval for the service station. According to the court, the owners were entitled to a special permit because the commission didn't hold a properly noticed hearing within the 65-day time limit. The commission appealed. ' ' DECISION: Affirmed. Thc commission had to approve thc site plan for thc convenience store and had to issue site plan approval and a special permit for thc service station. Center Shops was entitled to site plan approval. Although Center Shops agreed to extend approval for its site plan application so its time line would coincide with the owners' site plan and special permit applications for the ser- vice station, it didn't expressly agree to an extension for a particular period -- so it didn't waive its right to have its request approved automatically. The individual owners were entitled to both special permit and site plan approval for the service station. The commission missed the deadline for hold- ing a hearing on the owners' special permit request. Although the commission did hold a hearing, its hearing and the subsequent denial of the application were void because the commission didn't publish proper notice of the hearing -- its notice was missing a scheduled time for the hearing. Although the statute didn't specifically provide that special permit requests were automatically ap- proved if the zoning authority didn't hold a public hearing or issue its final decision in time, the owners' special permit request was inseparable to their request for site plan approval -- and the zoning commission failed to act on their site plan request in time. Center Shops of East Granby Inc..v. Planning attd Zoning Commission of the Town of East Granby, Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. AC 17875 (1999). see also: Leo Fedus & Sons Construction Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 623 A.2d 1007 (1993). /~-'~ see also: SSM Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Planning & Zoning Commission, ~'~/' 559 A.2d 196 (1989). : JULY 1999 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCLA110N Vesting of - in good faith on that action or statement and demonstrate that ights: reliance by some action to your detriment--the original party is Dele_ev. _orment R legally bound by the action or statement. While the doctrine of A Pr',mer estoppel is most commonly applied in private disputes, some courts have used it in land-use cases to create a vested right to Byfohn Bredin develop that is protected by the federal and state constitutions. Why a Vested Rights Statute? C uppose that a landowner receives the necessary zoning It would seem at first glance that the courts have addressed the ~and subdivision approvals and begins construction of a issue of vested rights with the doctrine of estoppel, thus 50-house subdivision on 10 acres. The developer is in the eliminating the need for adopting vesting statutes. However, midst of building, with several houses in various stages of some state courts have restricted or denied the applicability of construction from grading open land all the way to indoor the estoppel doctrine to land-use cases. In some cases, these plumbing and electrical work, when the county board enacts courts stated that granting vested rights at all would be an a new zoning ordinance, zoning the land for only one house improper restriction on the police power. In other cases, they per acre. ruled that the landowner must demonstrate that the local What is the effect on the owner's investment? Can the official upon whose statement or decision he relied was within owner proceed with the development as approved? Must he her authority to make the statement or decision, as the or she tear down the excess houses? These issues are vital to government is not bound by an official's unauthorized acrs. both the local government and landowners. This issue of Even when estoppel is applied to land-use decisions and a Zoning News explores the ways in which states have sought to vested right is recognized, there is a difference of opinion on answer the question of when owners acquire an irrevocable, what sort of government acts and what level of reliance triggers or vested, right to develop their property, estoppel. It is almost universal across case law that the reliance While the doctrine of estoppel is most State Vested Rights Statutes commonly applied in private disputes, Arizona: Ariz. Rev. Stat. ~ 9-1201 to 9-1205 (1998) some courts have used it in land-use cases California: Cal. Gov't Code ~ 66498.1 - 66498.9 to create a vested right to develop that is (1998) protected by the federal and state Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. 55 24-68-102 to 24-68-106 constitutions. (1999) Whet Is a Vested Right? Florida: Fla. Stat. § 163.3167(8) (1998) If a new regulation applies to pending development projects, · owners and developers of such projects will be compelled either Kansas: Kan. Stat. ~ 12-764 (1999) to destroy part or all 'of their development or face the consequences of violating the new regulation. Therefore, several states have statutes or case law that establish, under certain Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, ~ 6 (1-998) criteria, a right to proceed that cannot be abolished or restricted by regulations enacted after development begins. This is called a vested right because it is a right that has become fixed ("vested") North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. ~ 160A-385.1 (1998) and cannot be eliminated or amended. Typically, for the ~~ development right to be vested, the landowner must have relied Pennsiy~t_:t_it_ ~3~,~ ~_10508 (1998) in good faith to his or her detriment on a governmental decision ~~'7 by making improvements to the land or some other commitment of resources. Texas: Tex. Gov't Code §5 481.141 - 481.143 (1996) It is not surprising that these elements are found so (repealed) frequently, either expressly or implicitly. The common law has for hundreds of years included the doctrine of estoppel. This Va. Code ~ 15.2-2307 (1999) means that, when someone does something with the intent that you will rely on