The URL can be used to link to this page

100599 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 1999 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. OATH OF OFFICE 4. CONSENT BUSINESS 5. PUBLIC HEARING * 5.1 Case 99-17 Request to Discuss Amendment to the City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan to Add Joint Water Commission Plan Update as an Official Amendment to the City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan, City of New Hope, Petitioner * 5.2 Case 99-20 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Sales of General Home Improvements and Garden Shop Related Merchandise, 4300 Xylon Avenue North, KmartJFancher Development Services/Master LP Associates, Petitioners * 5.3 Case 99-12 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Daycare Operation in an R-O Residential Office Zoning District, 3701 Winnetka Avenue North, Cindy Morey/ Little Folks Daycare, Inc., Petitioner 6. COMMI'I'rEE REPORTS 6.1 Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: Thursday, October 14, at 8 a.m. 6.2 Report of Codes & Standards Committee 6.3 Re port of Comprehensive Plan Update Committee 6.4 Report of Zoning Code Update Committee - to be scheduled in October 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Miscellaneous Issues 8. NEW BUSINESS 8.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of September 7, 1999. 8.2 Review of City Council Minutes of August 23 and September 13, 1999. 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT · Petitioners are required to be in attendance Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3. The petitioner is iqvited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. A'. If the Planning' Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: October 5, 1999 Report Date: October 1, 1999 Planning Case: 99-17 Petitioner: City of New Hope Request: Adoption of the Water Supply Plan as an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan I. Request Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission approve the attached Resolution Recommending Approval of the Joint Water Commission Water Supply Plan Update by the New Hope City Council and Adopting Said Plan as an Element of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. I1. Background In the early 1960s, the City of Golden Valley decided to enter into a contract with Minneapolis for wholesale purchase of water. Shortly thereafter, the contract was amended to add the cities of New Hope and Crystal. This working relationship among the three communities has been formalized in the Joint Water Commission. Essentially, the Commission purchases water from the City of Minneapolis and distributes the water through its system of reservoirs, pumping facilities, water towers, and 12" and larger water mains. All of the smaller pipes, the water meters, etc. are owned by each individual city. This Water SupPly Plan Update was prepared as part of the update to each City's Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Council is requiring that each city formally adopt the plan as an amendment to their Comprehensive Plan before they formally accept the Plan. Crystal and Golden Valley are also in the process of adopting this plan. The Metropolitan Council will require that the water supply portion of the Comprehensive Plan be updated every 10 years. The plan was prepared by Howard R. Green Company, Consulting Engineers, in conjunction with the three cities. A representative from that firm who has worked closely with the Joint Water Commission on the preparation of the plan, Kathryn Force, will be present at the meeting to give a short presentation on the plan. Representatives from the New Hope Public Works Department may also be present to answer questions. I believe that everyone is aware that New Hope resident and Planning Commissioner Adam Kramer is the Director of Water Works for the City of Minneapolis and, therefore, is also very familiar with this plan. II1. Notification Notification of the public hearing was published in the official newspaper of the City of New Hope. The proper procedure in New Hope is for the Planning Commission to hold the formal public hearing on the plan and make a recommendation to the City Council. The Council will take action on the Commission's recommendation at the October 11 Council meeting. Staff have received no comments from residents or businesses on the plan. IV. Summary Please refer to the summary of'the plan prepared by Kathryn Force for more detailed information. A full copy of the plan is also attached for your information. The Metropolitan Council has also commented briefly on the Water Supply Plan on page 4 of its Review Record of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan (attached). V. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the enclosed resolution which recommends approval of the plan. Attachments: · Resolution · Water Supply Plan Update Summary · Met Council Correspondence · Joint Water Commission Water Supply Plan Update Planning Case Report 99-17 Page 2 10/1/99 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-01 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE JOINT WATER COMMISSION WATER SUPPLY PLAN UPDATE BY THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL AND ADOPTING SAID PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE NEW HOPE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, on September 14, 1998, the City Council of the City of New Hope adopted the Comprehensive Plan update; and WHEREAS, the state legislature requires that the comprehensive plans of local governments be in conformance with metropolitan system plans prepared by the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the City of New Hope is a member of the Joint Water Commission of New Hope, Crystal, and Golden Valley; and WHEREAS, the Joint Water Commission has undertaken extensive review and analysis of the existing water supply and demand, the source of the supply, and the adequacy of the system to supply demand; and WHEREAS, the Joint Water Commission has also reviewed emergency planning for the Water supply and potential conservation measures; and WHEREAS ,the Joint Water Commission has prepared a Water Supply Plan on behalf of its member communities as an element of the Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the Metropolitan System Statements and Chapter 186 of 1993 Minnesota Session laws; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, following a formal public hearing on the plan, has recommended its approval. RECOMMENDATION · WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council of New Hope approve the Joint Water Commission's Water Supply Plan as an amendment to the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. Adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 5th day of October, 1999. Bill Sonsin, Chairman Attest: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Howard R, Green Oompany QONSULTING ENGINEERS September 24, 1999 File: 805230J-0060 Mr. Kirk McDonald Director of Community Development City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: WATER SUPPLY PLAN UPDATE JOINT WATER COMMISSION Dear Mr McDonald: ~ Please find enclosed twenty-four (24) copies of the 1999 update to the Joint Water Commission Water Supply Plan. The plan includes the Commission's response to the Metropolitan Council Comments, and the comments from the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services. I have also included a glossary of abbreviations used in the report, and have made the changes to the emergency contact list and the watermain map that we discussed at our last meeting. Please. let me know if you need additional copies of the report. I can be reached at 651-644- 4389, or at kforce~,hr.qreen.com. Sincerely, Howard R. Green Company Kathryn Force Enclosures Cc: Jeannine Clancy - City of Golden Valley Guy Johnson - City of New Hopel O:~ROJ~805230J\0060~405.sep99 1326 Energy Park Drive · St. Paul, MN 55108 · 651/644-4389 fax 651/644-9446 toll free 888/368-4389 Kirk Mcdonald - 230-2701.sept99.doc Page 1 1999 Water Supply Plan Update Summary Joint Water Commission A. General The plan was prepared as part of the update to each City's Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Council will require that the water supply portion of the Comprehensive Plan be updated every ten years. The water supply plan is divided into four parts: Part 1. Analyzes current water demands. Summarizes water use from 1988-1998, describes water production and distribution facilities and projects water use through 2020. Part 2. Outlines emergency planning procedures for the JWC. Discusses options for water supply should the Mississippi River or the Minneapolis system become unavailable as a water source. Part 3. Outlines the water conservation plan for the JWC, including demand reduction methods. Part 4. Itemizes the plan elements required by Metropolitan Council. · B. Part I - Water Supply System Description and Evaluation History The City of Golden Valley entered into a contract with the City of Minneapolis for wholesale purchase of water in the early 1960's. The contract was amended shortly thereafter to include the Cities of New Hope and Crystal. The relationship among the three cities was formalized by the formation of the Joint Water Commission (JWC). Water Source The JWC purchases water from the City of Minneapolis, which uses the Mississippi River as its raw water source. The water is treated to drinking water quality through softening and filtration processes at the Minneapolis water treatment facilities. The water is drawn into the JWC distribution system from two metered connections with the Minneapolis system. The JWC shares in operation and maintenance of the pumping facilities, storage reservoirs, and 12" and larger watermains. Smaller (<12") watermains, and water meters are owned and maintained by each individual City. Water Suoolv and Storaqe Water is drawn from the Minneapolis system each night during off-peak hours into two ground storage reservoirs. The ground storage reservoir at 41st and Brunswick Avenue in Crystal has a storage capacity of 9 million gallons, and the ground storage reservoir in Golden Valley located behind the Courage Center has a storage capacity of 19 million gallons. Water is pumped from these two reservoirs into the distribution system through pumping facilities at each location. The JWC also has 3.5 million gallons of elevated storage capacity in the distribution system (the north tower and the Medicine Lake Tower in New Hope and the Golden Valley Tower). 1 \\SPNWFS\VOL1\DATA\PROJ~805230j\0060~230-2701 .sept99.doc Kirk Mcdonald - 230-2701 .sept99.doc , Page 2 Service Area and Water Demands Currently the JWC water'system serves a population of over 66,000 through 20,000 service connections. Water use in the JWC service area has averaged 75 percent residential, 22 percent commercial and three percent industrial. In 1998, the JWC water use averaged around 7 million gallons per day. On average, 38 percent of the total water purchased from Minneapolis is used in Golden Valley, 32 percent in New Hope and 29 percent in Crystal. The JWC is able to compare the volume of water purchased from Minneapolis with the amount sold to its customers. The difference in these is usually referred to as "unaccounted for" water use. Unaccounted for water use has averaged 3.8% over the last ten years. The American Water Works Association considers an amount less than ten percent of the total water use to be an acceptable level for unaccounted-for use. The ongoing meter replacement programs in each of the Cities will help with more accurate water use measurement. In general, water use has remained relatively stable over the past ten year because growth in the three Cities has stabilized. Water use typically varies from year to year depending on climate conditions and also varies between seasons of each year. These trends have been observed in the JWC system. The highest recorded water use in the JWC between 1988 and 1998 was during the drought in 1988. Summertime use in the JWC system has averaged one and a half times winter usage. Peak water use days between 1988 and 1997 have all occurred during the summer months and have averaged 2.2 times the average day demands. Water use is projected to remain stable, if not decrease over the next twenty years. Water use may decrease if conservation efforts are successful. In general, the water pumping and storage facilities are adequate to serve the JWC over the next twenty years with regular maintenance and upkeep recommended. E. Part 2- Emergency Planning The plan outlines emergency procedures that can be implemented if the water supply from Minneapolis was limited, or made unavailable. Potential situations that could reduce water service include natural disasters such as drought, flood, or tornado, contamination of the Mississippi River or operational difficulties with either the Minneapolis or JWC system. The JWC has capacity to store approximately four days of supply should something happen to the Minneapolis supply. To augment water supplies the JWC is looking into an interconnection with the City of St. Louis Park's water system. General Mills also has water production wells that could be connected to the JWC system for use during emergencies. The JWC is in the process of installing a generator for emergency power at the Golden Valley pump station, which will provide the ability to pump water into the JWC distribution system in the event of a power outage. ' The water users are split into six demand priorities. In the event of a water emergency, water use can be curtailed by reducing water use according to priority. The majority (70%) of the water use is classified as first priority, or residential water use. Commercial and industrial uses under 10,000 gallons per day are classified as second priority. Lawn sprinkling, car washing and other seasonal, non-essential uses are classified as sixth priority uses and would be the 2\\S PNWFS\VOL1\DATA\PROJ~805230j\0060~230-2701 .sept99.doc Kirk Mcdonald - 230-2701 .sept99.doc Page 3 first to be reduced in the event of an emergency. The JWC was established an emergency reporting procedure and has assembled a team of persons to meet and decide upon actions during an emergency. The Emergency Event Evaluation Team (EEET) and important contacts are listed in the table below: 'Person Contacts Tom Mathisen - City of Crystal City of St. Louis Park Jeannine Clancy - City of Golden Valley DNR Guy Johnson - City of New Hope Department of Health Yasser AbonAish - City of Minneapolis Metropolitan Council Hennepin County Office of Emergency Preparedness The plan identifies a need for the three cities to establish a consistent water restriction ordinance. D. Part 3- Water Conservation Planning The plan identifies long-term conservation efforts as a way to manage available water resources. The residential water use category was identified as having the greatest potential for long-term water use reduction. Therefore, conservation efforts will likely focus on ways to reduce residential water use. Conservation methods discussed by the three member Cities include consistent water use restriction ordinances in each community, reducing unaccounted- for water use through better metering practices and upgrades, and public education programs aimed at reducing individual water use. While the three Cities support the conservation goals, agreement on conservation programs will most likely need to be addressed when the JWC renegotiates its water sales contract with the City of Minneapolis. Procedures for Adopting the Plan · Adopted by the JWC · Needs to be adopted by each City · Must be reviewed by each adjacent community · Approved by Met Council · Submitted to DNR for review E. Part 4 - Items for Metropolitan Area Public WOrks Suppliers The requirements described here are fulfilled in the first three sections of the plan. 3\\s p NW FS\VOL 1\DATA~PROJ~805230j~0060~230-270 '1 .sept99.doc Metropolitan Council · Working for the Region, Planning for the Future September 7, 1999 Mr. Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428-4898 RE: City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 16941-1 Metropolitan Council District No. 2 Dear Mr. McDonald: At its meeting on Wednesday, September 1, 1999, the Metropolitan Council completed its review of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update. The Council based its review on the staff's executive summary and review record. The Council found that the comprehensive plan update meets all of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements for 1998 plan updates, is in conformity with the regional system plans for aviation, recreation open space, transportation and water resources management, is consistent with the Regional Blueprint, and is compatible with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions. Therefore, the city may place the comprehensive plan into effect and that no modifications are required. MN Statutes 473.864, Subd. 1 requires local governments to adopt the comprehensive plan with any required modifications within nine months following a final decision. For the City of New Hope, the nine-month period expires on June 1, 2000. We request that you send us two copies of your final plan once it is revised to include all the updated information that was submitted. One copy will be placed in the Council library and the other will be placed in the working file for Comprehensive Planning. In addition, please send us documentation, such as a resolution or minutes, indicating that the city adopted or amended any official local controls such as the zoning code, to implement the comprehensive plan. We congratulate you and your staff for preparing a well-organized, thoughtful plan to manage growth in your community. Ted Mondale Chair Enclosure cc: Todd Paulson, Metropolitan Council District 2 Metropolitan Council staff.' Linda Milashius, Penelope Simison, Chauncey Case, Phyllis Hanson, Kevin Roggenbuck, Roger Janzig, James Larsen Tom Caswell, Sector Representative \kM ETC FS2\DATA\US ERS~SHARED\LIB RARYkCOMMUNDVM 999\NEWHLTR. DOC 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul. Minnesota 55101-1626 (651) 602-1000 Fax 602-1550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 602-1888 An Equal Opportunity Employer R Regional Growth Policy Comittee Report from the Regional Growth Policy Committee of September 1, 1999 Date Prepared: September 2, 1999 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update, City of New Hope, Referral File 16941.1 Summary of Committee Discussion: Th~ committee requested that an additional r~commendation be included that includes text from aviation comments on pal~e four et'the report. Recommendation: I. That the Metropolitan Council adopt the Review Record with the following recommendations: 2. That the City of'New Hope may place the New Rope Comprehensive Plan Update into ct'f~t with no plan modifications. That the plan meets all of'the Metropolitan Land Plannin$ Act requirements for the 1998 plan updates. 4. "l'hat the city shall incorporate all of the information submitted in letter format into a final copy of thc plan within 30 days of plaoin$ the plan into effect and submit it to the Council t~br its official record. That the city submit a Tier Il sewer plan m the Council for final approval tbilowing local approval of the comprehensive plan. The Tier l! sewer plan shall be consistent with the city's approved comprehensive plan and reflmt any modifications recommended by the Council. 6. That the city provide the Council with an ~nnual report on its progress in meeting !/I goals. 7. That the plan should bo re¥i~.'d to reflect the fact that the city is within the influence asea of'the Crystal Airport, and therefore, height zoning should be implemented thrcmf~,h the joint airport zoni.nl~ bo~d. The text c~ncerning the city antenna ordinance should also reference the notification to Mn/DOT Aeronautics. :~ Metropolitan Council Executive Summary RRegional Growth Policy Agenda Item' IV-C Committee Meetin date: Se 1, 1999 Date: August 24, 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update, City of New Hope Subject: Referral File No. 16941-1 District(s), Member(s): Metropolitan Council District #2. Todd Paulson. 612/560-2122 Policy/Legal Reference; Mn Statutes 473.864, Subd. 2 and 473.175, Subd. 1 Penelope Simison, prindpal rev~wer, 6511698-1151 Staff Prepared/Presented: Craig Rapp, Director of Community Develogment, 651/602-1615 Division/Department: Community Development Division, Comprehensive Planning Proposed Action/Motion That the Metropolitan Council adopt the recommendations and review record as presented irt the attached report Issue(s) · Should the Metropolitan Council permit the city of New Hope to place its Comprehensive Plan Update into effect? Overview and Funding New Hope is ranked 87th in anticipated growth to 2020. The Regional Growth Strategy identifies New Hope as in the urban area. It is Council policy to focus regional investments and incentives for,ich and economic development activities within the urban area and. particularly, within the 1.494/!-694 beltway. New Hope is fully developed, with only 19 vacant parcels, most of them designated for industrial and multiple-family residential uses. The plan focuses on redevelopment of obsolete and deteriorating land u~s. The plan meets the expectations of the Council's growth strategy with an overall density of6.11 dwelling units per acre by the year 2020. The plan is consistent with the Regional Blueprint, in conformity with regional ~y.~tems plans and compatible with other units of government. The citi~ of New Hope, Columbia Heights and Crystal shared a grant from the Metropolitan Council for assistance in housing issues, with each city receiving $2,:500 (SGg?140E). In addition, New Hc, pe received a planning assistance grant t'rom the Metropolitan Council totaling $8,190 (SC-97168). [] Infrastructure: The p. lan is consistent with Council policies to use existing regional facilities eff'~:iently. El Quality of life: The plan addresses obsolete and deteriorating land uses and the potential for redevelopment of underutilized ares. El Communication/constituency building: The plan supports Regional Blueprint policies. El Alignment: The plan meets all of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements for the 1998 plan updates :~ M:e~.~G~oLI,~J~ OaGa;n $EP-02 99 08~50 FROM: ~U;~b~b~J~ ~wb~;~J ~, REPORT ATTACI:IMENT A: REVIEW I~CORD REVIEW OF THE ~ OF NEW HOPE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BACKGROUND The c ~t7 of New Hope is located in east central H~'mcpin Counoy. Adjacent jurisdictions include Crystal, Golden Valley, Plymouth, Maple Grove and Brooklyn Park. The city is 3,489 acres in size and its 1995 population was csumated at 21,646, residing in 8,553 households. New Hope is located within the urban arco. (See Map 1) AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW The Metropolitan Land Usc Planning Act as amended requires local units of government to submit comprehensive plans and plan amendments to thc Council for review (MN Stat. 47,'t.86zt. Subd. 2). The Act requires Council review of the plans to determine their contbrmlty with metropolitan system plans, apparent consistency with other adopted plans of the Council and compatibility with the plans of other local Junsdiction.~ in the metropolitan arco. (Mlq Stat. 473.175, Subd. 1) ANALYSIS Staff reviewed thc plan update for consistency with the Regional Blueprint and other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, for conformity with regional systcm plans for aviation, recreation open space, transportation, water resources management and for compatibility with the plans of adjacent governmental units and school districts. REGIONAL BLUEPRINT (Penelope Simison, 651/698-115 I) The City of New Hope is ranked 87th by thc Council for anticipated growth for the period between 1995 and 2020. The Council projects the City of New Hope will add 547 households by 2020, totaling 9,100 households. The Regional Blueprint identifies New Hope as being m the urban area and entirely within the MUSA. (See Map 2) In thc urban area, Council policy focuses on regional investments and incentives for job and economic development activities, particularly within ~ 1-494/I-694 be[tway. In addition, Council policy for the urban area is to provide regional services for urban-scale development consistent with local compreh¢-nsive plans and metropolitan systems plans. The only regional system in New Hope is Trunk l-Iighway 169, which borders the ~;ity's western edge. (See Map 3) Thc plan focuses on redevelopment of existing land uses, many of them obsolete and some deteriorating. The plan m~ts the expectations of the Council's growth strategy with an overall density or'6.11 dwelling units pi;r acre by the y~r 2020. The plan is consistent with the Regional BluCPnnt, in t;onformity with regional systems plans and compatible with other units of government. Fure~asts Forecasts t'or the City of New Hope are included in Table 1. The city's forecasts are essentially cortsistmt with those of the Council. Table 1 Population, Household and Employment Forecasts Population Households £mploymen~L Council New Hope Council New Hope Council N.,,ew Hope estimate 2000 ' 21,800 21,860 8,600 8,575 I,~, t0d 13,900 2010 21,800 21,77'0- 8,700 8,610-8,680 i4,700 14,350- 21,870 15,500 2020 22,700 22,075- 9,100 8,830-9,~40 15,000 la.500 22,600 Densi~ All but 19 panels, including 10 rcsidmtial p~ccls, in t~ ciW a~ dcvelo~d. ~ pr~scd d~si~ on vacant land, th~fo~, is not ~ isle. ~ pl~ indica~s the d~i~ of existing sidle-family residential, comprising more t~n 3~ percent of the l~d ~e~ ~ge3 up ~ fo~ um~ develo~d at 5-10 uni~ ~r a~, while high-d~ity reslden~al ~es ~ dcvelo~ at 11 ~ics per a~; or higher. '1~ proj~ted ovc~ll d~i~ f~ 2020 is calculat~ at 6.11 ~welling ~i~ ~ a~c. Land Use All of the l~d within ~c Ci~ ofN~w H~ is wi~in the ~ ~ice ~. ~ ci~ of New Ho~ c~tly ~s i,~79 a~, or ~2.4 ~mt of its lad ~a, desi~ for r~idcmbal u~s. ~is includes 34.4 ~t ofi~ Table 2 19~ ~d ~nd Use Type Acr~ S~gl~.h~ly r~idenfi~ (low ' I,t98.82 d~i~) Mcdi~ d~si~ ~id~i 74.70 .Hi~ ~i~ residual .... 205,93 'Ind~ai ~73.8~ P~ ~d Re~ ..... 179.88 V~cut 29.~ R~dway ' 87~.~9' Tot~ ~e plan indica~ ~t'New ~o~ ts n ~ly-develo~ co~i~ wi~ vitally no yacht land. Acreage figu~ for tndi~d~l land u~ d~i~fi~s in 2020 ~ 'l~e pl~ indicates ~e ~i~ will f~ ~ ~ ~el~t of vast ~cels and m redevei~mt of ~leeted ~tes: ~e~ includ~ c~e~ial, india[ aM muitiple.