Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
050598 Planning
AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 5, 1998 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 4. CONSENT ITEMS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS * 5.1 Case 97-32 Request for Rezoning 7300 Bass Lake Road from B-3, Auto Oriented Business, and 7332 Bass Lake Road from R-O, Residential office, to R-3, Medium Density, Zoning District, Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development Concept Stage Approval to Allow Townhouse Development, Variances to PUD Setback Requirements, Building Length, and Private Roadway Width, Site/Building Plan Review/Approval, and Preliminary Plat Aprpoval of PPL Addition, 7300 - 7332 Bass Lake Road, Project for Pride in Living, Inc., Petitioner 5.2 Case 98-07 Discussion Regarding Certificate of Survey Requirement, City of New Hope, Petitioner 5.3 Case 97-27 Consideration of Ordinance No. 98-05, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Modifying the Regulations Applicable to Accessory Buildings and Garages in Residential Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner 6. COMMITTEE REPORTS 6.1 Report of Design & Review Committee Next Meeting: May 14 at 8 a.m. 6.2 Report of Codes & Standards Committee - Next Meeting: May 20 at 7 a.m. 6.3 Report of Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - June 11 at 5:00 p.m. 7. OLD BUSINESS 7~ 1 Miscellaneous Issues 8. NEW BUSINESS 8.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of April 7, 1998. 8.2 Review of City Council Minutes of March 23 and April 13, 1998. 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 invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if .a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. Al If the Planning' Commission recommends that the City'Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 97-32 Request: Request for Rezoning 7300 Bass Lake Road from B-3, Auto Oriented Business, and 7332 Bass Lake Road from R-O, Residential Office, to R-3, Medium Density, Zoning District, Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development Concept Stage Approval to Allow Townhouse Development, Variances to PUD Setback Requirements, Building Length, and Private Roadway Width, Site/Building Plan Review/Approval, and Preliminary Plat Approval of PPL Addition Location: 7300 - 7332 Bass Lake Road PID Nos.: #05-118-21-31-0007, fK)5-118-21-31-0101, #05-118-21-31-0102, ~:)5-118-21-31-0103, #05-118-21-31-0104, #05-118-21-31-0105, #05-118-21-31-0106, #05-118-21-30-0107, #05-118-21-31-0108, #O5-118-21-31-0008 Zoning: R-3, Medium Density Residential, B-3, Auto Oriented, and R-O, Residential-Office, Zoning Districts Petitioner: Project for Pride in Living, Inc. .Report Date: May 1, 1998 Meeting Date: May 5, 1998 .~ BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting rezoning 7300 Bass Lake Road from B-3, Auto Oriented Business, and 7332 Bass Lake Road from R-O, Residential Office, to R-3, Medium Density, Zoning District, conditional use permit/planned unit development concept stage approval to allow a townhouse development, variances to PUD setback requirements, building length, and private roadway width, site/building plan review/approval, and preliminary plat approval of PPL Addition, pursuant to Sections 4.19, 4.21, 4.22, 4.24, 4.039A, and 13.01 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. Project for Pride in Living, Inc. (PPL) has submitted development applications for the redevelopment of a block between Pennsylvania and Nevada Avenues. This block currently consists of eight four-plex residential buildings, a non-conforming gas station, and a non-conforming office building. 3. Per the Planner's report, the current land uses have created, a number of problems for both the City of New Hope and the adjoining Crystal neighborhoods. Due to the condition and character of the land use in this block, the City of New Hope has identified these sites as priority for redevelopment in the Tactics portion of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The proposed project will serve to implement the following goals: A. Provide some much needed rehabilitation of the existing four-plex buildings through their conversion to two unit, side-by-side townhomes, with the addition of garages. B. Create three and four-bedroom townhomes which are in high demand within the northwest suburban communities. C. Eliminate the non-conforming gas station and office building along Bass Lake Road. D. The project will be an aesthetic enhancement along Bass Lake Road and will provide ongoing responsible and responsive property management through PPL. E. The redevelopment project will also provide the opportunity to correct some historic drainage problems for the site and adjoining single family lots and add significant landscaping to the site. These goals are consistent with the City's objectives for the area and its 1996 Housing Action Plan. City has made a financial commitment to assist in implementing these redevelopment efforts. City staff has been meetin~ with the PPL development team, Crystal City staff, School District 281 officials, and neighbors adjacent, to the prope .rtY since December 1997, working to resolve issues related to the site plan design and development application. 4. The PPL development application includes the following: A. A request to rezone the entire project site to R-3 Multiple Family Residential. The project site currently has three zoning districts - R-3, R-O, and B-3. The single zoning district will accommodate the proposed use and requested subdivision. B. A request for a subdivision/lot combination to combine ali 11 of the existing parcels of land within the proposed project site into a single lot and block legal description. C. A request for a conditional use permit/planned unit development concept stage approval to allow townhomes per Section 4.074(3) of the New Hope Zoning Code. D. Site and building plan review/approval. 