their action or statement--and you indeed rely must be in the form of"substantial" or "extensive" expenditures right to develop pursuant m the local regulations in place at the or actual comtruction, but these terms are rarely defined, time of the first application for a development permit or instead being left to a case-by-case analysis. Also decided on an approval, even if multiple permits or approvals were required. ad hoc basis is the more fundamental is, ue of what sort of Therefore, the Pennsylvania and Texas statutes not only vested government statement, action, or decision could be the basis of the right to develop according to an approved plat or plan, but estoppel. Is a statement by an official that a builder will receive also created a right to have the application for approval reviewed approval sufficient? Preliminary approval of a site plan? Final according to the development regulations at the time of approval of a site plan? Issuance of a building permit? A number application. Such a right protects developerstand the publict of states have enacted vesting statutes to clarify issues raised in from regulations enacted on the spur of the moment with the case law by specifying what sort of government decision and intent of preventing or forbidding a particular development what subsequent landowner actions will trigger estoppel, project that is in the review process. Virginia's vesting statute applies the estoppel standard by Common Elements of tho Statutes granting a vested right when there is a "significant affirmative Several states have statutes governing or creating vested rights governmental act" and the landowner, in good faith reliance on (see page I). The key issue in such statutes is what triggers the that affirmative act, makes significant expenditures or incurs vested right. The approaches used may be divided into two significant obligations. The statute includes examples of a main groups. The first is the "bright line" approach, which "significant affirmative governmental act," such as a rezoning, states that a specific development permit or permit application special use permit, variance, or plat or site plan approval, but creates a vested right. The second approach is to reiterate, in this list is expressly not exhaustive. Florida uses a hybrid of whole or in part, the estoppel rule. estoppel and a "bright line" rule by creating a right to complete Arizona, Colorado, and North Carolina create a vested right a development of regional impact pursuant to a final upon the approval of a development plan that is "site specific." development order if development is proceeding in good faith. In these states, the local government must, through ordinance, Kansas also takes a hybrid approach by vesting upon the designate what existing plan, plat, or permit constitutes a site- recording of a plat for single-family residential development specific development plan. A site-specific development plan (construction must commence within five years of recordation must have sufficient specific detail on the proposed development or the right expires), and for all other development upon the of the property and potentially include subdivision plats, site issuance of all necessary permits if and so long as "substantial plans, planned unit developments, and development amounts of work have been completed" pursuant to the agreements. The site-specific development plan must be filed permits. earlier in the development approval process than a building permit, and a variance is expressly not a site-specific development plan. Except for phased development plans, where There is no vested right from a permit, the vested right is timed to the stages of development, the permission, or approval issued in reliance duration of the vested right is typically two or three years. It should be noted that the Colorado and North Carolina on an intentional material statutes provide that a vested right to develop shall be created by the approval of a site-specific development plan, while the misrepresentation. The equitable' Arizona statute merely authorizes local governments to enact a principle is that no person should derive vesting ordinance. However, because there is no requirement ' that local governments make the designation of site-specific a benefit from thdr own wrong. development plans, and no penalty or default provision if no designation is made, vesting is effectively at local option in all three states. Several common elements run through the vesting statutes. California creates a vested right from a %esdng tentative Generally, the vested development right does not bar the map" within the subdivision plat approval process. A developer application of subsequent amendments to generally applicable may file a vesting tentative map in any situation where a regulations, such as building, fire safety, plumbing, electrical, tentative subdivision map must be filed, and thus vesting is and mechanical codes. Similarly, the vested right does not cover mandatory. Massachusett~ similarly creates a mandatory vested state and federal laws and regulations. The notable exception to right from approval of ~a definitive plan or a preliminary plan this rule was the repealed law in Texas, under which the right to followed within seven months by a definitive plan," under the have applications reviewed under the law on the day of subdivision control law. The vested right to develop in application and the right m develop applied to all state and local Massachusetts is of unusually long duration: up to eight years, permits with the exception of a specific list of excepted permits. which must be extended for the duration of any applicable There is no vested right from a permit, permission, or moratorium, approval issued in reliance on an intentional material In Pennsylvania, an application for subdivision plat approval misrepresentation. The equitable principle is that no person creates a vested right to be free from subsequent amendments to should derive a benefit from their own wrong. If development of applicable land development regulations. Subdivision plat the property pursuant to the vested right is found to create a approval vests, for up to five years, the right to develop pursuant hazard to the public health, safety, or welfare, or when the to the approved plat. Prior to its repeal, the Texas law created a subsequent regulation is intended ~to prevent imminent destruction of property or injury" (Texas), the vested right may · be terminated or inapplicable. John Bredin is senior research fellow with APA'$ GI~OWlNO Salal~l~*t The owner-typically can opt into amendments that are favorable project, to development. Some states allow the owner to do this by 2 While a permit or ai proval that creates a Planning directors in Norcross and cities with similar ordinances disagree. They claim the issue is not about restricting ~.