~mily 1~. ~ plan indicates th~ ~e 19 ~els that ~e ~vci~ble, totaling ~gi~tely 28 ac~. ~g include i~, comm~al ~d residential lozs. ~e~ vast ~ls. ~ w~il ~ o~ ~ls m th~ ci~, have ~m tdmfified ns ~t~tial devel~ent or r~cvcl~ment sites. ~c ~cak~ of l~ ~ in 2020 Table 3 2020 Land Use Land Use Type Acres Single-family residential (low 1,198.82 density) Medium clcnstt'y residential 7~.70 High dc~si~ rcsid~al 20~.9~ Comm~ial 111.98 Ind~a] 473.85 ~blic ~nd Semi-public ~ W~t~ 96.63 Vac~t 29.66 Roadway 873.19 Total ~GIONAL SYSTEMS Regio~l ~s~ems ~thin New H~e Highly 169, al~g the ci~'s wcs~ ~~. Aviation (C~cey Ca~, 65 ~/~2-1724) A ~nion of the CiW of New H~ is mthin ~e influ~ ~ of the ~s~l Ai~n and is affect~ by alert height zoning. ~e ciW is wit~ ~ ~gi~'s g~al atonce ~t should ~ prorated ~m ~tentiai obs~ctions. ~ ci~ is not. a~ by ~ c~t noi~ impact ~ of ~ ai~. nor by helip~ or seapl~e pla~ing ~e N~ H~ pl~ coat, ns ~ a~afiou el~t. Howev~, ~ text on ~ge 103 of the plan should ~ re~d t~ acc~: the text s~uld ~fl~t thc f~t ~t ~ ctW is m~m ~ ~u~ce ~ea of ~ C~al Ai~n ~d, the~f~, height z~in8 should ~ i~i~d t~ugh thc joint ai~ z~ing ~. It d~ not a~ ~at the ctW ~s aff~ by ~ ~oj~d 2013 noig im~ ~. ~ ~t ~c~g ~g ciW ~t~ ordi~ce should also rcf~mcc ~c nofifi~fi~ ~e ci~ should ~ awa~ t~t ~ Co~cil is ~g ~ ~m~t to ~ land use com~tibiliw guideltn~s f~ air~R no~. ~c ~ anfici~ ~t a~l~cah~ of the c~ahbiliw guid~li~s would start at thc D~ ~ nol~ level. ~c ei~ should m~it~ ~ public h~ng ~e~ ~ncc~ing this am~dm~t. R~reation Open SpaCe (Phyllis H~ 65 l/~2-15~) ~e pl~ is tn conf~i~ m~ t~ R~r~tion 0~ ~ce Policy P~. Trans~afion (Kev~ ~ogg~ 65 i-~-1728) ~e pl~ is in confo~i~ wi~ ~e rm~rtatioa Poli~ Plan, Wnst~ater ~ce (Ro~ J~g, 65 ! ~2-11 ~ 9) M~l~mn ~w~ s~icc is ~d~ to the ci~ ~ough MCES int~t~ MSB 71 la, which conveys the ciW's w~teWat~ to the Me~li~ W~t~a~ T~t Pl~t m st. Paul. ~e ci~'s fut~ ~w~ devel~m~t ~11 ~ ~ed ~ough complete ~d comist~t with Co,oil ~licies. ~ O~ ~oncas wi~ ~ Co~cil'~ 2020 projected, wastewat~ flow of 2.~ million gallons ~t day (~d). ~e me~o~li~ system ~ ad~ ca~clty to provide ~wer ' s~ce to ~ ciW ~ 2020, ~EP-02 99 08:51 FROM: The city's plan acknowledges that the Council has established an inflow and infiltration (I/I) gold for the city. The has outlined its proposed efforts to reduce l/I to reach this goal, which is a ma,'umum-to-mU~lmum monthly flow ratio that cannot exceed 1.58. The city has included documentation showing compliance 47 of 48 months in 1995-1998. The Council recommends the city submit a Tier II sewer plan to the Council l*or final approval following local approval of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive: plan should be consistent with the ciiy's approved -comprehensive plan and reflect any modifications recommended by thc Council. In addition. ~t is recommended the city provide the Council with an annual rt.'port on its progress in meeting 1/1 goals. Sanitary Sewer Service - Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (James Larsen. 651/602-1159) The c~ty is fully served by collective sanitary sewers. No individual on-site systems remain m usc, chminat~ng the need for a maintenance management program. star Resources Manngement (lames Larsen, 6~ 1/602-1159) --~-'~ ~ The cities of New F[opc, (3olden Valley, and C~'ystal are served by a single watcr system managed by thc Joint ~ Water Commission (]'WC). The .rwc purchases its water from thc city of Minneapolis. Thc J3~VC's recently updated its water supply plan. The plan' sufficient to meet Council content rcqu~-ements for this lan update. Surface Water Management (James La:sen, 651/602-1159) The city prepared a local surface watc~ numagement plan (LSWMP) in 1996. Council stat'freview,,.d the plan and provided review comments to thc city and the two atYected watersheds (Bassctt Creek and Shingle Creek) in late ! 996. The LSWI~f,° established policies for erosion control consistent with the Council's [n~er~n $~r~egy ~ Reduce A~on[x~nl 3a~rce J>ollaliaa ~o ,,1~1 ~[elro~polil~n A~'~'er ~odi¢$. Housing (Linda Milashius, 6~ 1/602.1541) The housing element of the comprehensive plan update is ~'onsistent With the Council's housing policy and meets the affordable housing planning requirements of thc Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The plan contains a data section that examines current and future households, population, and employmcnt in the community, as well as describes characteristics of itu existing housing stock. Thc plan presents housing policiea and goals. including statem¢.nts that the city is a participant in the Livable CommUnities Act Local Housing Incentives Program and has negotiated goals for affordable and life-cycle housing described in Table ,L The plan prowdes implementation strategies and programs to meet thc community's housi~q?, goala. Table 4 Livable Communit7 A~t Goals City Benchmark Goal Index Affordabili.ty Ownership 92 % 77 % 92 % Rental 41% 41-45 % 41% Life Cycle T~)e (non-single family 48 % 34.41% ~8 % detached) Owner/renter mix S3.47 % (62-72)/(28-26) %- % Density Singlc-L~amily detached 2.9/acre 2.4-2.9/ae~c 2.9/acre Multifamily 14/acre 11-15/acre ! Compatibifity with Adjacent Jurisdictions Thc plan was subm~tt~'d to surtoundiflg and affected 8overnmcnts, including Brooklyn Park, Crystal, G~ddcn Vailcy, Plymouth. Robbinsdale School District and Hcrmepin County. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Thc city of New Hope's comprehensive plan update is consistent with the: Reg~0nai Blueprint's pohci¢~ tbr thc urban area. The Council forccasts 9.100 households by the year 2020. The city tbro;ast$ 8,830 - 9.040 households by 2020. This ts coasistcrtt with the Councd's forecasts. 3. The plan is in conformance with the policy plans for Aviation, R~creation Open Space, Transportation an~t Water Resources Management. 4. The overall density is 6.11 dwelling units per acre, exco,ximg thc Council's policy of throe dwelling units p~'T acre. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the Metropolitan Council adopt the Review Rc~:ord with the following recommendations: 2. That the City of New Hope may place the New Hope Comprehcnsive Plan Ul:Mate into effect with no plan modification. 3. That the plan meets all of the M~.~'opolitan Land Planning Act requirement~ tbr the 1998 plan updates. a. That the city shall incorporate all of the information submitted in letter format into a final copy of the plan within 30 days of placing the plan into effect and submit it to the Council for its official rccordl 5. That the city submit a Tier II sewer plan to the Council for final approval following local approval of thc comprehensive plan. The Tier II sewer plan shah be consistent with the city's approved c0mptehenaive plan and reflect any modifies, lions recommended by the Council. 6. That the city provMe thc Council with an annual rcport on its prosr~s in me, ting I/I goals. H :\librao~rommu~dv\ 1999~newhope-Og~Z99.doc PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: October 5, 1999 Report Date: October 1, 1999 Planning Case: 99-20 Petitioner: Kmart / Fancher Development Services / Master LP Associates Property Owners: E,B,L&S Development Corporation Address: 4300 Xylon Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales I. Request The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow outdoor sales, pursuant to Sections 4.125(4) and 4.21 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. I1. Zoning Code References The City Code allows outdoor sales in a B-4 Zoning District as a conditional use, provided certain criteria are met. In addition to the general CUP criteria, the code specifies five standards to examine, which are detailed under the Zoning Code criteria. III. Property Specifications Zoning: B-4 Community Business Location: North of 42nd Avenue and east of Xylon Avenue Adjacent Land Uses: R-5 Senior/Disabled Residential to the north, B-4 Commercial to the east, R-1 Single Family Residential (Gethsemane Cemetery) to the south, B-2 Retail Business to the southwest and ~Public-Open Space" to the west in our Civic Center Park complex. Site Area: Approximatel~ 620' x 830' = 514,600 square feet = 11.8 acres Building Area: 94,500 square feet (Kmart) + 22,200 square feet (vacant space) = 116,700 square feet Lot Area Ratios: Building Coverage = 23%, Green Area = 4%, Asphalt = 73% Planning District: No. 11; This District is identified as the City's "downtown" or City Center area and ~the 42nd Avenue corridor. One of the specific goals of this District is to aggressively pursue the renovation and redevelopment of the Kmart shopping center, as well as attempt to create satellite commercial sites within the shopping center properties. Specific Information: The recently approved 1999 Site Plan has 688 parking spaces, well in excess of market needs, which simplifies this outdoor sales (on asphalt) request. Current City Code requires every single space, but has been considered to be a pun. itive standard in recent years, and will be recommended for change to a more reasonable minimum as the Zoning Code is updated. Staff estimate that the lot has a functional surplus of 100-200 extra parking spaces. No ponding is provided on the generally flat site, with existing landscaping limited to 10 trees along the 20-foot green strip next to Xylon Avenue. The 1999 Site Plan includes a nice increase in greenery and plantings that will reduce the "sea-of-asphalt" visual effect. IV. Background The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of an outdoor sales and service area. This property is zoned B-4, Community Business District. This district allows outdoor sales and service areas accessory to a principal use with a conditional use permit. The purpose of the proposed outdoor sales and service area is to accommodate the sale of general home improvement and garden shop merchandise. The applicant plans to display this merchandise inside a temporary fence made of cinder blocks and wood rails. The sales and service area will be located in the site's southeastern parking lot and will operate from March through July. In August, the petitioner received approval for a sign variance in conjunction with a number of proposed site improvements, which will be completed this fall and next spring. One of the conditions of that approval was that Kmart submit this application to formalize its outdoor storage use, which was administratively approved on a temporary basis for the last several years. Other establishments in the City selling similar merchandise outdoors such as Franks and Lyndale Garden Center have previously applied for and received CUP approval. Since the August Planning and City Council meeting approvals, the City has executed a Development Agreement with Kmart and has received a financial guarantee on the improvements. V. Petitioner's Comments The petitioner states in August correspondence submitted with preliminary plans that the site plan reflects the area of proposed outdoor sales based upon the parking lot layout with improvements approved in connection with Kmart's previous application for sign variance. Proposed outdoor sales will be limited to general home improvement and garden shop related merchandise to be contained within an area clearly defined by a temporary structure - cinder block and wood rails have been the predominant choice in years past. Customer service and merchandise checkout will be available within the adjacent garden shop. Outdoor sales will be limited to the spring and summer months of March through July." Revised plans were submitted prior to review by the Design & Review Committee, as the plans originally submitted did not include a curbed median island off of 42nd Avenue. The new plans include this feature. The petitioner submitted additional correspondence in response to the recommendations from the Design & Review Committee and those comments are discussed under the "Plan Description" section of this report. VI, Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff have received no comments on the plans. VII. Development Analysis A. Zoninq Code Criteria 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. Planning Case Report 99-20 Page 2 10/1/99 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) Compatibilityi 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 vadous zoning districts: 1) In Business Districts (B-l, B-2, B-3, B-4): a) Traffic. The proposed use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. b) Nearby Residences. Adjacent residentially zoned land will not be adversely affected because of traffic generation, noise, glare, or other nuisance characteristics. c) Effect on Other Businesses. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of unduly heavy non-shopping traffic or general unsightliness. 3. Specific criteria for Outdoor Sales is detailed in Code 4.125(4). Outdoor Sales and Services, Accessory. Open or outdoor service, sale and rental is an accessory use under a Conditional Use Permit provided that: A) Area Limit. Outside services, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to thirty percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. B) Screened from Residential. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting "R" District. C) Li.qhtin.q Shielded. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences. D) Surfacing, Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust, mud and to provide a clean, attractive and usable surface. E) Parking. Does not take up parking space required for conformity to the Code. B. Development Review Team The Team was supportive of the request. C. Desiqn & Review Committee The Committee was supportive of the CUP for outdoor sales, encouraging seven adjustments °r clarifications to the plan as follows: 1. Control sales area access, perhaps with fencing 2. Do not use semi-truck trailers for the sales storage or display. 3. Segregate the northeast corner of sales area with a curbed island. 4. Install painted crosswalks, as needed. 5. Add plantings to island on north and east sides of sales area. 6. Do not store unused pallets or tables in the sales area. Planning Case Report 99-20 Page 3 10/1/99 7. Substantially complete all improvements before beginning outdoo¢ sales. D. Plan Description Kmart and Fancher Development submitted a response letter on September 28 that agrees to most of the Design & Review Committee's suggestions: 1. Fencinq - Original recommendation for consideration of decorative fencing around the outdoor sales area was not endorsed by the Design & Review Committee and it is not desirable from Kmart's standpoint. In their correspondence, they state that they "believe that Kmart's reconfiguration of the parking lot and the installation of significant amounts of landscaping.to be more than adequate mitigating any visual impact associated with the outdoor sales. 2. Semi-Trailers - Kmart has agreed that semi-trailers will not be utilized in the storage or display of goods in the sales area and staff recommends this as a condition of approval. 3. Northeast Curbing - One of the recommendations for consideration was that curbing be added to the northeast corner of the site. Kmart has stated that "the addition of curb at the northeast corner of the sales area will significantly limit ingress and egress from the area by the tractor- trailers utilized in stocking this area. Just to re-affirm proposed condition #2, trailers will not be utilized in the storage or display of goods in the sales area." They would propose in the alternative, to stripe-out the last stall at the northeast corner "so as to allow better truck access to the area and avoid the damage to curb and landscaping that would inevitably ensue with a curbed planter at this location." Staff agree that a striped island provided at the northeast corner, rather than a curbed island, in order to facilitate their truck loading/unloading in the sales area is acceptable. 4. Painted Crosswalks - Kma~ has agreed on the previous approval of the site improvements to install a sidewalk from 42nd Avenue to the building. They do not feel that additional painted crosswalks are necessary, but will install them when the lot is striped, if required to do so. 5. Landscapin.q - The previous approved plan included landscaping on 42"d Avenue (six ornamental crab apples) and seven maple trees in the smaller islands near the front of the building. It also includes several ash trees in the curbed median east of the main parking lot and west of the storage area. Staff and the Design & Review Committee discussed additional screening on the north and east sides of the storage area. Kmart has responded that "the addition of trees to the planter area proposed to the north of the sales area would serve a two-fold purpose, both equally counterproductive. First, they will effectively screen the sales area from the building - a security issue, and second, screen the sales area from the main parking lot - defeating the original purpose, that is, of drawing patrons' attention to the sales area. I believe the recently approved plan for installation of landscaping and walkways across Kmart's parking lot from Xylon Avenue and 42nd Avenue, together with existing street trees will provide more than ample "softening" of the parking lot. Finally, I am concerned over installing anything higher than the ground cover already proposed in this area, as it poses a potential conflict with vehicular/pedestrian visibility." Kmart also does not feel that additional landscaping on the east side of the storage area, city property parking lot near Applebees, has landscaping already. The Commission should discuss whether or not additional screening is necessary with the petitioner. 6. Storage of Pallets/Clean-Up - The upkeep of the area was discussed by Design & Review and is discussed in the Planner's comments. Staff recommends that this be included as a condition of approval. Planning Case Report 99-20 Page 4 10/1/99 7. Completion of Improvements - Staff does not feel that this is an 'issue because a Development Agreement has been executed regarding site improvements and a financial guarantee posted. E. Planninq Considerations The Planning Consultant's comments are listed below: Section 4.125(4) of the City Code specifies five standards to examine when considering a conditional use permit to allow open or outdoor service, sale and rental activities as an accessory use. Listed below are these standards, as well as other applicable issues, and staff's finding for each. 1) Area Limit - Outside services, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. Finding: According to the applicant's plans, the outdoor service and sale area is 130 feet in width by 145 feet in length producing an area of approximately 18,850 square feet. The principal building is approximately 94,500 square feet. Therefore, the outdoor sale and service area amounts to only 20 percent of the gross floor area of the principal use and conforms to this standard. 2) Screened from Residential - Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting "R" Distdct in compliance with Section 4.033(3) of this Code. Finding: The adjacent Gethsemane Cemetery is zoned R-1. Due to the distance between the cemetery and the Kmart site, the on-site setback and existing landscaping, the site conditions appear to satisfy the screening requirements. Nevertheless, staff recommends that a condition of approval require the following additional landscaping: a) Professionally stripe out the last Parking stall in the northeast corner of the proposed sales area. b) Plant additional trees and shrubs between Kmart and the City of New Hope's parking lot. 3) Li.qhtin.q Shielded - All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section 4.033(5) of this Code. Finding: The applicant submitted and received approval of their lighting plan as part of the proposed Kmart renovation. This lighting plan included a light standard in the center of the proposed sales area. 4) Surfacinq - Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust, mud, and to provide a clean, attractive and usable surface. Finding: According to the applicant's plans, the proposed sales area will have a bituminous surface. 5) Parkinq - Does not take up parking space required for conformity to this Code. Finding: According to the City's Building Official, the Kmart site exceeds the parking requirements by at least 100 stalls. The applicant's plans indicate that the proposed sales area will consume 61 parking stalls. Therefore, the proposed sales area will not take up required parking stalls. 6) Scope of Sales Activity - The applicant should define the range and type of merchandise to be sold. Sales or storage of merchandise in semi-trailers and other vehicles must be excluded from the outdoor sales and storage area. Generally at the beginning of the growing season, the Kmart sales area is attractive, however, as the season progresses and the volume of Planning Case Report 99-20 Page 5 10/1/99 merchandise is reduced, empty tables, racks and pallets become unattractive. Therefore, staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to remove all tables, racks, pallets, and displays as they become empty. 7) Access - To ensure safe pedestrian access to this site, staff recommends that a condition of approval require the following access improvements: c) Installation of a sidewalk from 42nd Avenue to the front of the principal structure. d) Installation of marked crosswalks in the following three locations: from the sales area to the Garden Center, from the sales area to the front of the Kmart building, and from the sales area to the parking area west of the main access drive. F. Buildin.q Considerations Remodeling of the exterior facade of the building is underway. The outdoor sales is routine, if carefully managed. G. Enqineering Considerations The addition of the 42nd Avenue entry island included with this outdoor sales area creates a traffic safety improvement to the site. Vehicle and pedestrian turning/entry/exit conflict opportunities are reduced near the busy roadway. VIII. Summary This proposal substantially complies with all five criteria in Code Section 4.125(4) regarding area limits, screening, lighting, surfacing and parking. "Screening from Residential" is landscaping to the south, understanding that the "residential" land is a cemetery. IX. Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the CUP for Outdoor Sales of Lawn and Garden supplies, subject to the following conditions: 1. All work to be completed by August 1, 2000. 2. Annual inspection by Community Development staff for a minimum of two years, commencing August 1,2000. 3. Professionally strip-out the last parking stall in the northeast corner of the proposed sales area. 4. Removal of all tables, racks, pallets, and displays as they become empty and no trailer use for outside sales or storage. 5. Installation of sidewalk from 42nd Avenue to the front of the principal structure, per previous approval. 6. Commission to discuss/make determination on installation of marked crosswalks in the following three locations: from the sales area to the Garden Center, from the sales area to the front of the Kmart building, and from the sales area to the parking area west of the main access drive. 7. Commission to discuss/make determination on installation of additional trees and shrubs between Kmart and the City of New Hope's parking lot. 8. Submit a final revised site plan of outdoor storage area showing sidewalk from 42nd Avenue, and other agreed upon items, such as striping, crosswalks, and landscaping. Attachments: Zoning/Address/Topo Maps 9/14 Petitioner Correspondence Original Plans 8/23 Petitioner Correspondence Curb & Gutter Detail 9~28 Planner's Report Revised Plan/Planner Exhibit Application Log 9/28 Petitioner Correspondence Planning Case Report 99-20 Page 6 10/1/99 OF R-3 Medium E ~ coo~ - -' - High Den HousEO, ~ HIGHSOHOOL ...... ~,~~ ~ R 4 ELEMENTARY ~ ~ ~ R-O(PUD) Re~ ~'~' B-1 Limited N ~ ' R-0 -'- ~ B 4 Commun' .......................... · 49TH AVI~ N .. ~. ....... ~ ...... ~ .................... ..- ........ ................ l~,m~ ~,~'/, :',~'"':~;~ ........ r ..... : ':'"F--T'- ~ i ..... -'-..: ....... i i ............. ~. , ~ i ~ : ~ .' · , .~. ..... ~ ~ .....-, ........ ' -'-~ ..... : ! ........ , ...... 4OTH AVE ;. .................. ~ :Z -. Jo ? ~ .o 1, :' ' ~ ,~" COOPER , , , 4~0 4~01 4JO0 HIGH SCHO0 · . ................................... :~: ,.,. , ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ . . mo . ~STH AVE N , ~-."-~'-i '"~;"-=~' ~o'' ,"~o!~- ~."~l ' ~ : ~ . , ,..... ..._.,. . S.UNNYSII ~ ....... ~ ...... ~ ...... ~ ...... ~ ? '1~ ', ~- ,' -J~\ : i ...... i ....... ':-~ ..... · ' ~ ! ~7~ i ~ i~7~s ~ i ......... ~ ....... : .....~ ~ ......... ; ..... ! ~- ....~. ...... ~ , .. ~ -'~ ! -; ~ ,. ' ; ~ : ""---- ' ............. ~");m-'x~""' ...... i .................... '= ....... :_ , ........................... ~' ..: ............ 82.'5 g ~ ~ ~ ,a,: _-- .~, .~, .'"~UNNI'N j~ ...... ' !~ :~ ~ ' ~ ' ~" ~: ~ ,. . AR .... 't ' .... :~: ....... ~' .... ~-'-- ~ . Ii~S . .~. .......... . ~ · ,~. -luff_ !....- % '..._~..~. __L....~'__.i .... '-....L.~.L.~:.~' ...'* -NTARY i'm~ :-, D[L DR _ '...~l~?.-Z"] - . ~-.; ...... :---~ .... ~ ..... ,---~ ;~:t ....... ,-' .... ~, · ~ ....... ~: "-'? ..... ;-'",L-~--~'----'J,~C~--.-.: ..... ~- ..... '.- " ..... ~' .......... ~ j4~1t ;441t ,.1~[4~1J ~4~J7 {i --~-I ,~.~,~ ..~ · ~ · ....... ~-', : ..... ~ = .,R'~,- 8: 6. .' ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J~l. "~J 6 ~;~ ~ ~'~ .: ............. , .............. ~ ................... "~'J' C'-~ ................ ' ~ I i: J, 'J J' j'- ~'' .~ ':~'~I' '"""-"~ .... ~-"?'~""~lJ=" .................... ~/-" ~ ...... ' ~I~~' ' ,~ ~ ' '~i"~-/' . .............................. _~~>...,., . ~ * ' ' ~ ~, ,-'~ ,' ":..~ J ...... ,~JZ~...,_~_~ ....... /~ I..~ ~ ............ _.. ~ ~ ~ : . ~ · ; ,~. ~ . ,, "'.-- ......... :_,... :., .... L / ~ ~ ~ .... T'"; .............. ~ . ............. , ......w .................................... [ ...... [. --~ , . ·. PARK [~ '~ ': ~ 'F"*-.~; :~'~;' / /~ , .,,, ~ i~t~ ~'-*'~'"':' ~ ~, . NEW HOPEI /~ ~ ' J ~-- ............................ ~ ....... ~ I F ~ HALL I ' ~' '~ ................ I ; ' POOL FIRE ~ STATION ~ { · ... , . _~ 4~1 J .................. r- ~ ............ ~ .............. , ' i ~ ~ -- , t .......... i ~ ....... ; ~ ~ I ; ' ............ ..~ ~ __ ___~ ~'-~' ............................ CITY OF NEW HoPE 2OO 40':t: CITY OF NEW HOPE 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 O 6 (MALUS PROFUSION) 2.0" CAL.-B&B I GROUND COVER FLEECE FLOWER (AS REQUIRED) (POLYGONUM BISTORTA) - '1 o 0 0 0 42nd A~NUE VARIABLE R.O.W. (90'-84') NOTE: ALTERNATE REVERSE GUTTER TO BE USED ONLY WHEN DRAINING --TYP. GUTTER SECTION AWAY FROM CURB. ---ALT. REVERSE GUTTER SECTION WHERE DRAINAGE IS DIRECTED AWAY FROM CURB FACE 5' 13" FACE 1" 4000 PSI CONCRETE-- N W NCR T UR AN UTT R IAGREE IWlTH ICONS JCONST NOTE: PROVIDE CONTROL JOINTS lee lAND IN CURB AT 10' 0/0 AND AT J FOR ALL RADIUS RETURNS. PROVIDE ITHE ICl EXPANSION 'JOINTS EVERY 30 FT. IPRO~ IREQUIF laPPL¥ IHOUR JCONT~ iTC DEl IDESiGh I~'~o~ IR£AL- JWlTH ION ~LIABILI' INEg~ I PI~OF~ CITY OF' NEW HOPE ~KEAC~r~ffLE TR~N~NIITTAL & ~tYLA.R City of New Hor:e 4.1.01 Xylon Avenue North New HolX:, ~ ~5,12.1t-4895 A,,~: Kirk McDonald. D~czor of Comatufity Development Conditional Us~ P~rmk - Ouuloor Sales Dear Mx. McDonald Purse. hi I,o our ~oavcrsalioa carlicr ~y. I ~ ~ ~ fomli~ my client's ~ ~m~'s ~ from ~ ~~ 16e ~. ~ O~y ~t~ K~ ~ ~y p~lc~ ~ com~n~ ~ ~ ~. p~ ~ ~ly co~~v~ F~ ~ ~ -~y sc~ ~e ~m ~nlla~oa ~ ~p~ ~ ~s ~ ~'s ~ lot ~om Xylo~ ) ~-~t ~ ucc 1~ I ~n~ ~ ~e ~ ~ ~~'s ~isian ~~'s ~~on for fl~o~ ~in$ ~I~ I app~m ~e ~s~ sho~ in not "~og~tie~ ~do~. Exhibit 666[ 6~ X. izk McDonald, DLrector of Com~nunity X. rna~ Con~tional U~e Permit ~Pag¢ 2 of 2 T~7ou a~d Doug Sa,utc, d ~'or you~ ~n~ ~s~c ~ ~do~ ~ do ~i~m ~ ~n~ng me ~ ~y qu~ or ~c~ ~ (~]4) 258-1808. S~ly, F~ ZO~M~ $ER~CES, INC. ~d £~ Ud8E:EI 666I ~ 'dss 10~Sc~,I& : 'ON BN0~k~ S-dDIA~S IN~]']~A~(/ ~%~H3N~ : w08~ -~ (~'" Texas Construction Office Kmll't C~'l~l'ltlon 1405 W Pipeline Road, Ste A September 14, 1999 Hurst, TX 76053 Facsimile 817-590-0493 City of New Hope Attn: Doug Sandstad Building Official 4401. Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Re: Building'and Site improvements- 4300 Xylon AVe. no. Store #3045 Dear Mr. Sandstad, I am following up with our conversation last week regarding the construction schedule for this project. Because of the delay on receiving the building permit, our contractor has informed us that the parking lot can not be completed until the spring. The asphalt contractors are shutting down their operations before this can be completed. Therefore, we are pushing ahead to complete the storel~ont parapet, site lighting, and pylon sign before winter sets in. We will start the landscaping and parking improvements as early as we can. We have a contract with Lankford Construction to complete all of the work, and they will be in contact with the City in the next few days. The bond will stay in effect until the project is complete so the City will be assured the job gets done. Please contact me if you need any thing else, and again, thanks for your cooperation and the entire city staffand officials. Call me at 817-467-1077, with questions. Richard Moore cc: Frank Keck F,4NCHER DEVELOPMENT SER VICES, INC. £and Development .Con$ult. at~tl~ ^ugust z.~, 1999 VIA USPS NEXT DAY DELIVERY City of New Hope ,,401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 554284898 Attn: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Re: Kmart #3045 Conditional Use - Outdoor Sales Dear Kirk: I am pleased to submit on behalf of Kmart the enclosed application for conditional use permit for outdoor sales. I have enclosed with the application a site plan reflecting the area of proposed outdoor sales based upon the parking lot layout with improvements approved in connection with Kmart's previous application for sign variance. Proposed outdoor sales will be limited to general home improvement and garden shop related merchandise to be contained within an area clearly defined by a temporary structure - cinder block and wood rails have been the predominant choice in years past Customer service and merchandise checkout will be available within the adjacent garden shop. Outdoor sales will be limited the spring and summer months of March thru July. In the event there are any operational issues with respect to the proposed outdoor sales, or for that matter any general operational or maintenance issues with Kmart as a whole, you may contact Dennis Reinhardt, store manager at (612) 5354830 or me at (714) 258-1808. On behalf of Kmart, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, Doug Sansted, and city staff who have offered their considerable assistance and patience over thc past few months. Please do not hesitate in contacting me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, [-x FAN D ZOPMENT SERVICES, INC. SCott F. Duffne]r~,~ · Vice President'"- -- xc: V.E. Love (w/out Encl.) Richard Moore (w/Encl.) Michael Theisen (w/Encl.) ¢ 1342 Beil AveJme. ,.gult¢ 31(. T~stin. Califor~da 92750. (714) 255-1505. FAY ('I14) 255-2401 COMMUNITY PLANNING DESIGN MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Jason Lindahl/Alan Brixius DATE: September 28, 1999 RE: Kmart Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales and Service Area FILE: 131.01 - 99.11 BACKGROUND the applicant, Scott Duffner on behalf of Kmart, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of an outdoor sales and service araa. Kmart is located at 4300 Xylon Avenue North. This property is zoned B-4, Community Business District. This district allows outdoor sales and service areas accessory to a principal use with a conditional use permit. The purpose of the proposed outdoor sales and service araa is to accommodate the sale of general home improvement and garden shop merchandise. The applicant plans to display this merchandise inside a temporary fence made of cinder blocks and wood rails. The sales and service area will be located in the site's southeastern parking lot and will operate from March thought July. Attached for reference: Exhibit A: Site Plan Exhibit B: Outdoor Garden Shop Sales Area Map Exhibit C: Applicant's Response Letter to Design Committe's Comments ANALYSIS Section 4.125(4) of the City Code specifies five standards to examine when considering a conditional use permit to allow open or outdoor service, sale and rental activities as an accessory use. Listed below ara these standards, as well as other applicable issues, and staff's finding for each. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET.COM a. Area Limit. Outside services, sales and equipment rental connected with the principal use is limited to 30 percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. £inding; According to the applicant's plans, the outdoor service and sale area is 130 feet in width by 145 feet in length producing an area of approximately 18,850 square feet. The principal building is Approximately 94,500 square feet. Therefore, the outdoor sale and service area amounts to only 20 percent of the gross floor area of the principal use and conforms to this standard. b. Screened from Residential. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting "R' District in compliance with Section 4.033 (3) of this Code. Finding:The adjacent Gethesmane Cemetery is zoned R-1. Due to the distance between the cemetery and the Kmart site, the on-site setback and existing landscaping; the site conditions appear to satisfy the screening requirements. Nevertheless, staff recommends that a condition of approval require the following additional landscaping: 1. Professionally stripe out the last parking stall in the northeast corner of the proposed sales area. 2. Plant Additional trees and shrubs between Kmart and the City of New Hope's parking lot. c. Lighting Shielded. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section 4.033 (5) of this code. Finding: The applicant submitted and received approval of their lighting plan as part of the proposed Kmart renovation. This lighting plan included a light standard in the center of the proposed sales area. d. Surfacing. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust, mud, and to provide a clean, attractive and usable surface. Finding; According to the applicant's plans, the proposed sales area will have a bituminous surface. e. Parking. Does not take up parking space required for conformity to this Code. Finding,; According to the City's Building Official, the Kmart site exceeds the parking requirements by at least 100 stalls. The applicant's plans indicate that the proposed sales area will consume 61 parking stalls. Therefore, the proposed sales area will not take up required parking stalls. f. Scope of Sales Activity. The applicant should define the range and type of merchandise to be sold. Sales or storage of merchandise in semi-trailers and other vehicles must be excluded from the outdoor sales and storage area. Generally at the beginning of the growing season, the Kmart sales area is attractive, however, as the season progresses and the volume of merchandise is reduced, empty tables, racks and pallets become unattractive. Therefore, staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to remove all tables, racks, pallets and displays as they become empty. g. Access. To ensure safe pedestrian access to this site, staff recommends that a condition of approval require the following access improvements: 3. Installation of a side walk from 42nd Avenue to the front of the principal Structure. 4. Installation of marked crosswalks in the following three locations: from the sales area to the Garden Center, from the sales area to the front of the Kmart building, and from the sales area to the parking area west of the main access drive. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of an open and outdoor sales and service area for Kmart located at 4300 Xylon Avenue North. This recommendation is made based on the above-mentioned findings with the following conditions: 1. Professionally stripe-out the last parking stall in the northeast corner of the proposed sales area. 2. The applicant installs additional trees and shrubs between Kmart and the City of New Hope'§ parking lots. 3. The applicant removes all tables, racks, pallets and displays as they become empty. 4. The applicant installs a side Walk from 42nd Avenue to the front of the principal structure. 5. The applicant Install marked crosswalks in the following three locations: from the sales area to the Garden Center, from the sales area to the front of the Kmart building, and from the sales area to the parking area west of the main access drive. 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 (Kmart) 99-20 Scott Duffner 8/27/99 10/26/99 12/26/99 Fancher Development Corp. 1342 Bell Avenue, Suite 3K Tustin, CA 92780 714-258-1808 714-258-2401 fax Master LP Associates 230 S. Broad St., Mezzanine Philadelphia, PA Howard Levey 215-790-4700 215-790-4733 fax 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: October 5, 1999 Report Date: October 1, 1999 Planning Case: 99-12 Petitioner: Cindy Morey / Little Folks Daycare Property Owner: Eugene Grace / Grace Management Address: 3701 Winnetka Avenue Request: Conditional Use Permit I. Request The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a daycare operation in an R-O Residential Office Zoning District. II. Zoning Code References Daycare uses in the R-O District are allowed by conditional use permit, subject to certain conditions being met. In addition to local regulations, specific State Statutes and Building Code provisions regulate the location and facilities for daycare uses. III. Property Specifications Zoning: R-O, Residential Office Zoning District Location: One block north of 36th Avenue on the west side of Winnetka Avenue Adjacent Land Uses: Northwood Park (flood plain) to the south and west, R-O Residential Office (New Hope Animal Hospital) to the north, City of Crystal (cemetery) to the east across Winnetka Avenue Site Area: 140' x 143' = 20,020 square feet Building Area: 33' x 45' = 1,485 square feet + basement = 2,900 square feet total Lot Area Ratios: Green Area = 57%, Building Coverage = 7%, Asphalt = 36% Planning District: No 12; This District is largely residential and the City encourages reinvestment and renovation, where needed. Specific Information: The lot has 16 Parking spaces along the flat north part and slopes severely south (down to the adjacent flood plain of Bassett Creek). The small, brick- faced residential style building was built and occupied as a radio studio and office for decades. In recent years, a variety of office uses have filled the building. IV. Background Little Folks Daycare, Inc. is proposing to establish a daycare facility at 3701 Winnetka Avenue. The subject site is zoned R-O, Residential-Office District. Daycare facilities are a conditional use in this District. As such, the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit as well as site plan review. In 1991, a Montessori School requested a CUP to allow a daycare facility at the same site. This Planning Case Report 99-12 Page 1 10/1/99 CUP request is similar to a proposal that was approved for a different proponent, but never built/enacted. That approval automatically expired 12 months after approval. V. Petitioner Comments The petitiOner states in correspondence that "it is our intent to operate a child care facility at this address with a maximum licensed capacity of 56 children. Our facility shall care for children ranging in age from six weeks to six years. Our hours of operation are expected to be 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. It is our intent to use the existing building at this site without any major alterations to the building or site. The building and site upon our review and the review of Dr. Sally Goldberg, our child care consultant, is licensable by the State of Minnesota. Little Folks Daycare Inc. began providing child care to the northwestern suburbs in December of 1996. 1988 through 1996 our Director Cindy Kay Morey operated a licensed child care home at 5647 Hampshire Avenue N. in Crystal, MN. Little Folks presently operates a successful child care center at 6200 West Broadway in Brooklyn Park with a licensed capacity of 70 children. Little Folks Daycare Inc. is a Minnesota registered S corp. Little Folks is not affiliated with any other institutions. It is Little Folks' mission to provide children with a safe environment to develop positive social skills and an opportunity for preschool learning and play. It is our intent to provide high quality child care services that area parents can use and depend on with peace of mind. Our teachers and assistant teachers are required to be professionally trained and are required to provide evidence of such training. We feel quality child care services are an essential part of a community effort to continually renew itself. Little Folks Daycare, Inc. extends this invitation to members of the New Hope Planning Commission and the City Council to visit our current facility at 6200 W. Broadway. Please call 533-6167 during business hours to arrange a personal tour. Any other questions or concerns can be addressed by our Director Cindy Kay Morey. Cindy can be reached at Little Folks at 533-6167, at home 533-5242, or at 251-5663 (cellular)." VI. Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the property, including the City of Crystal, were notified and staff have received no comments. VII, Development Analysis A. Zoninq Code Criteda 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 provisior~s 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. Planning Case Report 99-12 Page 2 10/1/99 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 cdteria 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) Screening. 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. 3. Seven specific daycare zoning standards are found in 4.074(2): 1 ) Front Setback - The front yard depth is a minimum of thirty-five feet. 2) Off-Street Parkin.q - Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Section 4.036 of this Code. 3) Off-Street Loadinq - Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with Section 4.037 of this Code. 4) Street Access - The site and related parking and service is served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. 5) General Conditional Use Requirements - The provisions of Sections 4.21 through 4.212(6)(c) of this Code are satisfactorily met. 6) State Re,qulations - The regulations and conditions of Minn. Rules Part 9545.0510 through 9545.0670 are satisfactorily met. No facility shall begin operation without a state license as required by the regulations referred to in this sub-section (f). 7) Buildinq and Fire Code - That all applicable provisions of the Minnesota State Building Code and Fire Code have been met. The City Building Official and Fire Marshall shall inspect the property prior to the issuance of the conditional use permit to determine if this sub-section of this Code has been complied with. B. Development Review Team The Team was supportive of the Daycare concept, but had a number of concerns. C. Desi.qn & Review Committee The Design & Review Committee was supportive of the daycare concept, if agreement can be reached on a number of issues in four areas. Staff clarified that the Disability Access rules in Minnesota Code require minor adjustments to the building and access, amounting to 20 percent of the planned remodel "construction value." · Access/Parkin,q - Rebuild curb cut on Winnetka and eliminate parking stall closest to road to improve safety. With Hennepin County coordination, designate, stripe and post Fire Lane signs. Consider enlarging west end of lot to meet standards for width, maneuvering, etc. IF five-foot setback from west lot line can be maintained, identify minimal light levels for parking and play Planning Case Report 99-12 Page 3 ' 10/1/99 areas, identify trash storage container at least five feet from the buildinq and enclosure location and materials. · Engineering - Curbing recommended along southwest side of parking lot with a new storm sewer diverted to the southwest per his September 29 design. · Play.qround - Provide a playground equipment layout, tall fence (to catch balls) desirable at south side, due to steep bank. · Buildin.q and Fire Code After Council approval, submit building plans to demonstrate compliance with State Building and Fire Code rules before beginning the remodel. Further comments/responses to the Design & Review recommendations are in the following "Plan Description" section. D. Plan Description The revised plans and narrative include the following details: 1) Si.qna,qe The applicants have stated that Grace Management, the owners and former occupants of the site, installed a monument type sign that is lighted. It is Little Folks' plan to use this sign which should be compliant with the current sign ordinance. The design panels on each side of the sign shall resemble the sign we currently use at our site at 6200 W. Broadway. The site plan indicates that an existing monument sign adjacent to Winnetka Avenue will be utilized. The sign area is 94" x 44" and contains approximately 32 square feet. There is no indication if any wall signage is planned. All site signage must conform to the provisions of Section 3.40 of the City Code. 2) Landscaping - The applicant has indicated that landscaping shall remain as is. The owner and former occupant of 3701 Winnetka performed extensive landscaping of the site. The site has plantings and shrubs as shown in our site plan that have been cared for and fit the appearance requirements of our center. The facility has a timed irrigation and fertilization system which we plan to operate and maintain. Staff agree that there is extensive, well-maintained landscaping on the site, which is shown on the site plan around the front entrance and around the monument sign. The existing plant types are not identified. There is a wooded nature area on the bluff on the south side of the property. 3) Playground - The daycare includes a 50 x 30-foot playground to the west of the building and the following issues pertain to that area: a) Equipment - The applicant has stated that the size and location of the playground area are shown on the revised site plan. The equipment is still to be determined and will comply with the requirements of Rule 3 of the Minnesota State Licensing Codes. Staff is requesting that once the equipment is determined that a playground equipment layout plan be provided showing the location and type of equipment. b) Fencinq - The petitioner has indicated in writing and on the plans that the fence will be cedar picket fence six feet in height at the south side of the play area and four feet high at the west and north sides of the play area. The same fence exists at our facility at 6200 W. Broadway and allows the children a larger open area to play. The west side of the playground will be set back some distance from any wildlife area. Lost balls and toys outside the playground area has not been a problem at our 6200 W. Broadway location. c) ADA Access - The City Engineer and the Design & Review Committee discussed the potential installation of a path leading from the parking lot to the playground area to ensure compliance with ADA access standards as well as emergency access. Planning Case Report 99-12 Page 4 10/1/99 The petitioner has indicated that they agree to install a gate at the northwest corner of our play area. Grace Management (our landlord) has not agreed, however, to allow or pay the cost of a ramp. Further we require our clients to drop off and pick up their children at a secured entrance (the west door). A ramp may invite clients to pick up children at an unapproved location. The Building Official has confirmed that a ramp to the playground is not required, therefore, staff is recommending that this not be included as a condition of approval. d) Li.qhting and Security - The petitioner has indicated that the building at 3701 has an existing security and fire alarm system which Little Folks shall maintain. In addition, we plan to add smoke detectors and alarms required by the Minnesota State Fire Code. The exterior of the building currently has three light fixtures at the front of the building that illuminate the front entry and parking lot. At the rear of the building are four additional light fixtures which illuminate the outdoor play area and west end of the parking lot. Also there is an existing pole light at the center of the north edge of the parking lot providing light to the parking area. Our hours of operation are expected to be 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Timers are already in place to operate exterior lighting for security purposes. The petitioner reiterates these remarks in the response to the Design & Review Committee. The Planning Consultant states that the site plan indicates lighting mounted on the building as well as a light pole on the north side of the parking lot. The applicant believes that the existing lighting is adequate for the intended use of the subject site. However, the freestanding light is oriented towards and serves the vet clinic to the north. Staff would recommend that additional freestanding lighting be provided in the parking lot as a safety matter during winter months when it may still be dark during peak drop-off and pick-up hours. The Planning Commission should determine if the existing lighting is adequate or if more needs to be added. Staff agrees the lighting is sufficient. e) Refuse - The petitioner indicated in their written comments that trash containers would be located at the west side of the building and screened. Trash containers shall be a minimum of two 90-gallon containers with the option of adding a third container if needs require. Trash removal will occur twice weekly. The petitioner stated that the 90-gall0n containers will be compliant with the Fire Code. The Planner's report states that the submitted site plan illustrates a screened trash location, although no specific details are provided. The design and materials for the trash enclosure. are subject to review and approval of the City Building Official. The Fire Code requires that the containers/enclosure be located at least five feet from the building. f) Guard Rail/Retaininq Wall - The Design & Review Committee recommended that a guard rail be added at the top of the retaining wall and the petitioner has agreed in writing to do this (not shown on plan). g) Number of Children/Buildinq Capacity - The Building Official has reviewed the proposed building and determined that the maximum capacity for a daycare use (without significant changes to the building) is 45 children and the petitioner has agreed to reduce the number of children from the original 56 proposed down to 45. Building plans and site plans should be subject to further review by the city Building Official and Fire Department Chief to demonstrate compliance with applicable building and fire code provisions to accommodate the proposed change in building occupancy. h) Parkinq - The City requires daycare uses to provide one stall per employee plus one stall for each seven children of maximum capacity basis. Based upon a maximum capacity of 45 Planning Case Report 99-12 Page 5 10/1/99 students and six employees, a total of 13 parking stalls are required. A total of 14 off-street parking stalls have been provided, one of which is disability accessible. The disability stall is presently 11 feet wide and must be widened to 18 feet to be van accessible, consistent with ADA standards. With exception of the disability space, all other dimensional measures are consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements. In order to improve circulation, the applicant is proposing to stripe off the westernmost stall for use as a turn around. However, to allow sufficient circulation, a stub will need to be provided that would allow a car to back out of the striped stall. A Fire Lane has been designated directly adjacent to the north side of the building, and the applicant has agreed to install the required Fire Lane signs. In addressing the on-site congestion issue, the Fire Lane should be extended the full length of the south line of the parking lot and posted no parking. Concrete curb is not provided. At a minimum, concrete curb should be constructed along the south property line to direct stormwater runoff away from the playground area. The petitioner has not shown any curbing on the plan and the Commission should discuss this issue with the applicant. The northeast parking space has been hash-mark/painted out to reduce traffic congestion at the street, as requested. i) Access - The subject site has direct access from Winnetka Avenue, which is designated as an arterial street by the Comprehensive Plan. This street will have adequate capacity to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed use. Ingress and egress is a potential issue given present traffic volumes, especially for northbOund traffic that must cross two lanes to enter the site. Due to the potential congestion created by the existing access, the City Engineer is recommending that the driveway and turning radii be widened. The applicant is opposed to these improvements because of the potential cost and would prefer to make the following improvements: Add a painted line at the center of the aisle defining the entrance and exit lanes. · Install a right turn only sign at the exit lane. · Prohibit parking in the easternmost stall of the lot. · Instruct snow removal firm to remove snow at each side of the curb cut and sidewalk so sight lines to Winnetka will remain clear. Curb cuts for commercial uses are to be at 26 feet wide unless the City Engineer determines that a wider access is necessary in consideration of the type of use and anticipated traffic volumes. Because of the potentially significant morning and afternoon traffic generated by a daycare use and traffic volumes on Winnetka, it is staff's opinion that the improvements recommended by the City Engineer are mandatory from a traffic safety perspective. The Commission will need to make a determination on this issue. j) Loading/Delivery - As part of the 1991 CUP Montessori School application, a designated drop-off lane with a separate exit to Winnetka Avenue was recommended by city staff to alleviate on-site congestion. The present applicant is only proposing to use a portion of the existing parking lot and fire lane for dropping off-picking up children. The potential traffic congestion created by this arrangement may significantly affect the functionality of the site and may impact traffic on Winnetka. A delivery entrance is also illustrated on the west side of the building. To avoid contributing to the congestion anticipated in the morning and afternoon, deliveries should be restricted to not before 9 a.m. or after 4 p.m. The petitioner has indicated that the only anticipated scheduled deliveries shall be the child lunches delivered once daily by small van from our contracted catering service. Lunches shall be delivered to our west main level door. Planning Case Report 99-12 Page 6 10/1/99 k) Snow Removal - The petitioner has indicated in writing that snow removal from the parking lot shall be to the west end of the lot by a commercial snow removal firm. I) Storm Sewer - The City Engineer has recommended that consideration be given to the installation of storm sewer on the site, but this is not being recommended as a condition of approval. m) Lock Box and Fire Alarm System - The petitioner has agreed to these requests from. the Fire Department. n) Financial Guarantee - The petitioner objects to furnishing a financial guarantee, however, staff recommends this not be waived, as it is a routine requirement on most projects. E. Planninq Considerations Comments from the Planner's report pertaining to the CUP criteria and Comprehensive Plan are listed below: CUP Criteria. Applications for CUPs require the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed use. In evaluating whether to approve or deny a CUP application, city officials must find that: 1) 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. 