~ vested right can be conditional, it is not a specific businesses, but ensuring public safety. These officials f) maintain that requiring signs to be partially in English makes it valid c0ndidon to require the owner to easier for police, firefighters, and rescue workers to recognize an waive the vested right, address in an emergency. Norcross administrators are considering ordinance revisions that require business names and street addresses to be displayed consenting to submit to the new regulation or amendment, while in English letters (not necessarily in English words) and Arabic others require that the owner specifically apply for amendment of numbers. All other sign characters may be in any language so the instrument creating the vested right, thus necessitating approval long as the business owner provides the city with a notarized by the local planning agency or commission. In the statutes that translation ensuring that the sign does not contain obscenities. address the question, government can terminate the vested right by Jerome R. Cleland paying just compensation. While a permit or approval that creates a vested right can be conditional, it is not a valid condition to require the owner to waive the vested right. This provision is common because such a Henle Businesses condition would effectively allow local governments to "opt Get a Break out" of vesting, even where vesting is a statutory requirement, by routinely including such a condition of waiver in all By Kevin Duguay development permits. Peterborough, Ontario, a city of 70,000 about 60 miles Conclusion northeast of Toronto, recently loosened its regulations for The fact that so few states have a vested rights statute would seem home-based businesses. It addressed the issue through a to indicate the controversial nature of whether such a right should comprehensive public consultation and zoning bylaw exist and, if so, what the scope of that right should be. This amendment process. controversy was demonstrated earlier by the fact that some state The city's zoning bylaw has recognized home-based courts do not apply estoppel-based vesting while others do. There businesses (home occupations) since 1972. In the fall of 1997, are several approaches to the creation of the vested right, but the the city council approved a "refreshed" zoning regulatory common threads in these statutes show that there are some approach permitting home-based businesses on an as-of-right commonly held positions regarding the balance that must be struck basis for all residential dwelling types throughout all areas of the between the vested right to develop and the right and duty of local community. Home occupations are defined as an accessory use governments to enact necessary development regulations, of a residential dwelling and are subject to specific regulations, When safety or lives are at stake or when the development the principles of which include: permit was issued based on false or misleading statements, the public's rights outweigh the owner's right to develop his or her · The use may not disturb and/or disrupt adjacent properties. property. Conversely, the government's power to regulate · The business must be resident-operated (no nonresident staff development does not authorize local governments to strip permitted). owners of their vested right to develop by requiring a waiver of · Small fascia signs are allowed, primarily for business that right as a condition of development approval. Such identification purposes. balancing is both ,typical and necessary, in the American system of land development regulation. · The size of all home-based businesses in a dwelling may not exceed 500 square feet. · Certain uses are prohibited, including restaurants, dog kennels, and salvage yards. Signs Draw Fines in Atlanta Suburbs Generally, a home-based business use is not subject to municipal licensing and seldom, if ever, results in an increase of A grocery store owner in Norcross, Georgia, a suburb of the market value assessment applied to the property. Atlanta, filed a suit in federal district court claiming that the The public consultation process included a working city's sign ordinance violates the First Amendment. The committee having representation from the Chamber of owner of Super Mercado Jalisco, a Hispanic food market, Commerce, the local bank, the city council, and staff. The was fined $115 for violating a 1995 law that required 75 project was brought directly to over 15 community groups; and percent of the words on business signs to be in English. Since involved over 650 persons throughout the consultation process. the lawsuit was filed, Norcross has refunded the money to Peterborough is no different than other urban communities the supermarket owner and rescinded the restrictive section in facing the challenges of changes in the workplace and of its sign ordinance. It is considering possible revisions to workforce. The home-based business regulations are viewed as a the ordinance, successful and productive planning response to this community Critics claim the ordinance demonstrates an exclusionary reality. For specific project information, contact: Kevin Duguay, intent toward minority businesses. They maintain that e-mail: kduguay@city.peterborough.on.ca; 705-748-8880; fax: businesses like Super Mercado Jalisco are targeted for fines while 705-742-5218. neighboring businesses with signs bearing foreign words such as "Toyota" are not. Kevin Duguay is a planner for the City oflPeterborough, Ontario. 