2) The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. 3) The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the Code. 4) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 5) In addition to the above criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteria specified for the various Zoning Districts. 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. 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. c) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. Comprehensive Plan - The subject site is designated for commercial use by the New HoPe Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is consistent with this guidance and is reflected by the existing R-O District zoning. F. Buildinq Official Comments Interior building remodel plans not yet submitted must comply with State Building Code. Minnesota Disability Code rules will require some main entry/interior changes, but NOT a "ramp" down to the playground as inferred by consultants. G. Engineer Comments The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and made the following comments: · Access to Winnetka Avenue is provided by an existing driveway. Due to traffic volumes in Winnetka Avenue (approximately 12,500 AADT) and the existing driveway width/radius, it is recommended that the existing ddveway radius/width onto Winnetka Avenue be improved upon Planning Case Report 99-12 Page 7 10/1/99 to provide safer ingress/egress to the site in accordance with Hennepin County (see attached sketch). We have verbally reviewed driveway improvements with Dave Zetterstrom at Hennepin County and they would support any improvements that would improve access to the site. Hennepin County's position is to minimize delays and provide safer ingress/egress from its County Roads. If the City desires, the requests proposed by the petitioner could be considered in lieu of improvements to the existing driveway. · The parking lot at the west end is proposed to be added onto to conform with city standards for parking lot design. It is not clear, however, if the retaining wall is being extended or not (retaining walls greater than four feet high require engineered drawings). · The proposed playground area does not have an acceptable ADA access. It is recommended that access be provided by constructing a sidewalk/trail conforming to ADA requirements from the parking lot the playground area (see attached sketch). A grading plan showing existing and proposed elevations/slopes is required. · The storm water runoff from the west end of the site is directed overland to the proposed playground area and into Northwood Park. From an engineering standpoint, it is preferred that curbing be constructed around the parking lot in accordance with New Hope's requirements and storm sewer be extended from the existing storm sewer serving the Animal Hospital to collect storm water runoff from the site area. This will protect the playground area and minimize erosion into Northwood Park. However, at the Design & Review meeting, it was discussed in lieu of constructing curbing around the entire parking lot and extending storm sewer, curbing be required only on the playground side of the paved area such that the storm water runoff is directed away from the playground area (see attached sketch). H. Fire Considerations Provide Fire Lane, lock box and fire alarm system, per September 15 memo. VIII. Summary Staff is very supportive of a new use for this site, and the request to establish a daycare facility at the subject site is generally consistent with applicable city policies and codes, provided that appropriate site modifications are completed to mitigate traffic congestion issues. The establishment of a daycare facility on the subject site raises several concerns regarding traffic congestion due to on-site circulation and site access issues. City staff, the Design & Review Committee, and consultants have identified a number of site modifications that would mitigate the congestion issues to a limited extent. Aside form traffic concerns, the proposed use is generally consistent with performance standards for daycare uses. IX. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow a daycare operation at this site, pending subject to the following conditions: 1. The use comply with applicable State Statutes and Rules regulating daycare uses 2. Prior to remodel, submit plans to demonstrate Compliance with State Building and Fire Code rules, complete remodel of building within 60 days of Council action. (safe, temporary occupancy can be arranged before completion, with this understanding.) 3. The maximum capacity of the facility shall be 45 children. 4. Plans for development of the playground be submitted, subject to review and approval of the City. 5. An exterior trash enclosure be provided subject to review and approval of the City. 6. One 18 x 20-foot van accessible disability parking stall be provided. 7. The Fire Lane be extended and posted along the entire south line of the parking lot. 8. Planning Commission to make determination on City Engineer recommendations regarding widening curb cut, provision of curbing and storm sewer. Planning Case Report 99-12 Page 8 10/1/99 9. Financial guarantee to be provided for site improvements related to engineering recommendations, if required. Attachments: · Address/Topo/Zoning Maps · Site Plan · Petitioner Correspondence · Petitioner Response to Design & Review's Recommendations · Planner's Report · City Engineer Comments · 1991 Site Plan and Information · Application Log Planning Case Report 99-12 Page 9 10/1/99 CEME-rERY BUS ~m , 4124 ~ : [; :'~ : ''~t :~ i[ ![' :- I~!' ~ ~"- ~ '~ ~'~1 I'[ ~':'~ ~ ' : - '~' ................................................................ ................ ~-- =-.-;-~ .... L. ~ .... ~.. ~...~ .......... ~ ..... ..... ~-'~ .......... ~ ~ .......... . ............. ' ......... ~"-'~ ....... ~ ......... i ...... ~ ./ ~ ......... : . , ~,~: ~ ~ ...... ... ~-. . ~ .......... ;t~t ~---~ J '~L:: ~'7.'~," ", ~..~!~-~"t'~-4 '~i:~ ...... ..... x~ ..... '".---"': ........... . :--~... ;~ ~[ ,- ...'~. >~'~ ,, ~,,~/~'. ', ..... ~-~ ~':...:-:--, ....... : HOLY ~ ~ -. -~--, .' .... ~. ~ :~ ,.' / ~ . ~7; }.-. ~-~[~ L ..... ~ ..... : ; i~llv~li ~ ' ~ I : "-~-- ~.~ ~ ~ ~4 ~L .... ~ ~' .., , ~..~ ~e ........... ~ ~ ~ : : ~ ~ ' i ......... ~- ~y~U.~,---.. ...... .,~-.~ ,. ~.. ~, ~- ~ ~ : : ~ --.~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~' · ~... ..' . ..._. .' ; ~ . ...... 8~ ~ ----~t'.~'. ' .~', / -~, ~' ' ...... ; ........ + i ' ' ~ .~--'.--J-_ ~-~'~' -, ~" ~ .' / ~'"'~" ';' ! .... i~i : ~ ..... .... =-" . ~' ~'~ .... :' :T"-T "~,. -~.-. ' ".~,' ~ ~: ~ [~E~ B~H EL MEMORIAL PARK I / :. I ~i ~e ~e e ~e ~ ...' .- ~-.1~, --~ ........... ?-~ ...... ~ ................................................................... ~-- - .... ~ ................................. ~"~'. -~. ~ ', ,' ~ ~ ! -- '. ~ -- / ......... ,, ;" ', ", ~', .... :~-~ i EMES CEMETERY I ~ "~?'~ .....' -- ~ i '"' -- ' ~/ ;' '"" "~' ~ ~ ~ '-- -- : 7~ ~---~ ..... , ....., .... ~ ......~ ................................................. T~LU~.LU.~_U_~_..~ _,~._. I .... ~..~.t~Utm~U~? ,.. :... .: ...... ~ { ..... ~ .... : ; ....... -...,~ ...... ,~ :' p ...~.__ ~ ........... ~ · . -, . .... . .- ...... ~. . ~ . .: ~ ~11~ ~11 i~:~ i . ~lO, ~1 ~ -..... ... ~..... = .. . ; ~ ; , . ~ { ,. ~ ~ ~1 / ; ~ ~ . 'llSlll41ll~lll~ ['"~ '~ : ~10 ~ ~ll ...; .... , , .... ~ : i ~I :'-. ~-~'~ ~ .--" zsm ,~ ~ ..........................: .... m~ ............ ~ ............. "' ~" ~. ~l~',. i, ~ ...../' " " = "m.-- ~ .............. : .................. ' Attachment to the Planning Commission application for a Conditional use Permit at 3701 Winnetka Ave. N This attachment will provide further information regarding our application to thc New Hope Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a child care facility at 3701 Winnetka Ave. N. It is our intent to operate a child care facility at this address with a maximum licensed capacity of 56 children. Our facility shall care for children ranging in age from 6 weeks to 6 years. Our hours of operation are expected to be AM to 5:30 PM. It is our intent to use the existing building at this site without any major alterations to thc building or site. Thc building and site upon our review and thc review of Dr. Sally Goldberg, our child care consultant, is licensable by the State of Minnesota with out major renovation. Little Folks Daycarc Inc. began providing child care to the northwestern suburbs in December of 1996. 1988 through 1996 our Director Cindy Kay Morcy operated a licensed child care home at 5647 Hampshire Ave N in Crystal, MN. Little Folks presently operates a successful child care center at 6200 West Broadway in Brooklyn Park with a licensed capacity of 70 children. Little Folks Daycare Inc. is a Minnesota registered S corp. Little Folks is not affiliated with any other institutions. It is Little Folks mission to provide children with a safe environment to develop positive social skills and an opportunity for preschool learning and play. 1. Parking requirement compliance The number of required parking spaces per New Hope City code will be as follows. I space per each 7 children. 56 / 7 = 8 spaces 1 space for each employee. 6 employees = 6 spaces 14 spaces The parking lot will have 14 spaces parking spaces as shown on our revised site plan. Parking spaces shall be 8',9"wide and 19' deep. The drive aisle shall be widened to the required 24 feet at the west end of the parking lot to facilitate the use of the parking spaces at the west end. This will also facilitate the diversion of run off water to the west end of the lot as suggested at the Design & Review meeting. Snow removal from the parking lot shall be to the west end of the lot by a commercial snow removal firm. 2. Delivery The only anticipated scheduled deliveries shall be the child lunches delivered once daily by small van from our contracted catering service. Lunches shall be delivered to our west main level door. 3. Other Exterior Site Plan Requirements lfdcsite Sept 1 O, 1999 Trash containers shall be located at the west side of the building and screened. Trash containers shall be a minimum of 2x 90 gallon containers with the option of adding a 3rd container if needs require. Trash removal will occur twice weekly. Landscaping shall remain as is. The owner and former occupant of 3701 Winnetka performed extensive landscaping of the site. The site has plantings and shrubs as shown in our site plan that have been cared for and fit the appearance requirements of Our center. The facility has a timed irrigation and fertilization system which we plan to operate and maintain. At the west side of the building Little Folks will place a fenced play area as shown in our site plan drawing. The fence will be cedar picket fence 6 feet in height at the south side ofthe play area and 4 feet high at the west and north side of the play area. The same fence exists at our facility at 6200 W Broadway and allows the children a larger open area to play. 4. Lighting and Security The building at 3701 has an existing security and fire alarm system which Little Folks shall maintain. In addition we plan to add smoke detectors and alarms required by the Minnesota State Fire Code. The exterior of the building currently has 3 light fixtures at the front of the building that illuminate the front entry and parking lot. At the rear of the building are 4 additional light fixtures which illuminate the outdoor play area and west end of the parking lot. Also there is an existing pole light at the center of the north edge of the parking lot providing light to the parking area. Our hours of operation are expected to be 6:30 AM to 5:30 PM. Timers are already in place to operate exterior lighting for security purposes. 5. Signage Grace Management the owners and former occupants of the site installed a monument type sign that is lighted. It is Little Folks plan to use this sign which should be compliant with the current sign ordinance. The design panels on each side of the sign s~ll resemble the sign we currently use at our site at 6200 W Broadway. It is our intent to provide tligh_qliali~ child care services that area parents can use and depend on with peace of mind. Our teachers and asst. teachers are required to be professionally trained and are required to provide evidence of such training. We feel quality child care services are an essential pan of a community effort to continually renew itself. Little Folks Day Care Inc. extends this invitation to members of the New Hope Planning Commission and the City Council to visit our current facility at 6200 W. Broadway. Please call 533-6167 during business hours to arrange a personal tour. Any other questions or concerns can be addressed by our Director Cindy Kay Morey. Cindy can be reached at Little Folks at 533-6167, at home 533-5242, or at 251-566:} (cellular) ]fc~site Attachment in response to recommendations mad , :,z-- Design-Review meeting of Sept. 16, 1999. This attachment shall address the recommendations made at the Design & Review meeting. A number of issues raised at our meeting may have been resolved in our revised site plan and attachment. We shall reply to each suggestion and concern as follows. Access and parking area: 1. Need to rebuild the entrance to obtain a better view for oncoming traffic of F/innetka Ave. N. The concern raised here had to do with the width of the curb cut at Winnetka Ave. It was suggested that the curb cut be widened by 4 to 6 feet to facilitate easier access to the parking lot from the street. Also site lines to Winnetka from a vehicle exiting the lot may be blocked by snow piled near the curb cut or by a vehicle parked in our lot at the eastern most space. Response: In reviewing the New Hope City Code #072684 we found the maximum curb cut allowed is 26 feet. The current curb cut at the site is 24',6" which appears to be a standard curb cut width used widely throughout the city at similar sites. Similar sites Waymouth Farms 5300 Boone Ave. N. 24 ft. Gill Brothers Funeral Home 7300 42nd An N. 23 ft. New Hope Public Works garage North entrance 24 feet South entrance 22 feet New Hope Animal Hospital ~ 26 ft. Little Folks as lessors would be obligated to pay for this at considerable expense. We would rather suggest the following alternatives. A. Add a painted line at the center of the aisle defining the entrance and exit lanes clearly. B. Install a right turn only sign at the exit lane. C. Prohibit parking in the eastern most stall of the parking lot. D. We will instruct our snow removal firm to remove snow at each side of the curb cut and sidewalk so sight lines to Winnetka will remain clear.. 2. Square off the area of parking lot adjacent to the four(4) end stalls. We may widen the drive aisle to the required 24 fi to the west end of the lot. Widening the aisle will allow us to use the 4 end stalls in compliance with city code. The widening of the aisle also will facilitate run off drainage to the west end of the parking lot. Run off on to the playground was a concern raised at the Design & Revitw meeting. The lfclcsite Sept 10, 1999 suggestion was made at the time to widen our drive aisle and also divert the runoff to the west end around the playground. 3. Create a stub (turn around) at the end of the parking'lot. This issue will be resolved with the addition of the drive aisle extension. 4. Add curbing and gutters to the parking lot area. This matter was discussed at the Design & Review meeting. The consensus at that meeting was that this would add prohibitive cost with very little benefit. The parking lot mn off presently drains directly south on to our property at 370 lWinnetka. Any further run off would drain into the wetland directly south of the property. 5. Designate a painted fire lane and install required signs. We will agree to this recommendation. 6. Eliminate the parking space closest to Winnetka, use for turn around area. We will agree to move the 7 ft wide space shown at the west end of the parking lot on the original site plan to the east end of the lot. This space will be striped with diagonal lines to indicate no parking. 7. Show adequate lighting for all outside areas: concern for playground area. The site plan presently has 4 flood lights and 1 other exterior light providing illumination to the play area. Also the pole light adds additional light to the playground area. Outdoor play does not occur before 8:00AM or after 4:PM.The front of the building is illuminated by 3 exterior fixtures and the illuminated sign in the front yard as well as the pole mounted light in the parking lot. The parking lot is illuminated by two flood lights and the pole mounted light. 8. May require moving the trash cans/dumpsters to another area per fire code, This issue was discussed at the Design & Review meeting. The 2 -3 90 g~llon containers will be compliant with the fire code. 9. May need to work with Hennepin County to sign blind driveway along Winnetka. Dave Zutterstmm of Hennepin Co. said it would not be necessary to post sign as in his opinion the site lines are adequate. Playground area: 1. Supply an dlustration of the playground area and equipment. The size and location of the playground area are shown on the revised site plan. The equipment is still to be determined and will comply with the requirements of Rule 3 of the Minnesota State Licensing Codes. 2. Install an exit.from the playground area complete with ramp to an approved exit area, (parking loO, and also to meet ADA requirements. l~site Sept 10, 1999 We agree to install a gate at the northwest comer of our play area. Grace Management (our landlord) has not agreed however to allow or pay the cost of a ramp. Further we require our clients to drop off and pick up their children at a secured entrance ( the west door ). A ramp may invite clients to pick up children at ~n unapproved location. 3. Install a tall fence on the South and West sides of the playground area to prevent lost balls and toys in the w~ldlife areas. We agree to install a 6 ft fence on the south side of the playground. The west side of the playground will be set back some distance from any wildlife area. Lost balls and toys outside the playground area has not been a problem at our 6200 W Broadway location. 4. Add guardrail at the top edge of the retaining wall as required by code. We agree to do this. Other items: I. £urnish a financial guaranty We have committed $450. in application fees for our conditional use permit. We will be committing $2500. in deposits to our landlord. We will be investing thousands in improvements to the property prior to opening. We consider this to be a adequate financial guaranty. 2. Fire alarm system will need to be upgraded. We agree to this. We have spoken with Randy Kurtz and understand the requirements. 3. Add a lock box to the building for emergency use. We agree to this. If desire COMMUNITY PLANNING DESIGN MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: New Hope Mayor and City Council New Hope Planning Commission FROM: Daniel Licht / Alan Brixius DATE: 30 September 1999 RE: New Hope - Little Folks Day care; Site Plan Review FILE NO.: 131.01 - 99.12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Little Folks Day Care, Inc. is proposing to establish a day care facility at 3701 Winnetka Avenue. The subject site is zoned R-O, Residential-Office District. Day care facilities are a conditional use in this District. As such, the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) as well as site plan review. In 1991, a Montessori School requested a CUP to allow a Day care facility at the same site. Attached for Reference; Exhibit A: Site Location Exhibit B: Site Plan Exhibit C: Project Narrative Recommendation The request to establish a Day care facility at the subject site is generally consistent with applicable City policies and Codes, provided that appropriate site modifications are completed to mitigate traffic congestion issue. As such, our office recommends approval of the application subject to the following conditions: 1. The use comply with applicable State Statues and Rules regulating day care uses. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@WINTERNET.COM 2. The subject site conform to the provisions of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, subject to review and approval of the West Metro Fire-Rescue District. 3. The building conform to all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code, subject to review and approval of the City Building Official. 4. The maximum capacity of the facility shall be 45 children. 5. Access to the site is modified as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated 29 September 1999. 6. The parking lot is extended to the west to provide a turn-out stub, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 7. Concrete curb is installed on the south edge of the parking lot, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 8. One 18 x 20 foot van accessible disability parking stall is provided. 9. The fire lane is extended and posted along the entire south line of the parking lot. 10. No service deliveries shall be permitted before 9:00 AM or after 4:00 PM. 11. Plans for development of the playground be submitted, subject to review and approval of the City Building Official. 12. A path to the playground is provided from the parking lot in compliance with ADA requirements. 14. An exterior trash enclosure is provided subject to review and approval of the City Building Official. 15. All signage shall conform to Section 3.40 of the City Code. 16. Comments of other City Staff. ISSUES ANALYSIS Use. Day care uses in the R-O District are allowed by Conditional Use Permit. In addition to local regulations, specific State Statues and Building Code provisions regulate the location and facilities for Day care uses. The City Building Official has reviewed the proposed building and determined that the maximum capacity for a Day care use is 45 Children. Building plans and site plans should be subject to further review by the City Building Official and Fire Department Chief to demonstrate compliance with applicable Building and Fire Code Provisions to accomodate 'the proposed change in building occupancy. CUP Criteria. Applications for CUPs require the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed use. In evaluating whether to approve or deny a CUP application, City Officials must find that: 1. 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. 2. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. 3. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in [the] Code. 4. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 5. In addition to the above criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts. 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. 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. c. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is designated for commercial' use by the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is consistent with this guidance and is reflected by the existing R-O District zoning. ¢ Surrounding Land Uses. The land uses adjacent to the subject site are provided below. The proposed day care facility is commercial in nature and anticipated to be compatible within this area of the City. North: Commercial use East: Cemetery South/West: Wetland area Access. The subject site has direct access from Winnetka Avenue, which is designated as an Arterial Street by the Comprehensive Plan. This street will have adequate capacity to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed use. Ingress and egress is a potential issue given present traffic volumes, especially for north bound traffic that must cross two lanes to enter the site. Due to the potential congestion created by the existing access, the City Engineer is recommending that the driveway and turning radii be widened. The applicant is opposed to these improvements because of the potential cost and would prefer to make the following improvements: · Add a painted line at the center of the aisle defining the entrance and exit lanes. · Install a right turn only sign at the exit lane. · Prohibit parking in the eastern most stall of the lot. · Instruct snow removal firm to remove snow at each side of the curb cut and sidewalk so sight lines to Winnetka will remain clear. Curb cuts for commercial uses are to be a 26 feet wide unless the City Engineer determines that a wider access is necessary in consideration of the type of use and anticipated traffic volumes. Because of the potentially significant morning and afternoon traffic generated by a Day care use and traffic volumes on Winnetka, it is staff's opinion that the improvements recommended by the City Engineer are mandatory from a traffic safety perspective. Parking. The City requires day care uses to provide one stall per employee plus one stall for each seven children of maximum capacity basis. Based upon a maximum capacity of 45 students and 6 employees,, a total of 13 parking stalls are required. A total of 14 off- street parking stalls have been provided, one of which is disability accessible. The disability stall is presently 11 feet wide and must be widened to 18 feet to be van accessible, consistent with ADA standards. With exception of the disability space, all other dimensional measures are consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements. In order to improve circulation, the applicant is proposing to stripe off the western most stall for use as a turn around. However, to allow sufficient circulation, a stub will nccd to be provided that would allow a car to back out of the striped 4 stall. A fire lane has been designated directly adjacent to the north side of the building. In addressing the on-site congestion issue, the fire lane should be extended the full length of the south line of the parking lot and posted no parking. Concrete curb is not provided. At a minimum, concrete curb should be constructed alohg the south property line to direct stormwater runoff away from the playground area. Loading. As part of the 1991 CUP Montessori School application, a designated drop-off lane with a separate exit to Winnetka Avenue was recommended by City Staff to alleviate on-site congestion. The present applicant is only proposing to use a portion of the existing parking lot and fire lane for dropping off/picking up children. The potential traffic congestions created by this arrangement may significantly effect the functionality of the site and may impact traffic on Winnetka. A delivery entrance is also illustrated on the west side of the building. To avoid contributing to the congestion anticipated in the morning and afternoon, deliveries should be restricted to not before 9:00 AM or after 4:00 PM Playground. The proposed Day care includes a 50 x 30 playground to the west of the building. To ensure compliance with ADA access standards, as well as emergency access, a path leading from the parking lot to the playground is recommended. The applicant must provide additional information regarding the location of the playground equipment and sufacing. Exterior Lighting. The site plan indicates lighting mounted on the building as well as a light pole on the north side of the parking lot. The applicant believes that the existing lighting is adequate for the intended use of the subject site. However, the free standing light is odented towards and serves the vet clinic to the north. Staff would recommend that additional free standing lighting be provided in the parking lot as a safety matter during winter months when it may still be dark during peak drop-off and pick-up hours. Trash. The submitted site plan illustrates a screened trash location, although no specific details are provided. The design and materials for the trash enclosure are subject to review and approval of the City Building Official. Signage. The site plan indicates that an existing monument sign adjacent to Winnetka Avenue will be utilized. There is no indication if any wall signage is planned.~ All site signage must conform to the provisions of Section 3.40 of the City Code. CONCLUSION The establishment of a Day care facility on the subject site raises several concerns regarding traffic congestion due to on-site circulation'and site access issues. City staff has identified a number of site modifications that would mitigate the congestion issues to a limited extent. Aside from traffic concerns, the proposed use is generally consistent with performance standards for Day care uses. Our office's specific recommendation is outlined in the executive summary of this report. pc. Kirk McDonald Doug Sandstad 09/29/99 13:56 [~ '02/04 N0:386 & Engineers & Architects ~,~: www. b~est,oa.com MEMO~~ To: ~k Mc~n~d :,,.~ Subject: ~e Fol~ Dayc~ ~c. 3701 Win~ Aven~ Da~: Septem~ 29, l~ We have tev/ew~'~e ~ve ~b~ ~d ~mm~ ~e follow,g: ' ',~ · Ac~ to Winne~a Aven~ is pw~ by m exh~g ~veway. ~e W ~fic volumes in Winne~ Avenue (~~ly 12,~ A~ ~ ~ exi~g ~veway wid~r~ius, it is ~o~en~ th~ ~e e~ng ~veway ~i~d~ on~ Wi~etka Avenue ~ impwved " u~n to ~vi~ s~er in~e~s to ~e site in ~~ce wi~ H~nepin County (see att~h~ ~h). We ~ve ve~ly ~view~ driveway ~vemen~ with Dave ~tterstwm ~ Hennepin County ~d ~ey would su~ ~y im~v~n~ ~ would improve a~ess to the si~. He~ep~ Co~'s ~sifion is W minimi~ ~la~ ~d pw~ s~er in~ss/eg~ss " ~m it's ~unty ~. ~ ~e City ~s~, ~e ~ ~~ by ~ ~fifioner could ~ ~i~ in lieu of ~e~n~ to ~ ~g ~v~ay. "~ · ~c p~kin~ lot at ~ w~t e~ is ~ m ~ ~ ~to ~ ~o~ wi~ Ci~ st~d~ds ... for p~aE lot ~i~. It ia n~ cl~, hewers, if ~ ~ng w~ h ~ing extend~ or not (retaining w~ls ~r ~ 4' ~ ~ en~~'~w~). · ~e pm~ play~d ~a ~ n~ have ~ ~p~le ADA ~. It is ~ommendcd ~ ~ ~ ~d~ by cons~fing a sidewall ~nf~g to ~A ~uirements from ~o p~ng lot to ~ played ~ (~ ~ s~h). A ~ng pi~ showing · ~e sm~ water runoff ~m ~o w~t ~d of ~ sim is. di~ oved~d to ~e ~o~scd play~und ~a and into No~w~ P~. Nr~ ~ en~& s~d~int, it is p~fe~ed that c~b~g ~ cons~ ~nd ~e p~g 1~ ~ ~~ wi~ New ~ui~n~ ~d sto~ sew~ be ex~n~ ~om ~e e~ ~ ~wer ~ing ~e Animal Hospit~ m coll~t st~ w~ ~off ~ ~ sim ~ ~is ~H ~t~t ~e play~und ~a ~d minim~ emsi~ into No~w~ P~. Ho~v~, ~ ~e ~i~ ~d review meeting it w~ ~~d in lieu of con~gng cu~ing ~d ~ en~m p~ng lot ~d exmnding sto~ sew~, cu~ing ~ ~u~ o~y on ~e p[ay~d si~ of ~e pav~ ~ea such ~ the s~ w~ runoff is ~ away ~m ~ play~d ~a (s~ ~h~ ske~h). 233S West Highway 3& s St. paul, MN SSII~ s 651.6~6-4600 s Fax: 6SI-636-1311 .. . ' ~,~ ~. . ~ 09/,2,9/99 13:56 ~ '03/04 N0:386 '["11 t~i I I I""l'bt, il i I I !i_ . I.. ; ,: zE"i :~ ' ' ~-'~ ~ ' ~ ~ - ! '==~ I~*~ I 09~29~99 14:04 [~ '05104 N0:386 09/29/99 14:04 ~ '04/04 N0:386 922.6 × .9 t- ~> .'~ :--- _ ~~t' '~~ ~ ~"- EXHIBIT B - SITE PLAN ! .. 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 99-12 Little Folks Daycare 9/10/99 11/9/99 1/8/2000 3701 Winnetka Avenue N New Hope 55427 6200 W. Broadway Brooklyn Park 55428 533-6167 Cindy Morey, Director 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. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. Memorandum To.' Planning Commission Members From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Date: October 1, 1999 Subject: Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on CounciI/EDA/HRA actions. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. 1. September 13 Council Meeting - At the September 13 Council meeting, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Resolution Electinq to Continue Participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, Calendar Year 2000: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Resolution Approving Revised Lease with Nextel West Corp. for Antenna on Medicine Lake Water Tower: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Resolution Authorizing and Directinq Amendments to the Joint Powers Aqreement for the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission: Approved, see attached Council request. D. Resolution Initiatinq Vacation of Utility Easement at 4200 Winnetka Avenue North (Planninq Case 99-18): Approved, see attached Council request. E. Resolution Authorizing Transfer of Property to Process Displays Co. After Retirement of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds: Approved, see attached Council request. F. Project ~12, Resolution Approving Change Order Nos. 1 and 2 for the Construction Contract for 5629 Wisconsin Avenue North in the Amount of ~7,460: Approved, see attached Council request. G. Motion to Table Planninq Case 99-14, Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Storage and/or Rental of Vehicles at 4904 Winnetka Avenue North, to September 27, 1999, Council Meetina; Tabled until September 27, per the petitioner's request. See attached Council request. H. Planninq Case 99-19, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Gymnastics School in an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District, 3971 Quebec Avenue: Approved, see attached Council resolution; conditions #6 and #7 were added subsequent to the Planning Commission approval.. I. Planning Case 99-18, Request for Concept/Development Stage PUD, Variance to the Side Yard Setback Requirement, CUP for Drive-Through Window, Preliminary Plat Approval, and Comprehensive Sign Plan for the Construction of a New Walgreens Store and a Freestanding Commercial Building at the Northeast Corner of 42""/Winnetka Avenues: Approved, see attached Council resolution; condition #5 was modified to include a landscape maintenance agreement.. ~ J. Discussion Concerning a Chanqe Order to the Contract with Hardrives, Inc., Improvement Project #547, 42nd Avenue Street and Utility Improvements: See attached Council request. Council directed staff to proceed with a change order for plantings in the medians. 2. September 27 Council Meeting - At the September 27 Council meeting, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Resolution Authorizing Winnetka - Bass Lake Ro~d Planninq Study Application for the Livable Communities Demonstration Proqram: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Resolution Authorizinq Bass Lake Road - Yukon Avenue Apartments Planninq Study Application for the Livable COmmunities Demonstration Program: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Proiect #665, Motion Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications and Seekinq Bids for the Demolition of City-Owned Buildinq at 7500 42n" Avenue: Council authorized preparation of plans and specs and seeking of bids; see attached Council request. D. Project #547, Resolution Approving Change Order No. 2 to the Contract with Hardrives, Inc. for the 42nd Avenue Street and Utility Improvements: Approved, see attached CounCil request. E. Resolution Authorizinq Release of Financial Guarantee for Conductive Containers, Inc., 4500 Quebec Avenue (Planninq Case 98-13): Approved, see attached Council request. F. Resolution Authorizing Release of Financial Guarantee for Crystal Evangelical Free Church Site Improvements, 4741 Zealand Avenue (Planning Case 98,12): Approved, see attached Council request. G. Project #654, Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain Appraisal of 5412 and 5410 Winnetka Avenue: Council directed Staff to obtain appraisals of each home; see attached Council request. H. Planning Case 99-14, Resolution Approving ReqUest for a CUP to Allow Outdoor Storaqe and/or Rental of Vehicles at 4904 Winnetka Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request and Planner's memo. I. Motion Authorizinq Staff to Proceed with the Preparation of Demolition Specifications and to Seek Demolition Quotations for the Property at 5340 Winnetka Avenue: Authorization granted to prepare demo specs and seek quotes for the demolition; see attached Council request. J. Project #659, Discussion Regarding Negotiations on Fire Station Roof Repair/Replacement and Motion Rejecting Bid from Forschen & Peterson Co., Inc., in the Amount of $304,432.40: Discussion to continue with Johns Manville on roof replacement; see attached Council request and City Attorney correspondence. 3. Codes & Standards Committee - Codes & Standards has not been meeting, as the entire Zoning Code is in the process of starting to be updated. 4, Design & Review Committee - Design & Review met to review plans for the daycare and discuss Kmart outdoor sales. 5. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - The Committee did not meet in September. The City received correspondence from Metropolitan Council stating it had accepted New Hope's plan and congratulating staff on a %veil-organized, thoughtful plan." See attached correspondence. 6. Zoning Code Update Committee - A Committee meeting will be scheduled sometime in October after the Planning Consultant completes an outline of proposed modifications. 7. Kmart - Correspondence was received from Kmart regarding the construction schedule for the parking lot. 8. Staff follow-up on Commission issues: A. 9325 31't Avenue- See attached corresP~d~bce sent to Mr. Langenbach regarding the building materials utilized on his garage addition. B, Pipe Fabricators - Staff have checked on the Pipe Fabricators storage issue and they are utilizing more area on their site than originally authorized under their CUP due to the closing of a facility in Golden Valley. Staff have discussed this with the owner ~f the building, who is working on finding a new, larger location for the company in New Hope, therefore, no immediate action has been taken. 8. Miscellaneous Issues: A. City staff continued to work on the following potential developments: 1) Met with Walgreens on revised final plans and plat 2) Met on 49~h & Winnetka hOusing development 3) Continue to discuss Navarre expansion 4) Mr. Lasky has made several inquiries regarding his property 5) No further action on SuperAmedca 6) No further action on A.C. Cadson property 7) Artec application administratively extended until De~mber 8) Keelor Steel expansion still possible 9) Expect CareBreak plans before end of year Attachments: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Nextel Antenna on Medidne Lake Water Tower Joint Powers Agreement Vacation of Easement at 4200 Winnetka Avenue Process Displays Co. 5629 Wisconsin Avenue Change Orders 4904 Winnetka Avenue CUP Gymnastics School on Quebec Avenue Walgreens Development 42"~ Avenue Street & Utility Improvements Change Order Livable Communities Demonstration Program 7500 42n~ Avenue Demo 42"~ Avenue Street & Utility Improvements Change Order CCI Financial Guarantee Release CEFC Finandal Guarantee Release 5412 & 5410 Winnetka Appraisal 4904 Winnetka Avenue CUP 5340 Winnetka Avenue Demo Fire Station Roof Repair Met Council Correspondence Kmart Correspondence 9325 31'* Avenue Correspondence Miscellaneous Articles COUNCIl., RF.~Ug~? 1~0~ ACTION ~ma~ Dep~ent ~p~d'for~e~a ~enda Secuon Communi~ Development Consent 9-13-99 Item usan Hen. ~/~ ommuni~ O_evelopment Sp~ialist .... RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT, CALENDAR YEAR 2000. REQUESTED ACTION City of New Hope Community Development staff is requesting the Council approve a resolution electing to participate in the Metropolitan Council's Local Incentive Account Program for the Year 2000. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE Since 1995, the Council has approved the attached resolution to renew a mutual commitment to affordable and life-cycle housing in partnership with the Metropolitan Council and the Livable Communities Act. BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA) was enacted in 1995 to address the development and maintenance of affordable and life-cycle housing in the metropolitan area. As part of the LCA, municipalities negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals based on current indexes and benchmark goals set by the. Metropolitan Council. In 1996, the City of New Hope identified goals and methods of achieving those goals through the development of the Housing Action Plan. One reason the City of New Hope should elect to participate with LCA includes access to heady $15 million for housing development, clean-up of polluted sites for business and housing development. The City intends to submit an application to the Metropolitan Council for Livable Communities grant monies for the Year 2000 for New Hope's key redevelopment area(s). FUNDING In order for the City to be eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act in calendar year 2000, the City must participate in the Local Housing Incentive Account Program. A'I'rACHMENT$ Resolution MOTION BY ~ON~ ~ .... RF, A-O01 COLrNCE, Public Works 9-13-99 Consent ~ Guy Johnson 6. RESOLUTION APPROVING R~ISED L~SE ~TH NEWEL ~ST CORP. FOR ANTENNA ON MEDICINE ~KE WATER TOUR. Staff is re~mmending ~at the Coundl pa~ a resol~on appmvi~ ~e mvis~ lease with NeWel West Com. for antenna on ~e M~idne Lake Ro~ w~er t~er. If ~is L~ is approv~ by the Council, the Joint Water Commission will ~nsider it at ~r ne~ meeting on Se~em~r 23. BACKGROUND On May 10, 1999 the Coun~l appmv~ a Lea~ of the water tow~ at Highly 169 and Medicine Lake Road with NeWel West Co~. for the pl~eN of ~ilular ant~nas on ~e tower. Subs~ueN to that approval, some ea~m~t i~ues ~n Ne=~ and ~e pro~ owne~ to the south arose, and have now ~n wo~ o~ in a li~n~ ag~ment. ~e Lease now makes mfemn~ to that ii.rise ~r~men~ ~e ~a~ ~11 ~ e~e f~ ~e yea~ and t~ tenant has the ~ght to renew the lea~ for thr~ ~d~onai ~e ye~ renewal FUNDING As conside~tion for ~is Lease, NeWel We~ Co~. sh~l pay ~e Joint Water Commission an annual rant in the amouN of $18,~:00 f~ ~e in,al year, ~ an annual adjus~ent bas~ on either a 5% in=ease of ~e pmv~ yea(s annual~ m~l, or by an amount ~ual to the increase in the Consumer PH~ Index (CPI). A~ACHME~ ~e resolution, a le~er ~m the C~ a~omW's o~, and a ~py of ~e ~tenna Lease Agr~ment ~n ~e Go~en.Val~y~ta~N~ Ho~ Join Wat~ ~ON ~ , ~~ ~ .... ~: ....... CO/JNC/'L REQUEST FOit O~ma~g Deponent ~p~d for ~e~a ~enda Sec~on ~it~ ~an~ger Consen~ 9-13-99 Dan Dona~ue ~ Item ~o. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE BASSE~ CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION REQUESTED ,ACTION Staff recommends that the Coun~l adopt thi~ rendition as r~ommend~ by the BasseE Creek Watemhed Management Commission. BACKGROUND ~e Ci~ is a member~ of the Basse~ Creek Watemh~ Management Commission. Changes in the bounda~ of the ama under the judsdi~ion of the Commission ~nnot occur unless all cities which are members of the Commission agree to the change. Esse~ially, the bounda~ change would transfer ce~ain land in the Ci~ of Minnea~li~ Eom the ama under judsdi~ion of the BC~ Commission to the area under the jurisdiction of the Middle Missis~ippi River Watemh~ Management Organization. The bounda~ change is describ~ in the a~a~ material=. ~e Basse~ Creek ~O Commission is sup~RNe of the bounda~ change. FUNDING An agreement will be mach~ whemby-.the Ci~ of Minneapol~ will mimbume the Commission for all administrative ex.rises incu~ in ~nn~ion w~ the bounda~ change. A~ACHMENTS August 30, 1999, Le~er from Basse~ Cr~k Water ManaGement Commission A~ac~ments One ~rouGh Six BASSETT CREEK WATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION · c~.stai · (;olden Valley · Medicine Lake Curtis A. Pearson. Attorney Leonard Kremer, Engineer · Minneapolis 470 Pillsbury Center Barr Engineering Company · Minnetonka Minneapolis ,%IN $5402 4700 West 77th Street · New Hope ~General Address) Minneapolis ,gin 55435-~803 · Plymouth .... :-, ..... Phone: 612/832.2600 ' Robbinsdale Fax: 612/337-9310 Fax: 612/832-2601 · St. Louis Park August 30, 1999 Mr. Daniel Donahue City Manager City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope M'N 55428 RE: Proposed Change of Boundary of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Dear Mr. Donahue: On May 20, 1999, the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the cities which are members of the Commission approve a change in the boundary of the area under the jurisdiction of the Commission. A copy of that resolution is Attachment One. This boundary change would transfer certain land in the City of Minneapolis from the area under the jurisdiction of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission to the area under the jurisdiction of the Middle Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (WMO). This boundary change is effectively a change to the 3oint Powers Agreement which formed the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission.' Therefore, it cannot occur unless all cities which are members of the Commission (as well as all cities which are members of the Middle Mississippi River WMO) agree to the change. A. BACKGROUND By letter dated February 18, 1999, the City of Minneapolis requested a change in the boundary of the Bassett Creek watershed. A copy of the petition firom the City of Minneapolis is Attachment Two. The boundary change would more closely align the Commission's boundary with physical watershed boundaries as explained later in this letter. It would also facilitate financing of a proposed project in the area to be transferred since the Middle MissisSippi River WMO is prepared to levy ad valorem taxes for projects which are currently being planned in Minneapolis. B. AREA TO BE TRAIqSFE~D Between 1976 and 1992, a project was undertaken by the Commission, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and the Department of the Army to construct a tunnel under the City of Minneapolis to carry the waters of the Bassett Creek watershed under Minneapolis to the Mississippi River. These waters had previously been carried by an old tunnel under the City CLL-167557 1 BA295-3 which had been constructed in the 1920s. Prior to the diversion of waters from the Bassett Creek watershed to the new tunnel, the upstream reaches of the Bassett Creek watershed were diverted to the otd tunnel along with Minneapolis local drainage. Therefore, it was appropriate that the entire area tributary to the old tunnel should be included within the Bassett Creek watershed. However, now that the waters of the Upper Bassett Creek watershed no longer flow into this tunnel along with the Minneapolis local drainage, it is more appropriate that that part of the Bassett Creek watershed which flows to the old tunnel be managed by the Middle Mississippi River WMO along with the other subwatersheds making up the Minneapolis local drainage area. The request of Minneapolis is that the area tributary to the old tunnel be transferred to the Middle Mississippi River WMO. The transfer of this area would isolate a small part of the Bassett Creek watershed which is tributary to the new tunnel and leave it surrounded by area under the jurisdiction of the Middle Mississippi River WMO. The Bassett Creek Commissioners have concluded that this isolated area, consisting of approximately 67 acres, and depicted on the map on Attachment Three as the "area tributary to the new tunnel within Bassett Creek WMO' should also be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Middle Mississippi River WMO. C. IMPACT OF THE BOUNDARY CHANGE ON MEMBERS OF THE BASSETT CREEK COMMISSION Because assessments for annual operating expenses of the Commission are allocated on the basis of land area and tax capacity, the transfer of these areas would result in cities other than Minneapolis paying a higher percentage of the operating costs of the Commission. Minneapolis has prepared charts showing the effect which the boundary change would have had if it had been applied to the 1999 assessments (Attachments Fou~ and Five). Actual costs for each city would presumably be somewhat lower because the Bas,sell Creek Commission would have slightly reduced costs as a ['esult of reducing the size of the area of its operations. D, PROPOSED AGREEMENT BETWEEN BASSETT CREEK AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI One °fthe advantages of the proposed boundary cha~ge to the Bassell Creek Commission is that it would remove responsibility for the land area affected, which is highly developed and therefore sometimes presents difficult issues in the management of' storm water quantity and quality. Additionally, the Bassell Creek Comm/ssion has proposed to use the boundary change as an opportunity to resolve certain potential issues between the Bassett Creek Comm/ssion and the Middle Mississippi River WMO relating to the management of the old tunnel and the area tributary to the new tunnel over which the Bassell Creek Commission has no direct control. Accordingly, the Commission has negotiated an agreement with the Middle Mississippi River WMO which addresses the following matters: 1. The agreement will c'onsolidate all of the various' agreements between MnDOT, the Department of the Army, and the participating cities in one document, CLL-16755~7 2 BA29~-3 2. The agreement will memorialize the assumptions in design of the new tunnel project that a certain reserve capacity must be maintained in the old tunnel by the City of Minneapolis to accommodate potential overflov~s ,from the area tributary to the new tunnel during a 100 year flood event. 3. There is currently an area within the Middle Mississippi River WMO which drains to the new tunnel but which is not under the jurisdiction of the Bassett Creek Commission. The waters from this area could affect the adequacy of the Bassett Creek systems or impair water quality for which Bassett Creek could have responsibility. Therefore, the Commission has included terms in this contract which gives the Bassett Creek Commission assurance that future improvements will not be constructed which will adversely impact the ability of the new tunnel to handle the storm water from Bassett Creek. The agreement also provides a procedure for assigning responsibility for compliance with water quality standards which may be imposed in the future so that Bassett Creek will not be responsible for water quality problems created in areas outside of the jurisdiction of the Commission. 4. Finally, the agreement provides thai the City of Minneapolis will reimburse the Commission for all administrative expenses incurred in connection with the boundary change. E. CONCLUSION The Bassett Creek Commissioners have unanimously agreed to recommend approval of the boundary change to the member cities. Attachment Six is a proposed resolution for consideration by your City Council. Please feel free to give me a call at 612-533-4707 if you have any questions. Questions of a legal nature should be directed to the Commission's attorney, Charlie LeFevere, at 612-337-9215. Technical questions may be directed to the. Commission's engineering consul/ant, Len Kremer of Barr Engineering, at 612-832-2781. W. Peter Enck CLL-1675S~7 3' '1 C ekWMO - · Bassett re · , 1998 ~ay 1999 Ta~ Cavity ~ ~ Existin~ Ba.na~t ~ ~n~ $11,~ ~ t~ to ~ C~k ~ Ar~ [~ to New Tunnel mthin ~ ,~ t~ to N~ T~d ~t~ ~0 ~,~,~L~ ,,;,,; ~{~, 'x ' 2t, L999 ATTACHHENT THREE Orl~r~atmg Deponent Approved for A~enda A~enda Section Community Development Consent By:.~)~'~ 9-13-99 £tem ByKirk McDonald 6. i 1 RESOLUTION INITIATING VACATION OI~ UTILITY EASEMENT AT 4200 42N° AVENUE NORTH (PLANNING CASE 99-18) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests that the City Council approve the enclosed resolution which will initiate the vacation of a utility easement at 4200 42~ Avenue North in conjunction with the proposed Walgreens redevelopment. The resolution states that a public hearing will be held as soon as practicable for the Council to consider a resolution vacating the easement and directs the City Clerk to publish and post notice and mail written notice to the appropriate parties. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE In the past, the City has vacated easements that are no longer necessary in order to help facilitate new development and redevelopment. BACKGROUND SemPer Development Ltd. has peUtioned the City for vacation of a utility easement located along the northern border of 4200 42"" Avenue North, the Union 76 Station currently owned by Jay Showalter. The request has been joined in by the contract for deed purchaser of the only adjacent property, that of 4210 Winnetka, immediately to the north. The petition is being made in conjunction with the Walgreens redevelopment proposal and is one of the recommended conditions of approval for both the new plat and PUD. The easement is 5 feet in width and 140 feet in length and is denoted on the attached graphics. The City Code sets out the procedure for the vacation of easements and states that the petitioner will submit evidence of title, a petition and the appropriate fee, The petitioner has submitted the appropriate documentation and fee. The resolution initiates the vacation procedure, calls for the publishing and mailing of notice, and sets a public headng date on October.11, 1999. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · City Attorney Correspondence · Notice of Headng · Petition/Graphics MOriON ~Y , ~ONt) ~t' ,.. TO: ' / REQUEST FOR ACTION Ongtnaung Dep~i.~ent Approved ior Agenda Agenda Section Community Development Consent , 9-13-99 ~tem 1~o. B~Kirk McDonald B~. 6. ! 2. ! RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO PROCESS DISPLAYS CO. AFTER RETIREMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE/BONDS ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends approval of the enclosed resolution authorizing the transfer of property to Process Displays Co., which was prepared by the City Attorney, as the Industrial Development Revenue Bonds have been retired and all conditions have been met. POLICY/PAST..PRACTICE In the past, the City has assisted the expansion of many industries in the City through the issuance of' Industrial Development Revenue Bonds. In some cases, as part of the issuance, the property is transferred to the City and leased back to the company as a financial guarantee that the project will be completed. BACKGROUND In 1979, the City approved $2,750,000 in Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Process Displays Co. to finance the acquisition, leasing and construction of a 156,000 square foot building. At that time, the proper~ was transferred to the City, the City signed a Mortgage with National Bank of Minneapolis, and the City leased the pro~erty to Process Displays Co. At the time when the bonds were paid off, Process Displays had the option of purchasing the prol:~rty. In accordance with the terms of the lease, that option has been exercised. The procedura calls for the City to transfer its interest in the property to ProceSs DisPlays Co. by a Quit Claim Deed and to terminate the lease. The enclosed resolution authorizes the Deed and the Termination of Lease. This resolution will fulfill the City's obligations under the lease. ATI~'. ACHMENT$ · Resolution · City Attorney Correspondence. · Release of Lease · Satisfaction of Mortgage · Termination of Lease TO: ,, , I I IIIII I I J~FA-O0! ~ I I COLrNCE, OrigtnaUng Depa, L~ent ~P~ for ~e~a ~enda Secuon Communi~ Development ~nnse~t It~ ~o. ~Busan Hen~ 9-13-99 -~ Communi~ ~.evelopment Specialist ~,, , .6. [3 RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. I AND NO, 2 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION CONTACT FOR 5629 WISCONSIN AVENUE NORTH IN THE AMOUNT OF ~. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ~12) ~3, ~ REQUESTED ACTION Ci~ staff requests Council approval of the aEach~ resolution appro~ng change ordem (number one and number ~o) in the to~l amount of $7,460 for ~e 5629 Wis~nsin Avenue housing ~ns~ction ~ntact. BACKGROUND On June 28, the Ci~ Council awarded the ~ntra~ to ~ns~ a single family a~ssible home at 5629. Wisconsin Avenue No~h to Mi~lits~ Buildem in ~e amount of $118,900, Lands~ping will be completed by the Ci~ on the pmpe~ under a separate ~ntm~. Change order number one in the ~ount 0f $2,200 is for the ~nstmction bond, which was not included in the odginal contract. As Michlitsch Buildem was pmpadng the lot for ~ns~c~on, an old septic tank was dis~vemd. Per the Ci~ Manager, the contractor was appmv~ to go ahead and remove the old septic tank, back fill, and compact the lot. The proje~ also involv~ removing about ~o feet of black soil over the entire area of foundation. Di~ was mmov~ from ~e ba~ yard and/~ haul~ into the pmpe~ and ~mpacted. The prope~ also required e~m f~tings, bulkheads, and bl~ks. ~e total ~st for the sep~c tank removal and site mstoration/pmparaUon was ~,500. Also, at ~e June 28 Coundl meeting, ci~ staff presented a base bid and a number of op~ons for ~e home in an effo~ to ~t some ~s~ and to let the purchaser make some design derisions. While ~e house is cuffently being ma~eted and it is anticipated that a purchase agreement ~11 be pmpar~ the flint pa~ of O~ober, the contm~or has indicted that a decision needs to be made on window s~le selection at ~is time. It is sta~s m~mmendation that ' Michlitsch Buildem install all ~sement windows instead of a ~mbination of ~th ~sements and sliders per an option on the ~n~. The pd~ for this option is $760. Change order number ~o, which includes the items mentioned above, to~ls $5,260. ~ (cone ' d. ) COUNCIL ~ Originating Department Approved for Agenda Devd~~ection Community Development & Planning 9-13-99 Item No. ByKirk MCDonald By:. MOTION TO TABLE PLANNING CASE 99-14, REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE AND/OR RENTAL OF VEHICLES AT 4904 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH, TO SEPTEMBER 27, 1999, COUNCIL MEETING ACTION REQUESTED The petitioner has requested and staff recommends that this request be tabled for an additional two weeks until the September 27, 1999, Council meeting. BACKGROUND This request was tabled at the August 9 Council meeting until the August 23 Council meeting, and the petitioner was directed to prepare revised plans showing additional screening and other details. The '1 petitioner was sent the attached correspondence pertaining to this use. The matter was_ tabled at the August 23 meeting until this meeting. The petitioner has been working with the City's Planning Consultant on a more detailed screening plan, but has not yet submitted the plan to the City. The petitioner has requested an additional two weeks to complete the plan. MOTION BY ~::OND ~ TO: , RFA-001 ~ Request for Action Page 2 9-13-99 The contractor has agreed to remove approximately 35 feet (~f concrete curb starting at the southeast lot corner at no charge so that the curb cut, which is located too close to the property line, can be realigned with the new structure. A change order with Perkins Contracting, who is working on several other city projects, will be pursued to install the new curb cut and presented to the Council at a later date. Also, as the construction proceeds and other decisions or design options need to be made, staff will be requesting input/direction from the Council FUNDING The additional change orders will be paid for with CDBG funds and/or the proceeds from the sale of the home. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · Change Order No. I and No. 2 CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 99-138 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 99-19 REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A GYMNASTICS SCHOOL IN AN I-1 LIMITED INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 3971 QUEBEC .AVENUE NORTH (PID #17-118-2'1 32 0009) SUBMI'I-I'ED BY NORTHWEST GYMNASTICS SCHOOL/SAMIR DRAOUI AND WINNETKA PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the applicants, Northwest Gymnastics School/Samir Draouis/Winnetka Properties, have submitted a request identified as Planning Case No. 99-19 for a conditional use permit to allow a gymnastics school in an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District, pursuant to Sections 4.144(4) azzd 4.2.1 of the New Hope Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public headng on Planning Case No. 99-19 on September 7, 1999, found that all conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code for the conditional use permit have been satisfied by the applicant, and recommended approval of the planning case request subject to all conditions as set forth in the City Staff Report dated September 3; and WHEREAS, the-City Council on September 13, 1999, considered the report of the City staff, findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, and the comments of persons attending the City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and concludes that the applicant has satisfied all conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code for issuance of the requested conditional use permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of New Hope that the conditional use permit to allow a gymnastics school in an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District, as submitted in Planning Case No. 99-19, is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Twenty-two parking stalls are designated for school use. 2. Appropriate parking lot lighting is provided. 3. A solid wall separation is provided between the school and adjoining tenants. 4. Annual in'spection by staff for the first two years only. 5. No meets. 6. Property owner cooperation on acid operation repairs within the building. 7. Add City as additional insured on general liability insurance coverage for gymnastics school and provide copy of Acord 25 Certificate reflecting City as additional insured on policy. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 13t~ day of September, '1099. Mayor Attest: ~ City Clerk CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 99- ].40 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 99-18 REQUESTING CONCEPT/DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW, PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, AND COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN AT 4200, 4210 WINNETKA AND 7858 42ND AVENUES (PID #17-118-21-22-0013, 17-118-21-22-0012, AND 17-118-21-22-0011) SUBMITTED BY SEMPER DEVELOPMENT LTD./JOHN KOHLER WHEREAS, the applicant, Semper Development/John Kohler, has submitted a request identified as Planning Case No. 99-18 for concept/development stage planned unit development, vadance to the side yard setback requirement, conditional use permit to allow a drive-through window, preliminary plat approval, and comprehensive sign plan for the construction of a new Walgreens store and a freestanding commercial building 4200, 4210 Winnetka Avenue and 7858 42'~ Avenue, pursuant to Sections 4.034(4), 4.134(2), 4.19, 4.21, 4.22, 3.493, and Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public headng on Planning Case No. 99-18 on September 7, 1999, found that all conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code for the planned' unit development, variance, conditional use permit, preliminary plat, and comprehensive sign plan have been satisfied by the applicant, and recommended approval of the planning case request subject to all conditions as set forth in the City Staff Report dated September 3, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City Council on September 13, 1999, considered the report of the City staff, findi.ngs and recommendations of the Planning Commission, and the comments of persons attending the City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and concludes that the applicant has satisfied all conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code for issuance of the requested conditional use permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of New Hope that the concept/development stage planned unit development,'vadance to the side yard setback requirement, conditional use permit for drive-through window, preliminary plat approval, and comprehensive sign plan to allow construction of a new Walgreens store and a freestanding commercial building, as submitted in Planning Case No. 99-18, is approved subject to the following conditions: Preliminary Plat 1. Incorporate recommendations of City Engineer (resolve 2 cfs issue), City Attorney, and most recent from Hennepin County. 2. Process appropriate easement vacations. 3. Planning Commission waives review of final plat. 4. Submittal of final plat CUP/PUD 1. Developer to execute Development Agreement with City and provide appropriate financial guarantee (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). 2. Submission of Final Stage PUD plans. 3. Incorporate recommendations of City Engineer and Hennepin County. 4. Applicant establish cross easement for establishing shared access and shared parking between Lots 1 and 2. 5. Applicant provide maintenance agreement outlining maintenance responsibilities for the shared access, parking area, and landscaping. 6. Applicant provide a description for Lot 2 building loading area. 7. Applicant comply with landscape recommendations outlined in the planning report. 8. Freestanding signs be relocated to provide 10-foot setback from property lines. 9. Indicate roof-top equipment to be screened. 10. Incorporate roof hatch changes. 11. Work with staff on recommendations from Police Department on interior design recommendations. 12. City approve the flexibility of the requested site signage and on the reduction of required parking as part of the PUD. 13. Indicate snow storage on site plan. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 13"' day of September, 1999. Mayor Attest: ,~(/.~,~~ ', City Clerk '- I ' "I Or~gm~$ Dep~ ~t ~p~d for ~e~a ~da ~uon Public Works g-13-gg Planning and Oevelopmen~ Item No. ~ Guy Johnson ~ 8. DISCUSSION CONCERNING A CHANGE ORDER TO ~E CONTACT ~ HARDRIVES, INC., IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 547, 42~ AVENUE STREET ANO UTlU~ IMPROVEMENTS EOUESTEO ACTION Staff ~s recommending ~at ~e Council dis~ss a Chao~e O~ for the 42~d Avenue Street and UtiliW Improvement Proj~ ~ntm~ with Ha~es, inc., f~ the installa~on of sb~bbe~ and perennials on the newly ~ns~ medians w~in 42~ Argue. ~e amount of the Change Order ~s estimat~ to ~ $~6,~.~. ~is p~ m~e~nts the bid quant~ at the b~d unit pdt. staff expos the a~al unit pd~ to be sliGh~ hiGh~ than the b~ uflR p~ sin~ the total quaflti~ of plants in the proje~ has ~n r~u~. ~is ~u~on in quan~ is pa~ially due to the reluctance of pro~ ownem to Grant easements along ~e no~h side of 42~ Avenue. If the Council aGr~s to th~s Change Order, it will ~ pm~s~ bas~ u~n m~te~al and installation p~s to ~ re~ived ~om the co~tm~o~. BACKGROUNO The o~Ginal plans for this proj~ includ~ ~o pl~t~ m~i~s along 42~ Avenue. ~e plato material for these m~ians w~s in~ in the pro~ ~d. ~ ~e Ci~ Coun~l awarded the contra~ to Hardfives on April 26~, ~ain pa~s of ~e proj~ were om~ due to budget constraints. At ~at time R was d~ to pla~ ~s and s~ on the m~ians, b~ to eliminate the propos~ perennials and shrub ~ plants ~om ~e design. Sin~ ~at time, s~ff has reconsider~ this design for several reasons. Fimt, sin~ easements were not a~uir~, there will be no additional ff~s or shm~ plant~ along ~ no~h side of 42~ Avenue. Also, pia~ment of sod on the m~ians wou~ r~uim ~ular maintenan~. ~is would in~ude w~kly mowing throughout the summa. ~em are ~fe~ con,ms for the ~ple m0~nG the~ m~a~, a~d there will be a w~y ~st f~ ~i~ mo~nG. Final~, it is feR that the sh~ and suGGest~ are mom tolerant of m~ d~i~flG sa~ than is tuff. Plaflfi~ ~mflflials and sh~bbe~ on the m~ians a~ o~G~aily pm~, ailo~ u~ to reinstate o~G~nal laflds~ details into the proj~ and eliminate the n~ for mo~nG the m~ans. ~e pm~ Change O~ represents the cost of installing the~ plant male~ais a~ originally intendS. M~ON ~ ~~ ~ , , ~: ........ Request for Action Change Order, Improvement Project 547 September 13, 1999 Page 2 FUNDING The total cost for the proposed Change Order is estimated to be $16,064.00. Funding sources for this project include Water/Sewer Utility Fund, Storm Water Utility Fund, .Joint Water Commission, City Bonding, funds from Hennepin County, Tax Increment Financing, and Assessments. ATTACHMENTS A letter from the project engineer describing the proposed Change Order is attached. i ACrzo · ! . Originating Department Appro~d for Agenda Agenda SecUon Community Development Consent /~~ 9-27-99 Kirk McDonald Item No. E~y: & Phil Kern B3r:, 6.4, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WINNEKTA ASS LAKE ROAD PLANNING STUDY APPLICATION FOR THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting that the Council approved a resolution authorizing an application be filed with the Metropolitan Council for a Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) Program grant to further study the feasibility of redevelopment in the Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake Road area. The amount of the grant request is $37,000. - POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The City in the past has received grants for housing and planning studies from the Met Council. The City's participation in the Livable Communities Program and the scattered site projects that New Hope has undertaken in the past will strengthen this application. BACKGROUND The application is for funds to cover the consultant costs of an in depth planning and mad(et stUdy on the areas along Winnetka-Avenue and Bass Lake Road identified for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed area of study will be from the City-owned. property at 5340 Winnetka north to the [ntersection of Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake Road, then east through the Bass Lake Road extension area up to St. Raphael's Church. In all, the project area includes 16.2 acres of land and 34 separate properties. The City has taken an active approach to redeveloping this area. Currently, the City owns five lots in the project area, which are all being landbanked for futura redevelopment. The purpose of the planning and market studies is to identify viable options for redeveloping the entire area. If the City's grant application is accepted, the feasibility studies will begin early in 2000. Attachments: LCDA Program Guidelines Address Map of Study Area MOTION ~ 8~,CON~ ~ TO: -- ! i ;_ WISCONSIN AV~'~' . :.. ...i." ..... - · ~"-', .'--.' .... .--, ..... 'i : : "~ ......~,-~-"°~"'~ .... ~'": ~ · I~." ~ ............. · , ~, ~ ..,,,,ti:Il;., Ill.~ : ............. t ~ ....... :...-'. .;.. ' ....... l~... ~ ; t ~ . / , ! ~ AVE N ! ~ ................ ;.-'.:-. .... ," ,,'.'.:: . ·~ .;., ;; a; ...,.~ .; , : . ' ' ; .... ~---F ..... -~---;--~ ........ -~ ........................... ' ' , ~_ ; ; ........ ~'.._ ,...~. _.: ..,:_._~...;. i-.. ' .-~.~ , · .~ ~ ~AH AVE N . · '" ." ,"" i '~'"i T' ': ....... ~ ..... , .... ~'-': t : '-." .' .~: ~, ; I. I~ t: 1, I: I! I~ I; ," ..... ; ....... 1 ~ " ".. ~ ..... ;---~-.-.--.-I ...... ~--"t'---. i 31 I . ; . · ' / i ................ ~ ~.--, ..... ~ .......'..~ ..~.-... ~ ................. ~. .............. ;'.." . .......~ . ~' ....... L': ..-,.. ~_ J , .--_ . -, [.~ , [[ ][ . ,., ....... . ...... ,-.:.L.. I';'/,: ;'"" """ '' :'' }" ' ,.. I . I : . . i ; . . ! · = : ~ - ~ ~' ..,o.. . , ; . , . i · · . · · ! · , ~ - ,,*,.:._. .... .., .,~,. .,., . . . , ....... .,,,~. : :,,,,~,; . · .............. ,:: /' i / : I~i . ' j : t ' :~ ~ l; / , ' /~~'' ~ / ~ · ~' .' ~ * · ~ i ! .,~ ........ ~' ~ '"' "' ; · ' ~ : ° : - : i ' : !' '--' ;' I .,~ ! · ' ·~: : ~ i : i · ~ ~ ~ ~ ' W · . "-.. i .... :2'.:i'~:.~. :.~""~" ~i, ','~"~'"~:t-~ ..... : .... ~...q ~a~'~J~','rl}T~k',,ii , ..... . ~", '~"~'" ;, ..... ~'. ~' i'"~'''-'. · ;~ .... ;, [ --~_~ ~ . ~ , ~ , ~' --~ $ ~ : ;11~ .:~,RH~.D ............................ J : ......... --"- ~ ~ ; ~ ................................... nrl~'r~ R~DE ISt ~'..;-~~,~ ~~.- ;._~...~[ ~ ~ ................ ~~~:-:.~~ ,, ~ .=, , ~ _ --~ · ~.. ~._, ~. ,. · · r~ · I ~ ~ · , -'~ ~~~---~ il~:: ....... ~ ........... ~ ............ ~'~: ,~ :. ' '~. t: : ~ * : : J ..... :, ~ ~: ' ~_... - ..... , ~m~ ' ........ '-" - ........... .... : ...... ~ --~ ............. ~.--~; -..; ~--f,,--;.,~,L.--~J/ a . -.; ........... .._..' .......~...; ..... ',...: ..... ,: .= '~1..1111~ .......... ,_ ~~LV~ .... ~ -, ................. ... ~ ~; ~ ~: =-a;,a: a[ ~ ~. ,= ~. : ~ ....... : .............................. ' . : - ~ ..... ~ il 0~ · . ~. G' ' , ......... ~ ~U '~ ~ · ~ · .., [ . · . ._, . .~i..../ , .. i.-. ~ S, ,~. ,. o = -:~.. , .;.!, . - . .1~., ...... ~_ ..................... % ~ . ~ ~ .= :~ ~ ~ , ~U~T FOR ACTION Origtnat. tng Depa;~...ent Approved for A~enda A~enda Section Community Development Consent '-----9-27-99 Kirk McDonald/, / Item No. B~. & Phil Kern By:. ,///~ 6.5 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BASS LAKE ROAD - YUKON AVENUE APARTMENTS PLANNING.. STUDY APPLICATION FOR THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting that the Council approved a resolution authorizing an application be filed with the Metropolitan Council for a Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) Program grant to further study the feasibility of redevelopment of the apartment buildings located northeast of the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Yukon Avenue. The amount of the grant request is $12,000. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The City in the past has received grants for housing and planning studies from the Met Council. The City's participation in the Livable Communities Program and the scattered site projects that New Hope has undertaken in the past will strengthen this application. BACKGROUND The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the apartment buildings at Bass Lake Road and Yukon Avenue as blighted and in ne.ed of redevelopment. The Plan states the apartment complex is poody constructed, has no amenities or garages, has had flooding problems, and is a high-crime area. The LCDA program provides funding for cities in the metropolitan area to research the redevelopment potential for sites like the Bass Lake Road - Yukon Avenue apartment buildings. The City has applied for a transportation grant with the Metropolitan Council for improvements on Bass Lake Road. With the potential road improvements, staff would like to research the feasibility of redeveloping the apartment buildings at the same time. The funds will cover the costs of planning and market feasibility studies, as well as design concepts for redevelopment. If selected to receive grant funds, the City will begin the feasibility studies in 2000. Attachments: See attachment for previous RFA Address Map of Project Area Concepts of Bass Lake Road - Yukon Avenue Improvements MOTION BY ~[}CON[} ~' TO: ~ma~g Deponent ~p~ for ~e~a ~enda Sec~on Community Development ,' ~ Consent , ~irk McDonald ~ ~ 9-27-99 . It7 ~No. BIDS FOR THE DEMOLITION OF CI~-OWNED BUILDING AT 7500 42Ne AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 665) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting that the Ci~ Council approve'a' motion a~horizin~e preparation of plans and specifi~tions and seeking of bids for the demolition of the ~del Engineering building at 7500 42~ Avenue NoAh. Bids will be brought back to ~e Council for ~nsideration at the November 8 Council meeting. POLICY/PAST P~CTICE In the past, the Council has authodz~ staff to Wo~ ~th ~e Ci~s ~nsulfing engineer (Bonestroo)~nd environmen~l firm (NoAhem Envimnmen~l) to prepare plans and specifi~tions and seek bids for the demolition of industrial buildings. This is the same pm~ss that was followed when the ~o adjacent industrial buildings (Electronic Industries and Foremost, Inc.) were purchased and demolished. BACKGROUND In August, the Ci~ a~uired the pmpe~ at 7500 42~ Avenue where the Ardel Engineering building is Io~ted. The purpose of the a~uisition was to facilitate ~e futura ~mmercial redevelopment of all three parcels at the nodheast quadrant of 42~ and Quebec Avenues. Two of the sites are vaunt, with buildings previously being demolished. With the ~del pmpe~, staff will be pumuing a~ion on ~o issues in the coming months: 1) demolition of ~e building, and 2) wo~ing wi~ the MPCA to dete~ine if the groundwater pollution clean-up pro.ss ~n be a~lerated. The requested action here is to authorize' staff to wo~ with the appropriate ci~ ~nsultants to prepare plans and specifi~tions and seek bids for the demolition of the building. If possible, the goal would be to have the building demolish~ by ~e end of ~e year. In order to expedite the process, staff would develop specs and s~k bids and present to the Council on November 11. Staff would prefer not to have to come back to the Council for focal approval of the demolition specs, unless the Council has a, desire to review them before bids are sought. The pro.ss will include an environmental su~ey of the building, which will be includ~ in the demolition ~ntract, and the Police and Fire Depa~men~ will be allo~t~ time within the s~edule to utilize the building for training purposes, per their request (see affached tentative schedule). The specifi~tions will include the removal of the curb cut nearest the railroad bddge, removal of ~e retaining wall, and removal of all parking areas, per the Ci~ Engineers re~mmendation. (cont'd.) ~: ,, Request for Action Page 2 9-27-99 Staff also will be meeting with the MPCA and Electronic Industries (the responsible party for the pollution) to determine if the clean-up of the site can be accelerated once the building is demolished and will keep the Council updated. Staff will also be preparing a Brownfield Grant application to be submitted next spring to assist with associated project costs, including acquisition. FUNDING It is estimated that demolition may cost $40,000 and initially this cost would be paid with 42'~ Avenue TIF funds, to be reimbursed at a later date from the proceeds of the land sale and/or with grant funds. ATTACHMENTS · Graphics · Schedule · Redevelopment Costs Schedule RF. Ui T FOR ACTION Originating DeparUnent Apprm~ for ~e~ ~da ~Uon Public Works 9-27-99 Consent ~: Guy Johnson · ~ 6.7 / RESOLUTION APPROVING C~NGE OR~ER NO. 2 TO THE CONTACT WITH HARDRIVES INC., FOR THE 42~ AVENUE STREET AND UTILI~ IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT ~7) - R~QUESTED ACTION " Staff is re~mmending that ~e Coun~l approve a Change O~er f~ ~e 42nd Avenue Strut and Util~ Improvement Proje~ ~n~a~ ~ Ha~, Inc., for ~e installation of shmb~ and perennials on the ne~y ~n~ m~ans ~hin 4~ Avenue. ~e amount of the Chan~e Order is $16,~0.80. ~is pd~ is w~in f~ dollam ~ ~ odginal bid pd~ for these plant materials. ~e a~ual unA pd~ for this pla~ matedal is slightly higher than the bid unit pd~ sin~ the total quant~ of plants in the proj~ has ~n ~u~. ~is reduMion in quant~ is pa~ially due to the relu~an~ of pro~ o~em to grant easements along the no~h side of 42~ Avenue. BACKGROUND The odginal plans for this proj~ includ~ ~ plant~ m~ians along 42~ Avenue. ~e plant matedal for these medians Was in~ud~ in the pmj~ bid. ~en the C~ Council awarded the contract to Harddves on Apdl 26a, ~ain pa~ of ~e proj~ were omiffed due to budget constraints. At that time ~ was d~d~ to pla~ ~s and sod on the m~ians, but to eliminate the propos~ perennials and shrub ~ plan~ ~m the design. R~ntN, staff has ask~ the Council to reconsider~ this des~n for a vade~ of reasons in~uding overall ap~aran~, plant hardiness, long te~ maintenan~ ~sts, and maintenan~ wooer safe~. At ~s Septem~r 13, 1999 meeting, the Coun~l gave prelimina~ approval to prying w~ this ~ange order. At that last Council m~ting, staff was ask~ to ~nsider the use of native grasses and other native plant material. S~ff has ~nsider~ this and has discussed ~e issue with Ms. She~ Buss, a lands~ ~ol~iSt wo~ng for Bonestmo, Rosene, ~deHik, and Associates, She~ suggests, and staff agrees, that native plants, pa~icula~ grasses, ~uld be us~ as ac~nt plants if strategically pla~ ~th the shrubs and ~mnnials on the existing plans. Used in this situations the native plants would fo~ clumps or masses that ~uld compliment the other plants ~: , I:R~~7 R~ C~ O~ ~ 2 Request for Action Change Order ~ 2 - Improvement No. 547 April 26, 1999 Page 2 on the medians, if the entire median was planted with native grasses however, there would be no definition of the individual plants and the median may look as if it were covered with turf grass that was not being maintained. For most of the growing season these native grasses are a consistent shade of green and do not provide the vadety of color that the roses and day lilies on the current plan will provide. Not until they turn color in the fall, could native grasses be identified by most casual observers. When it was decided to remove the shrubs and perennials from the plans for the medians, it was assumed that the medians would be sodded and that the sod would be paid for at the unit bid price for sod in the contract. If this change order is approved, this additional cost for sod will not be incurred. The value of this extra sod would be $800 - $900. FUNDING The total cost for the Change Order is $16,060.80. Funding sources for this project include Water/Sewer Utility Fund, Storm Water Utility Fund, Joint Water Commission, City Bonding, fun.ds from Hennepin County, Tax Increment Financing, and Asse~ments ~ . ATTACHMENTS Please find attached Change Order No. 2, recommendation from the City Engineer, and resolution. COUNCIL ~ RF, QUEST FOR ACTION Ongtnating Department Approval for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development Consent Kirk McDonald t,'/ 9-27-99 Item No. ~ & Phil Kern By:.i/ 6.8 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEE FOR CONDUCTIVE CONTAINERS INC., 4500 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH (PLANNING CASE 98-13) ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution releasing th6 financial guarantee for the expansion of Conductive Containers, Inc. (Planning Case 98-13). The release would be subject to the payment of final administrative/consultant expenses. It is staff's opinion that the developer has completed all of the required improvements to the property. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE It is the policy and past practice of the City to require a financial guarantee for specific site improvements/amenities to insure that improvements are completed and to release the financial guarantee when the improvements have been completed. BACKGROUND On July 27, 1998, Conductive Containers, Inc., approached the City Council requesting site/building plan approval to allow for a 9,470 square foot warehouse expansion. The Council approved the request, allowing CCI to begin construction in 1998. Pdor to construction, a financial guarantee in the amount of $22,050 was posted by the property owner to ensure the improvements were made. The addition was to the east and southeast sides of the existing structure and included a small parking lot expansion. In August 1999, the City received a verbal request from the property owner to release the financial guarantee, as all improvements had been completed. The City Engineer and Building Official reviewed the site plan and visited the site, and both reported that all the improvements have been made. The Engineer requested, however, that the City hold the financial guarantee until an as-built plan is received accurately depicting the site utilities and easements. Staff recommends that this be a condition of the release. (cont'd) MOTION BY 8~OND TO: Request for Action Page 2 9-27-%~ The resolution releasing the financial guarantee is also subject to CCI paying any outstanding administrative expenses. Staff is recommending approval of the resolution. ATTACHMENTS City Engineer CorrespOndence Building Official Memo · Site Plan as approved on July 27, 1999 ~~g Dep~ent ~p~ for ~e~a ~da ~cUon Communi~ Development (~ Consent Kirk McDonald~~ 9-27-99 It~ No. ~ & Phil Kern ~ 6.9 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REL~SE OF FINANCIAL GUA~NTEE FOR CRYSTAL EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH SITE IMPROVEMENTS, 4741 Z~D AVENUE NORTH (P~NNING CASE 98-12) ~CTION REQUESTED S~ff re~mmends that the Ci~ ~undl approve a mso~fion releas~g the finandal guarantee for the C~stal Evangeli~l Fr~ Chur~ site improvemen~ at 4741 Zealand Avenue No~ (Planning Case 98-12). The release would ~ subj~ to ~e payment of final_ administrative/~nsultant expenses. It is ~s opinion ~at C~I Evangeli~i Free Chur~ has ~mpleted all of ~e requir~ impmvemen~ to ~e pmpe~. POLICY/PAST P~CTICE It is the policy and past pmcti~ of ~e Ci~ to r~uim a finandal guarantee for spedfic site improvement/amenities to insure that impmvemen~ are ~mplet~ and to release ~e financial guarantee when ~e improvemen~ have b~n ~mplet~. BACKGROUND On July 27, 1998, the C~s~l Evang~i~l Fr~ Chur~ (CEFC) requested ~at the Ci~ Coun~l approve a ~nditioqal use pe~it to allow their use of ~e foyer Homeward Bou~ site at 4741 Zealand AVenue No~h. ~ pa~ of ~e r~ueSt, ~e CEFC agr~d to make signifi~nt site improvements, improving drainage, adding pa~ing spa~s, and rehabili~fing the buildings on site. The Coun~i appmv~ ~e ~ifi~al use pe~it, and the petitioner posted a finandal guarantee in the amount of $51,~. On September 9, 19~, ~e Ci~ ~iv~ a wdffen r~uest from CEFC to release its financial guarantee as all site impmvemen~ have been made. The Ci~ E~ineer and Building Official reviewed ~e appmv~ site.improvement plans and visit~ the site. ~e Ci~ Engineers repo~ indicted that ~e ~ns~n of the sto~ sewer adja~nt to B~ne Avenue was not as desired. He explain~ that ~e ~nne~ion be~een ~e Ci~ manhole and ~e street ~t~ basin has backfall, but s~ted that this problem is not the result of ~e ~nstm~ion activi~ by CEFC. (~nt'd) Request for Action Page 2 The storm sewer construction is different than what was indicated on the proposed plans, and as a result, the City Engineer requested that CEFC submit as-built drawings of the storm sewer before the financial guarantee is released. The Building Official had no additional comments. In addition to CEFC submitting revised as-built plans for the storm sewer, the resolution releasing the financial guarantee is also subject to CCI paying any outstanding administrative expenses. Staff is recommending approval of the resolution. A'I'I'ACHMENTS · September 9, 1999, Bond Release Request from CEFC · City Engineer Correspondence · Building Official Memo · Site Plan as approved on July 27, 1999 COUNCF~ ~ Or~gtnatmg Depa~u-ent APl)roved for ~e~a ~da ~cuon CommuniW Development ~ Consent Susan Hen~~~.27,99 It~ ~o. ~ommuni~ Development $p~ialist ~ ~ 6.~0 MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBTAIN APP~ISAL OF 5412 AND 5410 WINNET~ AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 6~) ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends approval of a moaon authoring s~ff to ob~in an apprai~l of the prope~ Io~t~ at 5412 and ~10 Winne~a Avenue No~. .. POLICWPA~T P~C~CE In the past, the Coundl has au~o~z~ appmi~ls of pmpe~es ~at am offer~ to the Ci~ for sale ~n a volunta~ basis in areas idena~ for fu~m r~evelopment. BACKGROUND The Ci~ has re~ived the a~ leEer from Jona~on Pi~eE who o~s ~o single family dwellings at ~12 and ~10 Winnetka Avenue No~. Mr. Pi~e~ s~tes '1 am w~ang this le~er in regards to the possible sale of my'~o houses to the Ci~ of New Hope .... ' Staff has indicted to Mr. PickeE ~at this will be a volunta~ sale and no ml~aon bene~ ~11 ~ paid. The ~o subject lots are esamat~ to measure a ~mbin~ to~l of ~,7~0 square feet (~12 Winnetka: 11,200 square feet and ~10 Winne~a: 11,550 ~uam f~t). The ~12 prope~ fronts Winnetka Avenue, while the ~10 address is situat~ dir~ ~hind. For ~x pu~oses, the 1999 estimated valuation of the subje~ pm~e~ is, as foil~: ~12 Winnetka: $72,000 ($22,000 land/S50,000 building); and ~10 Winne~a Avenue: $~,000 ($12,~0 land/$~,000 building). Combined, the estimated valuaaon is $106,~0. This is a ve~ unusual si~aaon in ~e Ci~, ~ ~o homes being ~ns~cted on one o~ginal lot. Records indicate that the home= were ¢ons~¢t~ in 1~ and lg81 with ne variances being approved. Each home has a separate water and sewer se~i~, however, the se~i~s for the home on the rear lot mn through ~e front lot (conrd.) Request for Action Page 2 9-27-99 The City Council has indicated an interest in acquiring vadous properties in this area as they become available for future redevelopment purposes, and this area is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for redevelopment. At a work session in April 1999, the Council reviewed preliminary concepts for the very deep lots that front Winnetka Avenue. The Council approved the purchase of 5340 Winnetka Avenue North, situated two properties to the south, in the spring of 1999. The status of the property located at 5340 Winnetka Avenue is a{so on this Council agenda for discussion. Staff is requesting Council authorization to seek quotations for an appraisal of the two properties, accept the Iow quotation, and proceed with the appraisal. The estimated cost for a single family dwelling appraisal is $325. Staff will bdng the completed appraisal back to the Council to determine if the City desires to negotiate with the property owner for acquisition. FUNDING The appraisal will be paid for with tax increment financing (TIF) funds. - ATTACH M ENT$ · ' Map ." · Letter from Property Owner · Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan $ (40: 77) (31 (26)- . 09-13-99 Jonathan Pickett 521 Schletty Dr. Little Canada, MN 55117 651-484-8457 Regarding the Property at 5412 & 5410 Winnetka Ave. N. New Hope, MN 55428 Kirk McDonald Community Development Director City of New Hope 4401 Xylon New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Mr. McDonald: I am writing this letter in regards to the possible sale of my two houses to the City of New Hope. I am interested in selling my property if an agreement can be reached on the sale price. I would request that the City of New Hope consider the purchase of this property and contact me as soon as possible regarding your intentions and procedures. Since one of the homes has a rental tenant which has a lease, timing may be important for the city. The one year lease expires Nov. 30. If an agreement can be reached by then and if it would be helpful to the city, I would not renew the lease if so instructed by you. The other house is also a rental unit but needs only a 30 day notice to vacate. I understand that by writing this letter I am not obligated to sell my property at this time or in the future to the City of New Hope. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to arrange for the proper meetings. Sincerely, _ COUNC~ ~ / i~ ~ ~m~g Dep~ent ~p~d for ~a ~enda ~uon Development Community Development 9-..~ & 2:c,~,~ No. ~ Kirk McDonald ~ / / ' 8. · / P~NNING CASE 99-14, RESOLUTION APPRQVING REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STOOGE AND/OR RENTAL OF VEHICLES AT 4904 WINNET~ AVENUE NORTH, JOHNSON VAN & STO~G~ERNELL GILLESPI~MINCO NORTHWEST CORPO~TION, PETITIONERS ACTION REQUESTED Johnson Van & Storage, Inc. has r~uest~ a ~ndifional u~ ~it ~ allow ~e a~ivi~ of a "U-Haul" track renal and trailer sewi~ from i~ fa~li~. ~e pdma~ u~ of ~e site involves the loading and unloading of tracks for shipping while ~e "U-Haul' renal ~on ~uld ~ an a~sso~ se~. The:site is lo. ted at 4904 Winnetka Avenue No~ anE lies ~in ~e I-1, Limit~ Indus~al Zoning Dis~. ~he ordinance pe~its outdoor storage as a pe~iff~ a~s~ use, but r~uims a ~nditional use pe~it for any ac~sso~ outd~r sales and sewi~s, pumuant to Se~ions 4.1~ (2) and 4.21 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The Planning Commission consider~ this r~uest at i~ August 4 meeting and m~mmended approval, subject to conditions. The request was ~bl~ by ~e Ci~ Coun~l on August 9 due to ~e fact that the petitioner was not present at ~e m~ting and due to ~n~ms regarding s~eening issues. The Council tabled the request on several subsequent ~sions, as ~e petitioner was wo~ing on mvis~ plans. The petitioner and pmpe~ o~er haVe submiff~ revised plans and the a~a~ed ~ffespondenCe, and the business owner ~11 be in a~endan~ at ~e ~un~l m~fing. The enclos~ resolution approves ~e. r~uest. If ~e Coun~l d~s not approve the request, staff re~mmends that the ma~er ~ mfe~d to ~e Ci~ A~omey to prepare "findings of fa~." POLICY/PAST P~C~CE The Ci~ Council has appmv~ ~ndifional use ~i~ for similar uses in the past if the requirements of the Zoning Ordinan~ have b~n met. BACKGROUND " Please refer to the a~ed Request For A~ion that was prepared for the August 9 Council m~ting for detailed background info~afion. (cont'd.) IIIIIIII-' ~~ ~ Request for Action Page 2 9-27 The business owner and property owner have taken the foil.owing actions in preparation for this meeting: 1. The business owner has applied for a business license and paid the appropnate fee. Staff is holding the check and the issuance of the license until it is determined if the CUP will be approved. 2, The property owner has submitted the attached correspondence and revised plans, including the following details: A. Screeninq - a total of 33 arborvitae are proposed to be planted along the front (west) property line to screen the truck storage area in the spdng of 2000, The plantings would be four feet in height and spaced five feet apart. The plantings would extend from the southerly driveway north to about the center of the building. This is double the number of the plantings originally proposed. The property owner will also install an irrigation system for the new plantings and has verbally stated this, although it is not noted on the plan. B. Refuse storaqe - the trash dumpster will be Placed inside the tenant's warehouse until specific plans to properly screen it have been established and approved by the City. C. Snow storaqe - has been identified on the plan to be stored at the east end of the parking lot. D. Stripinq - the lot will be stdped on the west end, per the odginal plan, with visitor and disability access signs being installed (to be completed by October 31, 1999). Staff finds that the petitioner has done a good job of addressing the outstanding issues and recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: .. 1. All signage to be reviewed and approved by staff. 2. If refuse storage is moved outdoors in the future, screening details to be submitted. 3. Screening on west property line to be completed by July 1, 2000, per the submitted plan, along with irrigation system. 4. Lot striping (in white) to be completed by November 30, including installation of 'visitor" and "disability access" signs, per the plan. ATTACHMENT5 · Resolution · Revised Plans/Correspondence · Business License Application · NAC Correspondence · 8/9/99 Council Request UNITED PROP.ERTIES September 20, 1999 Mr. Kirk McDonald D~ of community Dev,lopment 4401 Xylan Avenue North 'New Hope, Minnesota 55428-489~ ~,aNCO Nor~ ~o~ Pursuant to our diseuas~ oa Sel:~mber 17, 1999, the owner of the ~ located st 4904 Winnelka Avenue Nort~ has a~eed 1o ~oml~y.with lhe City of New Hope's lqannl~ Commisakm requimmentz to make the ~ to the sits to address the foilowtn$ bsam ~at w~e ~ to the table a~ the City Cou~U Meetinss. 3500 Wtut 80~t Sb'eet. MinneapeUa, MN ~Mat · &12Jal.1~l~ · fax 612.12D.~/~0 ._ www. upmpertle~,~em N COMMUNITY ~I,.ANNINO ' MEMORANDUM. Via Fax Transmission TO: Vern Gillispie, Johnson Van & Storage (537-6468) Ellen Morton, United Properties (820-8750) FROM: Alan Brixius . DATE: September 15, 1999 RE: New Hope - Johnson Van and Storage CUP FILE NO: 131.01 - 99.07 BACKGROUND In August the New Hope Planning Commission recommended approval of your request for outdoor rental at 4904 Winnetka Avenue North 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. Screening on west property line to extend from driveway entrance to south edge of bUilding, to consist of coniferous plantings with minimum of four feet in height; plan to be approved by staff.. 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. Since the Planning Commission meetings, two City Council meetings have passed without any response to the aforementioned items or presentations by you. The City Council has discussed your application in your absence and expressed specific concerns over the screening of the truck storage area. The also feel that the plans were incomplete because the refuse storage and snow storage issues have not been addressed on revised plans. Your application will again be considered by the City Council at their September 27th meeting. We must advise you that submission of revised plans and attendanCe at the meeting is critical to the successful completion of your application. Without revised plans and your attendance at 'the City Council meeting, it is not likely to be approved. '. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE SSS ST. LOUIS I=AFIK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE: 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL,. NAC~WINTERNET.COM The conditions of approval are minor in the context of the overall site plan. The following changes to the site plan should be completed a..nd submitted to the City no later than September 20th. 1. Landscape Plan. TypiCally, the property owner should solicit its own landscape architect or nursery to prepare a landscape plan that works for the site and is affordable to the applicant. NAC has prepared the attached concept plan that illustrates the Planning Commission recommendations for landscaping. The Planning Commission established the following parameters for the landscape screen: a. The plantings must be coniferous (evergreen) to provide year round screening. b. The plantings must be located up near the sidewalk to be at an elevation that effectively screens the trucks. c. The plantings must be four feet tall. d. The screen should run between the driveway to the south end of the building. The NAC plan is conceptual. You may wish to discuss this with a. landscape architect or nursery of your choosing to determine if an alternative plan may be better sUited to your needs. The attached plan illustrates a row of Techny Arborvitae that meets the Planning Commission's design parameters. The plantings are spaced in a manner that as the plants grow, they will mature into a solid screen. This landscape plan would anticipate 33-34 shrubs being planted between the existing ash trees. e. The slope and existing trees will likely require these new landscape screen to be irrigated to allow the new plantings to survive. 2. Trash Enclosure. The site plan should be modified to show the location of the trash receptacle. You must also provide either a graphic or narrative description of how the trash receptacle will be screened. 3. The site plan must illustrate snow storage locations on site. 4. Lot striping must be completed within 60 days, including the installation of visitor and disability access signs per the plan. Please contact me at your convenience if you have any questions concerning this Or~tnaunti Depa-r~ent Approved for ~e~a Deve~$an~eCuon Communi~ Development & Planning Kirk McDonald It~ ~o. ~Susan Hen~ ~ 8.2 MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE PREPA~TION OF DEMOLITION SPECIFICATIONS AND TO SEEK DEMOLITION QUOTATIONS FOR THE PROPER~ AT 5340 WINNET~ AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 653) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting Coundl approval of a ~fion authod~ng staff to pro~ with demolition specifi~tions and solicitation of demolition quo~fions for ~e d~~ prope~ Io~ted at 5~0 Winnetka Avenue No~. POLICY/PAST P~C~CE... ~ In the past, the Ci~ has pur~as~ o~er s~Eer~ site pmpe~es on a volun~ basis and ma~e a dete~ination whether to rehabili~te the home ~ de~lish ~e home and eider build new or land bank the prope~ for future redevelopment of a larger area. BACKGROUND In December of 1998, the Coundi au~odz~ s~ff to get an appraisal on the ovemized lot, measuring 45,561 square feet, at 5~0 Winne~a Avenue N~. The subj~ pmpe~ is Io~t~ at the intersection of Winnetka and ~ Avenues. The ba~ haE of ~is lot, as are many of ~e lots on the east side of Winnetka Avenue no~h to Bass Lake R~d, is undemfiliz~. The pmpe~ is a key piece of real estate for the potential mdevelepment of ~e area. Sp~ial note: On ~e ~nsent Agenda, th~ is a request for an app~isal of the pmpe~ I~t~ at ~12 and ~10 ~nne~a Avenue. That mquest is because c~y stuff has received mcent communi~E~ ~m the pmpe~ owner w~ an interest in selling to the C~. On Janua~ 25, 1999, the Coundl pass~ a motion au~d~ng s~ff negotiate the purChase the subject prope~. The odginai ideas pm~nt~ to ~e ~undl f~ pur~asing the pmpe~ were to either rehabilitate and u~ate ~e ho~ ~ design ideas from ~e Rem~eling Planbook or utilize the site for future redevelopment. At a Council wo~ session in-Apdl, s~ff pmsent~ thr~ ~n~pt plans develop~ by the Planning Consultant to demonstrate su~i~sion of the e~m deep Io~ in the ama east of Winnetka Avenue and no~h to Bass Lake Road. The ~n~pt plans include single family and to, home housing syes. The Councilmembers present at the wo~ session mact~ positively to the ~n~pt redevelopment plans and indicted that you were mom interest~ in "the bigger pi~ure," m~er than a lot-by-lot redevelopment. ~ON ~ ~~ ~ ~: , m I I II '~A~Z ~ Request for Action Page 2 9-27-99 After several months of negotiation and Council discussion, staff reached agreement on a purchase price with the property owner. On May 24, 1999, the Couhcil approved the purchase in the amount of $102,000. Since the City acquired the property in June of 1999, staff has been brainstorming a number of scenarios. While staff's original intention was to update the property with design ideas from the Planbook, staff has taken a closer look at the home and is now recommending demolition of the property, based on a number of factors. Staff wants the Council to move forward with this property because if the home is to be demolished staff would like to get that accomplished yet this fall, if possible. The factors involved in the. demolition recommendation are as follows: 1. Rehabilitation Costs - After reviewing the property, staff has concluded that the costs associated with various levels of rehabilitation and updating is quite expensive, given there is a significant amount of work needed (see attached "Options Sheet"). The garage needs to be replaced and is located on the south side of the property, which is an inconvenient location for redevelopment options that include leaving the existing home in place. If the garage were on the north side of the home, the potential for removing the garage and rehabbing the home would be more favorable and possibly fit into the 'area wide" redevelopment scenario. (see street options) -. 2. Street Options - If the area on the east side of Winnetka is to be redeveloped, a future street extension would be necessary. The City Engineer has indicated that the most preferable access, regardless of whether the area has cul-de-sacs or a through-street, is directly across from, the intersection of 54a and Winnetka. An extension of 54a Avenue west of Winnetka would require demolition of the existing structure becaUse the street dght..of-way would cut into the footprint of the home. 3. Size of Lot - This is the largest parcel of property in the area and is a key for redevelopment of a larger area. It has the ability to be subdivided into several lots with a larger redevelopment. 4. E(;:onomic~ - Due to the subdivision potential, it makes more economic sense to demolish and landbank the parcel for a potential future subdivision into several lots rather than rehab and sell the entire parcel. 5. Bi.q Picture/Other Properties - While no formal plans have ever been drawn, or adopted, staff recommends the Council continue to embrace the area more and envision the bigger picture, especially in light of the recent letter received from the property owner of 5412 and 5410 Winnetka Avenue. 6. Grants - The City has grant funds set aside with the CHDO at this time for the rehabilitation of this home. Staff is recommending that those funds be utilized for another rehabilitation project. Staff is in process of completing a planning grant for the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Ac(x~unt in hopes of obtaining funds to develop more concrete plans for the area. The planning grant will tie .the Winnetka/Bass Lake Road area with the Sumter/Bass Lake Road area. The City has already acquired several pieces of property in the Sumter/Bass Lake Road area for the realignment of Sumter Avenue. Both stated areas have been .designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan as areas for redevelopment. The redevelopment of both areas will alleviate poor housing conditions, improve access onto Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake Road, and more fully utilize the available land. Staff has concluded rehabilitation costs are too high to justify, especially given the unique lot depth and the reason the City purchased the property in the first place. Thus, staff favors demolition and a look at the bigger picture beyond this one piece of property. Given the entire rehabilitation scenario and the bigger redevelopment picture, staff recommends demolition of the subject property. Staff would prepare specifications,' advertise for bids for demolition and present to the Council for a decision at the November 11 Council meeting, if Councilmembers would like to tour the homes prior to the Council meeting, please contact staff. Request for Action Page 3 9-27-99 FUNDING The subject property is located in an area where Tax Increr~ent Financing (TIF) funds can be expended. Demolition will be paid for with TIF funds. In the future when the property is sold, the proceeds from the sale will re-pay the TIF fund. A'I-rACHMENTS · Maps · Redevelopment Options · Comprehensive Plan Excerpts · Options/Cost COUNCIl, I REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Depa~ ~uent Appr~v~ for Agenda _ Ai/enda Secuon uevelopment Community Development & Planning 9-2~ It~n No. ByKirk McDonald 1~. 8.3 DISCUSSION REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS (~N FIRE STATION ROOF REPAIR/REPLACEMENT AND ,MOTION REJECTING BID FROM FORSCHEN & PETERSON COMPANY, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $304,432.40 (Tmprovemenl: ?roJecc ~1o. 659) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests tO discuss with the City Council the negotiations with the Jol:tns Manville Corporation regarding the options to repair or replace the Fire Station roof. The City Attorney is also recommending that the Council approve a motion rejecting the bid on the Fire Station roof repair received from Forschen & Peterson Company in the amount of $304,432.40. ** POLICY/PAST PRACTICB The direction from the Council in the past has been to take whatever measures are necessary to correct the deficiencies with the Fire Station roof. BACKGROUND Per the attached correspondence from the City Attorney, the roof repair/replacement is necessitated by the use of an insulation material known as phenolic foam when the roof was installed dudng the Fire Station construction. This insulation matedal when combined with water produces a corrosive fluid which actually disintegrates ti'!e metal decking on which the insulation is placed. At the May 10 Council meeting, the City Council approved a motion directing the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the repair/replacement of the Fire Station roof and also authorized American Engineering Testing, Inc. to perform testing and documentation work on the roof. AET's work was completed and plans and specifications were prepared by the City Engineer. At the June 14 Council meeting, the City Council approved the plans and specifications and ordered advertisement for bids. Bids were opened on July 21 and one bid was received, as follows: Company Bid Alternate Forshen & Peterson Co., Inc. $304,432.40 $1,400 The bid was considered at the July 26 Council meeting and tabled for two months, pending resolution of legal issues and negotiating with the Johns Manville Corporation on an acceptable settlement. MOTION BY ~::OND BY' TO: RFA'O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 9-27-99 Per the attached letter from the City Attorney, since the las.t Council meeting in July, the City has been in contact with the Johns Manville Corporation concerning a settlement proposal for repair and/or replacement of the roof. The Johns Manville Corporation has initially proposed three settlement options as follows: 1. Payment by Johns Manville of $110,000. In consideration forsaid payment, the City would be asked to provide Johns Manville with a complete release from liability for repair and replacement of the roof system. This would allow the City to repair and/or replace the roof in accordance with the bid received from the Forschen & Peterson Company, Inc. This payment amount, however, falls far short of the contract amount bid by the Forschen & Peterson Company. Johns Manville's rationale for the reduced payment is based on their opinion concerning the depreciated value of the existing roof as well as their usual cost for repair of detadoration of metal deck systems caused by the phenolic foam corrosion. 2. The second option proposed by Johns Manville is that they repair the roof system according to the City's plans and specifications with the City contributing $125,000 to the new roof and deck replacement. Johns Manville believes that if they control the re-roofing project pursuant to 'a legal settlement, there will be opportunity for savings and efficiencies bY having their contractors control the work and supplY the materials. Obviously, this would be performed under the inspection approval of the New Hope City Engineer and Building Official. Johns Manville has proposed a somewhat significant-contribution by the City under this method due to its belief that a complete deck replacement is not necessary. 