3 Clay Helmer, a spokesperson from Larsen's office, says .Minnesota Voids the issue "came back to greater freedom for property rights." Amo fllation Larsen's legislative web site says the impacts on planning will be minimal because planners still maintain the powers of A pivotal court case and heavy lobbying by affected industries eminent domain and outright purchase at regular market this spring prompted the Minnesota legislature to restrict value. But many municipal officials and others disagree, governments' amortization of nonconforming uses. Local claiming the new law deprives them of a powerful planning governments have used amortization as a planning tool to phase tool and may begin a trend of opposition to land-use out nonconforming land uses over some reasonable period of controls. Jerome Cleland time, allowing owners to recoup their investments. But Senate File 854 (House File 896) strips that tool from local governments, except in cases that deal with adult entertainment uses. The law was backed by a broad coalition of groups led by the billboard industry, and including a range of ~ff~~l~ports other interests from gasoline stations and asphalt plants to local restaurants and even a day care center. State Rep. Peg Larsen, the bill's co-author, says amortization is an "inappropriate and dangerous power for local government units." Opponents claim, however, that the legislature has gone too Preservation through Bylaws far. The League of Minnesota Cities and similar groups contend and Ordinances: Tools and Techniques that critics of amortization led a campaign of"scare tactics," for Preservation Used by Communities convincing homeowners that cities would use the regulatory in Massachusetts tool to drive people out of their homes. The league countered Prepared by Christopher C. Skelly. Massachusetts Historical such claims by offering an amendment that would have banned Commission, 220 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125. February. amortization of residential uses, but supporters of the new law 22, 1999. 124pp. Free. rejected the offer. Rarely has there been such a thorough review of local The movement to ban amortization was sparked by a land-use techniques and tools used within a particular state decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, which upheld for historic preservation purposes as appears in this report. the right of St. Louis Park, a suburb of Minneapolis, to amortize With each section covering a different approach, such as the Apple Valley Redi-Mix (AVR) concrete plant. AVR open space zoning or village center zoning, the text describes challenged the city's right to amortize, arguing that the plant the use of the tool, highlights communities that have used it was producing more than $1 million worth of concrete yearly successfully (with occasional photographs), and provides a and thus had remaining value that the city would be taking, boxed list of communities with that zoning or other AVR also balked over the two-year period the city had provided regulatory provision in their local development codes. Three for amortizing the plant, appendices provide summary versions of the same Nonetheless, the court sided with the city, holding that: information plus specific new preservation in'itiatives in a matrix format. the city used a combination of recoupment of investment and tax depreciation status as factors in determining the useful life for AVR's plant. The record shows that over the past 23 years the plant provided AVR a return of Whon City and Country Collides approximately 560 percent on its investment and that the MonOging O~w~ in tho plant has been fully depreciated for income tax purposes. Metropolitan Fringe These two factors provided the city with a reasonable basis to Tom Daniels. Island Press, 1718 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite determine the plant's useful life for the purpose of 300, Washington, DC20009. 1999. 376pp. $32. 50 Available in establishing an amortization period, the fall j%m Planners Book Service. Tom Daniels, the author of several books on farmland preservation and small town planning, is by now a veteran Zoning News is a monthly newsletxee published by the American Planning Association. observer of the rural development Scene. In this new book, he Subscriptions are available for S55 (U.S.) and $75 (foreign). Frank S. So, Executive Director;, William R. Klein. Di ...... f Reseate~ tackles the problems of the urban fringe where most Zoning New, is produced at AP.au Jim Schvtab and Mike Davidson, Editors; Sh .... development is happening in increasingly land-consumptive Ar ...... g, Barry Bain, Joseph Bomstein. Jerome Cleland, Fay Oolnick, Sanjay Jeer, Megan fashion. He reviews the now familiar development history of Lewis, Marya Morris. Reporters; Cynthia Cheski, Assistant Editor;, Lisa Barton, Design and v~odu,inn. U.S. suburbs in this century and the issues that have resulted, Copyright ©1999 by American Planning A.tsociarion, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, but the real value of his analysis lies in his thorough grasp of the Chicago, IL 60603. The Atnerican Planning Association also h~ o~ces at t 776 Massachusetts nuts-and-bolts planning and zoning questions that must be Ave.. N.W., Washington, DC 20036. addressed in order to preserve quality of life and the All rights reserved. No part of this publication may I~ reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, r~:otdins~ or by any information environment while managing this growth. Daniels provides storage and retrieval system, without [~rmission in vteiring fi'om the American Planning working planners with solid information on the use of such .~tociarion. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber ~ tools as exclusive farm use zones, timber conservation zones, and aha ~0% ~o .............. ~1/ clustered development. · 4