3. The third alternative would be for Johns Manville to control the re-roofing project, however, instead of removing and replacing all of the metal deck, they would follow their typical repair and remediation protocol for projects such as the Fire Station roof repair. Attached to the City Attorney's letter is a September 17, 1999, Johns Manville letter describing the metal deck remediation procedures that they would follow. Under this proposal, Johns Manville would request the City to contribute $55,000 to the roof replacement and repair. Again, the repair and replacement would be done under the inspection supervisi.on of the Building Official and City Engineer. In other words,, the City would be participating in the repair procedures and would have approval authority before the work is accepted and a release is provided pursuant to the work. Again, the $55,000 contribution under alternative three is Johns Manville's opinion conceming the current depreciated value of the roof system. In other words, the $55,000 constitutes the monetary value between the new roof the City will receive and the existing roof being replaced. The City Attorney further states that "any recommendation concerning the three alternatives proposed by Johns Manville Corporation.would be dependent upon the City Engineer's opinion concerning the proposed repair protocol, however, it'would be his recommendation that settlement alternative number 1 be rejected in favor of repair alternative 2 or 3. I have been informed that the contribution figures suggested by Johns Manville for alternatives 2 and 3 are not 'take it or leave it' proposals and ara still open to further negotiations concerning the exact amount, if any, of the City's contribution. Therefore, based on Johns Manville's willlngnese to enter into an agreement for their repair or replacement of the fire station roof, it Is my recommendation that the bid we received from the Forschen & Peterson Company be rejected at the September 27 meeting. Staff feels that the most cost effective way for the roof repair to be constructed ia under the construction control of the Johns * Manville Corporation, but subject to Inspection approval by the City prior to any release of liability for the roof system. Also, The City Attomey still intends to involve the architect and contractor with respect to a reimbursement proposal on the City's required contribution after we have reached a repair agreement with Johns Manville Corporation.' Request for Action ~Page 3 9-27-99 The City Attorney and City Engineer will be discussing these'alternatives with the Council and requesting direction as to how to proceed. 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. A'i'rACHMENTS · 9/22 City Attorney Correspondence 9/17 Johns Manville Corporation Correspondence re: Metal Deck Remediation Procedures · 8/2 Johns Manville E-Mail · 7/21 City Engineer Correspondence re: Bid JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law 852~ EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. BROOKLYN PARK~ MINNESOTA 55443-1999 '- TELEPHONE (612) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (612) 493-5193 E-MAIL jss~jsspa.com CK)RDON L. JENSEN* WILLIAM G. SWANSON b-'l-EVEN A. $ONDRALL MARTIN P. MALECHA C. ALDEN PF_.ARSON~ DEAN A. TRONGARDt JULIE A. THILL OF COUNSEL 22, 1999 Lo~.ss Q. ~¥~=s'rAr~ ~p~mu~r Kirk McDonald Community Development Director City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: John, Manville Corporation/Fire Station Roof Repair Dear Kirk: This letter is for discussion purposes at the September 27, 1999 Council meeting regarding the negotiations with the Johns Manville Corporation on repair or replacement of the fire station roof. For background purposes, the roof repair, replacement is necessitated by the use of an insulation material known as phenolic foam when the roof was installed during the fire station construction. This insulation material when combined with water produces a corrosive fluid which actually disintegrates the metal decking on which the insulation is placed. Since the last Council meeting in July, we have been in contact with the Johns Manville Corporation concerning a settlement proposal for repair and/or replacement of the roof. The Johns Manville Corporation has initially proposed three settlement options as follows: 1. Payment by'Johns Manville of $110,000. In consideration for said payment, the City would be asked to provide Johns Manville with a complete release from liability for repair and replacement of the roof system. This would allow the City to repair and/or replace the roof in accordance with the bid received from the Forschen & Peterson Company, Inc. This payment amount however, falls far short of the contract amount bid by the Forschen & Peterson Company. Johns Manville's rationale for the reduced payment is based on their opinion concerning the depreciated value of our existing roof as well as their usual cost for repair of deterioration of metal deck systerm caused by the phenolic foam corrosion. C~tm:~ By Th~ ~it*'mt &DR Nmm"~J September 22, 1999 Page 2 2. The second option proposed by Jolms Manville is that they repair the roof system according to our plans and Specifications with the City contributing $125,000 to the new roof and deck replacement. Johns Manville believes that if they control the re-roofing project pursuant to a legal settlement, there will be opportunity for savings and efficiencies by having their contractors control the work and supply the materials. Obviously, this would be performed under the inspection approval of our City Engineers and Building Officials. Johns Manville has proposed a somewhat significant contribution by the City under this method due to its belief that a complete deck replacement is not necessary. 3. The third alternative would be for Johns Manville to control the re-roofing project, however instead of removing and replacing all of the metal deck, they would follow their typical repair and remediafion protocol for projects such as the ftre station roof repair. Enclosed in this letter is a September 17, 1999 Johns Manville letter describing the metal deck remediation procedures that they would follow. Under this proposal, Johns Manville would request the City to contribute $55,000 to the roof replacement and repair. Again, the repair and replacement would be done under the inspection supervision of the Building Official and City Engineer. In other words, the City would be participating in the repair procedures and would have approval authority before the work is accepted and a release is provided pursuant to the work. Again, the $55,000 contribution under alternative three is $ohns Manville's opinion concerning the current depreciated value of the roof system. In other words, the $55,000 constitutes the monetary value between the new roof we will receive and the existing roof being replaced. I did not receive the September 17, 1999 letter relating to the metal deck remediation procedures until Tuesday,~ September 21~. As a result, the City Engineer has not yet had a chance to review these procedures or provide us with an opinion concerning their effectiveness for repair of the roof versus a total deck replacement. I hope that the City Engineer will be able to provide us with that information prior to the meeting on September27'a. Any reconvnendation concerning the three alternatives proposed by Johns Manville Corporation would be dependent upon the City Engineer's opinion concerning the proposed repair protocol. Despite the fact the City Engineer has not had a chance to review the repair protocol, it would be our recommendation that settlement alternative number l'be rejected in favor of repair alternative 2 or 3. I have been informed that the contribution figures suggested by Johns Manville for alternatives 2 and 3 are not 'take it or leave it" proposals and are still open to further negotiations"conceming the exact amount, if any, of the City's contribution. Therefore, based on Johns Manville's willingness to enter into an agreement for their repair or replacement of the fire Station roof, it is my recommendation that the bid we received from the Forschen & Peterson Company be rejected at the September 27, 1999 meeting. We feel the most cost effective way for the roof repair to be constructed is under the construction control of the Johns Manville Corporation but subject to inspection approval by the City prior to any release of liability for the roof system. Also, I still intend to involve the architect and contractor with respect to a reimbursement proposal on the City's required contribution after we have reached a repair agreement with Johns Manville Corporation. September 22~ 1999 Page 3 I believe the main topic of discussion at the September 27, 1999 meeting should obviously be for direction concerning use of repair alternative 2 or 3 as outlined herein with further direction to negotiate the lowest possible contribution required by the City based on the current depreciated value of the roof system being replaced. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter or if you need any further additional information for the September 27'" meeting. Very truly yours, Steven A. $ondrall IENSEN SW~J~SON & SONDP.~LL. P,A. Enclosure cc: Daniel Donahue Metropolitan Council Working for ~he Region. ?[~ni~g for the Future September 7, 1999 Mr. Kirk McDonald City or'New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, M'N 55~t28-4898 RE: City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 16941-l Metropolitan Council Distr/ct No. 2 Dear Mr. McDonald: At its meeting on Wednesday, September 1, 1999, the Metropolitan Council completed its review of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update. The Council based its review on the staffs executive summary and review record. The Council found that the comprehensive plan update meets all of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements for 1998 plan updates, is in conformity with the regional system plans for aviation, recreation open space, transportation and water resources management, is consistent with the Regional Blueprint, and is compatible with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions. Therefore, the city may place the comprehensive plan into effect and that no modifications are required. MN Statutes 473.864, Subd. 1 requires local governments to adopt the comprehensive plan with any required modifications within nine months following a final decision. For the City of New Hope, the nine-month period expires on .Iune 1, 2000. We request that you send us two copies of your final plan once it is revised to include all the updated information that was submitted. One copy will be placed in the Council library and the other will be placed in the working file for Comprehensive Planning. In addition, please send us documentation, such as a resok/tion or minutes, indicating that the city adopted or amended any official local controls such as the zoning code, to implement the comprehensive plan. We congratulate you and Your staff far preparing a well-organ/zed, thoughtfiil plan to manage growth in your community. Ted Mondale Chair Enclosure ce: Todd Paulson, Metropolitan Council District 2 Metropolitan Council staff: Linda Milashius, Penelope Simison, Chauncey Case, Phyllis Hanson, Kevin Roggenbuck, Roger Janzig, James Larsen Tom Caswell, Sector Representative \~dETC FS2\DATA\USERS~SHARED\LIBRARY~COMMUNDV~,1999~NEWHLTR. OOC 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul. Mt~nn"",nt.~ 55101-1626 {651} ~)02-1000 Fax 602-1550 TDD/TTY 2~-0904 Metro Info Line C--K)2- i888 - R Regional Growth Policy Comittee.. Report from the Regional Growth ,Policy Committee of September 1, 1999 Date Prepared: September 2, 1999 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update, City of New Hope. Referral FiFe 16941.1 Summary of Committee Di$custion: Th,: committee requested that an additional recommendation be included that includes text t'rom aviation cummenl:s on page four or'the report. Recommendation: I, That the Metropolitan Council adopt the Review Record with the following recommendations: 2. Tl~at the City or'New Hope may piece the New I/ope Comprehensive Plan Update into ~ffect with no plan modifications. 3. That the plan meets all of'the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements for the i995 plan updates. 4. "i'nat the city shall incorporate &Il of the irdrormation submitted in letter format into a final copy plan within 30 days orr placing the plan into effect and submit it to the Council tbr its official record. That the city submit a Tier Il sewer plan m the Council for final approval tbllowinit local approval of the comprehensive plan. The Tier Il sewer plan shall be consistent with the ~iry's approved comprehensive plan ~nd reflect any modifications recommended by the Council. 6. That the clt~ provide the Council with an annual report on its prosress in meeting !/! goals. 7. That the plan should be revi~im:! to reflect the t'act that the cip/is within the influence ama of the Crystal Airport, and therefore, height zoni~ should be implemented throul~h the joint airport zonin6 The text concerning the city antenna ordinance should aJso reference the notification to Mn/DOT Aeronautics. :~ Metropolitan ~____uneil Executive Summary R Regional Growth Policy Committee Agencla Item IV-C date: Se 1, Date: August 24, 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update, City of New Hol3e Subject: Referral File NO. 16941.1 District(s), Member(s): Metropolitan Council District Ir2. Todd Paulson. 612/560-2122 Policy/Legal Reference; Mn Statutes 473.864, Subd. 2 and 473.175, Subd. 1 Penelepe $imison, principal rewewer, 6511698-1151 Staff Prepared/Presented: Craig Rapp, Director of Community DeveloDment, 6511602-1615 Division/Department: Commune, Development Division, Comprehensive Planning Proposed Action;Motion That the Metrol~iitan Council adopt the recommendations and review record as presented in thc attached report. Issue(8) · Should the Metropolitan Council permit the city of New Hope to place its Comprehensive Plan U palate into effect? Overview and Funding New Hope is ranked I?th in anticipated ~'owth to 2020. The Regional Growth Strategy identities New Hope as in the urban area. It is Council policy to focus regional investments and incentives for job and economt¢ development activities within the urban ama and, particularly, within the 1-494/I-694 beltway. New Hope fully developed, with only 19 vacant parcels, most of them designated for industrial and multiple-family residential uses. The plan t'oc~ses on redevelopment ofobselem and deteriorating land u..~s The plan meets the expectations of the Council's ~rowth st~te~7 with an overall density of 6.1 i dwelling units per acre by the year 2020. The plan is consistent with the Regional Blueprint, in conformity with regional systems plans and compatible with other units of govenmmnt. The cities of New Hope, Columbia ~{ei~hts and Cryst~ sim'ed · grant from the Metropolitan Council for assistance in housing issues, with each city receiving $2,S00 (SC,97140E). In addition, New Hope received a plannin8 assistance 8nmt from the Memapelitan Council totaling S8,190 (SC-97 ! 68). E! Infrastructure: ~ plan is consistent with Council policie~ to use existing regional facilities efficiently. lil Quality of life: The plan addrestea ob~lete and deter~rating land uses and the ix)tential for redevelopment of underutilized sites. ~ Communication/constituency building: The plat supports Regional Bluel:~rlt poliote~. E] Alignment: The plan meetl all of the Metrogolitan Land Planning Act requirements for the 1998 plan updates :~. Metre REPORT ATTACI~MENT A: REVIEW RI~CORD REVIEW OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE COMPREHE,NSIVE PLAN BACKGROUND The c~ty of New Hope ~s located in east central Henncpin County. Adjacent jurisd~ctions include Crystal, Golden Valley, Plymouth. Maple Grove and Brooklyn Park. The city is 3,489 acres m size and tls 1995 population was estimated at 21.646, r~sidmg m 8.553 households. New Hope ts located within the urban arcs. (See Map 1) AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW The Metropolitan Land Usc Planning Act a~ amended requires local units of government to submit comprehensive plans and plan amendments to the Council for review (MN Stat. 473.864. Subd. 2). Thc Act requires Council review of the plans lo determine their conformity with metropolitan ~y.~tcm plans, apparent consistency with other adopted plans of the Council and compat3bllity with the plans of other local in the metropolitan area. (M2q Stat. 473.175. Subd. 1) ANALYSIS Staff reviewed thc plan update for consastency with the Regional Blucln'int and other chapters of the Metropolitan Dcvelopmem (}uide, for conformity with regional syst~n plans for aviation, recreation open space. transportation, water resources mana~mtent and for compatibility with the plans of adjacent governmental units and school diMticts. RKGIONAL BLUEPRII~ (Penelop~ Sinuson, 651/698-1151) The City of New Hope is ranked 87th by thc Council for anticipated ~,mw~h for the period between 1995 and 2020. The Council l~'ojects th~ City of New HOl~ will add 547 households by 2020, to~alieg 9,100 households. The Regional l]iueprmt.idcntifies N~, Hope as being in tl~ urban area end entirely within the MUSA. (See Map 2) In the urban area,- Council policy focuses o~ regional invc~nents and incentives for job and economic development actlvitiee, particularly within the I.d~1/1-694 b~ltwa¥. In additi~ Council policy for the urban area i~ to provide regiorlal t~,vvices for urbaa-aeale ¢K,~lopmant consistt'nt wilh local coml~h¢'nsive plans and metropolitan systems plans. The only t~dionai sTstem in New I~ope is Trunk Highway 169. which borders the ~;ity's westerlt edge. (See Map 3) Thc pl~ focuses on redevelopment of existing land uses, many of them oba)lete and some deteriorating. The plan mcct~ the expectations of the Council's growth slrategy with an overall density of6.11 dwcilin$ units p~-r acre by ~the y~r 2020. The plan is consi~lent with the Regmnal Bluelmnt. in ~onformity with rc$ional systems plans and corn~tible with othm' units of government. Fureca~ts For~asts for the City of New l-lope am included in Table 1. The city's fmecasts am ess~tially consmtent wtth tho~e of the Council. Table 1 Population, Household and Employment Forecasts PopuLation Households £mpioymeat Council New Hope Council New Hope Council New Hope 1995 2 ~ ,646 8,553 ! 3,698 estimate 2000 21,800 21,860 8,600 8,.575 14, t O~ 13.900 2010 2t,800 21,770- 8,700 8,6 t0-8,680 L4,700 t4,350- 21,870 i 5,500 2020 22,700 22,075- 9, tO0 8,830-9,040 t5,000 t~t.500 ' 22,600 Density Ail but 19 parcels, im;ludmf 10 residential parcels, in the city are developed. The proposed density on vacant land. therefore, is not an issue. The plan indicates the density of existing sin&lc, family rcsiclential, comprising more than ~4 percent of tEe land area. ranges up to four umts per acre. Medium-density residential uses are developed at 5.10 umts per acre. while lugh-density residential uses are developed at 1 ! units per acre. or htsher. 't'l~ projected overall density for 2020 is calculated at 6.11 dwelling units pet acre. Laud U~ All of the land within thc City of New Hope is within the urban service area. The city of New Hope cuncfltly 'has 1,479 acres, or 42.4 i~rcent of its land area, desalinated for residentml uses. This includes ~t.4 percent of land area dough·ted for Iow derma·y, susie, family residential uses; 2,1 percent tot medium-density residential · sca; and. 5.9 percent for Jufh,4lensity residential uses. ?able 3 1~ Land Use Sinttle*fanUly residential 0ow 1,198.82 density) Medium dansi~ residential 74.70 205.95 The plan m&cates that New Hope is · fully-developed e, ommunity with virtually no vacant land. Acreage figures for individual land us; designations in 2020 arc unchanged R*om 1998. 'l'he plan indicates the city will focus on the d~velolwnent of vacant parcels and o~ tedevelopmcvit of selected $~tes: thesc include commercial, industzial and multiple-Family lots. The plan indicates thcre are 19 parCels that are devclolMble, totslin8 approximately 28 acres. These include indu~al, commercial and residential lots. These vacant parcels, u well as other parcels m the city. have been identified as potcntlai development or redevelopment sites. The tn~eakdown of land us~ in 2020 ar~ described in Table ~. Table 3 2020 Land Use .. [,and Use Type Acres Sin~ic-£am~ly rcsidcntal (low 1,198.~2 density) Medium dc~l~ ~sid~tiai 7~.70 Comm~ial 11198 96.63 29.66 873.19 Total A ~i~ of the Ci~ of New H~ is Mthm ~ ~ ~ of~ ~sml Ai~ and ~s aff~l~ by alert lrans~mflon (g~ gong 611 The ci~'s ptan acknowledges that the Council has estabhshed an mHow and infiltration (I/I) goal for the c~ty. The has outlined its proposed efforts ~o reduc~ ~I to ~each ~ts goal, which ~s a ~mum-t~mm~mum mon~y flow ratio ~hat cannot exceed 1.58. ~e c~ ha~ included ~umentat~n sho~n8 comph~ce 47 of 48 months m 1995-1998. ~e Council rec~m~ds ~e c~ su~it a Ttcr II ~wer pl~ ~o the Council tbr final ~g~ovai following local a~oval of the comprehensive plan. ~c comprehensive pl~ should ~ consistent with the rfly's approvc~ comprehensive plan ~d refl~t ~y m~ficat~ons ~commgnd~ by thc Council. In additmn, ~ ~a recommittal the c1~ ptowde the Cou~cal wi~ ~ a~) ~g on iu ~o~ess m mcc~ng ~ goals. 8anita~ Sewer ~ice. lad~viduai Sewage Tr~tmea~ Systems (Jamgs L~sen. 6~ 1/~02.1159) The c~W is fully ~ed by coll~twe ~m~ sewe~. No ink.dual on-s~te ~stema remain m u.~, chm~nat~ng the n~& for a maintenance m~sem~r pto~. Wa~er R~ources MaaaEemeat (]~es ~n, 6~ 1/602-11~9) ~e e~es of New ~, GoId~ Valley, a~ C~s~l ~ ~ by a single water aysmm managed by thg Juint u~t~ i~ wat~ s~ly pi~. ~e plm is su~c~t ~ m~t Co~il cont~t ~qu~emea~ fur ~is pl~ u~. Su~aee Water M~a~em~C (J~ ~ 6~ !/~2-1159) ~e city ~ep~ 8 J~l ~ wa~ ~ge~t p~ (~) m 1~. Co~cit smff~iew~ the pl~ end ~vid~ review co~ m ~ ~i~ ~ ~ two aff~ wa~ (B~ Cr~k ~d Shingle Cr~k) m to R~uce ffon~)mt ~ce Poll~ion m ~ll Met~lit~ ~er ~t~. mffu ~e tff~ble ho~n~ pl~inf ~ui~,of~ M~iiufl ~ P~iflS Act. ~ plan c~ains a ~m ~on t~t e~es c~t and ~ ~lds, ~pulm~ ~d employer ~ t~ communi~, as well u de~n~ ¢~¢~stics of in eximms ~in& ~ ~ plm ~u ~ng policies ~d goals. including su~m ~t ~ ci~ is a ~ci~t h b Livabb ~~ti~ Act ~ Housing ~c~tives ~m ~d ~ ncgona~ g~is ~ affable ~ life<~le ~ d~i~ in Table d. ~c pl~ provtde$ Ttbb 4 C~ ~m~ Index Afford y ~p ,, 92 % 77 % 92 % ~b Cycle T~ (~-~ fmi~ ' ~8 % 3~1% ~8 % % Compatibilley with Adjacent Jarisdletlom The plan w~s submitt¢,-d to surroundit~g and affected 8overnments. including Brooklyu Park, Crystal. C, tfldcn Valley, Plymouth, Robbinsdale S~hooi District end Hermeptn Cout~ty. FINDLNGS AND CONCLUSIONS T~c c~ of~ew Hope's compre~enmve plan u~a~e ~he urban ~a. 2. The Council ro~casts 9.100 hou~holds by the ye~ 2020. ~e c~ tbr~ts 8,830 - 9,040 households by 2020. ~LS ~ constst~t w~ ~e Council's forec~s. }. ~e plan is in co~o~ance with ~e ~licy plans for Aviaaon, Recreation Op~ Space, Tr~spoHa~on Water Reso~s M~ag~t. 4. T~ ov~all d~si~ is 6.11 dwelling ~i~ ~r acre, exc~in RECOMMENDATIONS I. That the M¢l~opolitan Council adopt the R¢~riew Reuord with the roi|owing r~:ommendat~o~a: 2. That the City of New Hope may place the New Hope Comprehemive Plan Update rotc etTe~! with no plan modificat~ona. 3. That the plan meets all oftbe Metroix~litan ~ Planning Act requu'ements t~ the 1998 plan updates. 4. That the city shall incorporate all of the information subtmtted in letter format into a finn! uopy of the plan within 30 days ct'placing the plan rotc effect and r, ubmi~ It to thc Council For its of~¢ml revord. 5. That the city ~ubmtt a Tier 1! sewer plan to the Cooi~i] t'or illin! approval following Icc, al approval of thc comprehensive plan. The Tier H sewer plan shall be consistent with the city's approved comprehenaive plan and reflect any modifications recommended l~y the Council 6. That the city provide the Council with an annual repro on its ixo~ss in meeting I/I Kmart Corporation Texas Constn,,ction Office 1405 W Pipeline Road, Ste A September 14, 1999 Hurst, TX 76053 Facsimile 817-590-0493 City of New Hope Attn: Doug Sandstad Building Official 4401~ Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Re: Building'and Site improvements- 4300 Xylon Ave. no. Store #3045 Dear Mr.. Sandstad, I am following up with our conversation last week regarding the construction schedule for this project. Because of the delay on receiving the building permit, our contractor has informed us that the parking lot can not be completed until the spring. The asphalt contractors are shutting down their operations before this can be completed. Therefore, we are pushing ahead to complete the storefront parapet, site lighting, and pylon sign before winter sets in. We will start the landscaping and parking improvements as early as we can. We have a contract with Lankford Construction to complete all of the work, and they will be in contact with the City in the next few daYs. The bond will stay in effect until the project is complete so the City will be assured the job gets done. Please contact me if you need any thing else, and again, thanks for your cooperation and the entire city staff and officials. Call me at 817-467-1077, with questions. Richard Moore ce: Frank Keck 4401 Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 612-531-5100 City Hall Fax: ~12-551-5 New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Police: 612-531-5170 Police Fax: www. cLnew-hope, mn. us Pct~lic Works: 612-533-4823 Put~lic Works Fax: 612-533-7,~5¢ TDD: 612-531-5109 September 17, 1999 Mr. Werner Langenbach 9325 31st Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 Subject: Garage Addition Dear Mr. Langenbach: In December 1998, the New Hope Planning Commission recommended and the New Hope City Council approved your request for a variance to the side yard setback requirement to allow the construction of a garage addition, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the building materials were to match the existing structure and the plans you submitted showed that the addition would have siding to match the house. Per the enclosed minutes from the August and September 1999 Planning Commission meetings, the Chairman has questioned the matching building materials requirement. He has stated that the color of the siding on the addition is the same as the house, but that the siding itself is a different type. He has requested that city staff discuss this issue with you, as the purpose of requiring matching building materials is so that the addition does not appear as an "add on" to the house. I discussed this issue with the Building Official and he indicated that the house has cedar lap siding and the gar, age addition has a wood grain siding. The Chair of the Planning Commission has inquired if it is your intention to leave the extedor covering as it is or if you have plans in the future to reside the entire house, including the new addition. I would appreciate it if you would respond to this inquiry so that I can relay your response back to the Commission. Could you please write me a short letter with your response or stop in at City Hall at your convenience so we can discuss this. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Director of Community Development Enclosures: Excerpts from Planning Commission Minutes cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building Official Planning Commissioner~,~- Planning Case File 98-27 Family Styled City ~ For Family Living · ~,I~, ~ ~,,~,~- -