5. Due to the site's size, configuration and building constraints, the site plan as it is designed is requesting the following variances from the New Hope City Code: A. Section 4.193(3)(c)requires buildings to be set back 15 feet from the curb line from private roadways and parking areas. The applicant is requesting a vadance to allow a four-foot setback between buildings and parking stalls at the north end of the site. The need for parking and site drainage requires this reduced setback. B. Section 4.193(3)(d) requires buildings to maintain a separation setback equal to one-half the sum of the height of the two adjoining buildings. The applicant is requesting two variances from this performance standard. The first variance involves the setback between the new townhomes on the north end of the site and the garages attached to the existing buildings (a 19-foot setback is required, a 17-foot setback is being requested). The second variance deals with the setback between existing buildings in the center of the project site (a 22-foot setback is required, a 20-foot setback exists). C. Section 4.193(5)(d) prohibits a townhome structure from having a length greater than eighty (80) feet without an offset of 10 feet or more. By connecting the three existing buildings on both the east .. and west side of the site with garages, the structure length becomes 205 feet long without a 10~foot offset. D. Section 4.192(9)(a) requires private roadways to have a 25-foot minimum width. The applicant is requesting a 22-foot private roadway width to allow additional landscaping and green space. E. Section 4.036(4)(h)(v) requires 90-degree parking to provide a 24-foot drive aisle width. The applicant is requesting a reduction to a 22-foot width. Parking stalls are nine feet wide, which allows adequate turning radius for cars accessing and egressing the parking stalls. 6. At this point in the development process, the applicant has not completed all of its detailed development plans. As such, the PPL project is being presented for planned unit development conceptual approval. Following the concept stage approval, PPL will be submitting more complete development stage plans which will be presented at a future Planning Commission meeting. 7. The size of the parcel is 3.8 acres and includes the following 11 properties: · Eight P,-3 properties (existing four-plex units under individual ownership, including Breckenridge group care facility, which will remain) at 7302-7316 Bass Lake Road · .100 feet of School District 281 property north of the site PC97-32 Page 2 5/1/98 · One R-O office building located at 7332 Bass Lake Road ° One B-3 auto-oriented gas station located at 7300 Bass Lake Road PPL is in the process of acquiring, but does not currently own, these properties. 8. Surrounding land uses and zoning include single family properties in Crystal on the east and west, St. Raphael Church and School (Crystal) to the south across Bass Lake Road, and District 281/Thorsen Resource Center (Crystal) to the north of the site. 9. The topography of the property is generally fiat with a poorly defined drainage pattern, with some negative impacts to the Crystal residential properties to the east and west. The proposed redevelopment will include substantial improvements to the storm drainage system. 10. The petitioner states in their cover letter that "PPL began working with City staff in the spring of .1997 to identify problem buildings and explore the possibility of redevelopment. One of the City's highest priority redevelopment areas, the eight four-plexes on the north side of Bass Lake Road between Pennsylvania and Nevada, offered a unique opportunity. On this site, the proposed project can accomplish four goals simultaneously: provide much needed rehabilitation to the four-plexes, eliminate the non-residential gas station and office building, create three and four-bedroom townhouses which are in high demand, and provide responsible and responsive property management. While the current properties have created some major problems for other neighbors and the City, there are some significant assets: the courtyard with mature trees and the adjacent Thorsen Family Resource Center. The proposed project has 34 units, 14 four-bedroom units created by renovating the current four-plexes into side-by-side duplexes and 20 new three-bedroom townhouses. Land for the townhouses is made available through demolition of the gas station and office building and through the purchase of 100 feet of the Schobl District property at Thorsen." 11. PPL has provided a narrative including a project description, history of the project, rents and property management, timeline and information about PPL, which is attached and Summarized as follows: A. Project Description The project consists of 34 rental townhomes designed for larger families with 14 four-bedroom and 20 three-bedroom units. The 14 four-bedroom units are created by renovating seven of the existing four-plexes into side-by-side duplexes; the units are 1,700 square feet with two full baths plus a full height basement and a garage. (In 10 units the garages are attached.) The four-plexes have brick exteriors and surround a courtyard with mature trees. The new townhomes will also be oriented to the courtyard. The three-bedroom, 1,200 square foot units will have 1¼ baths and attached garages. The site was noted as a high priority for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan Update. Land for the new construction includes the purchase of an unused portion of the School District land north of the existing four-plexes and adjacent to Bass Lake Road on the south the purchase and demolition of a gas station and small commercial building. The seven four-plexes to be renovated have seven different owners. There are 28 two-bedroom units in the current four-plexes. The eighth four-plex in this complex was remodeled for use as a group home for mentally ill adults, run by the nonprofit Community Care Corporation. This four-plex will remain and PPL plans to purchase rights to renovate the exterior as well as a right of first refusal if the building is to be sold. B. History of the Project As part of a strategy to look for opportunities to develop suburban rental housing, PPL visited eight cities to solicit lists of problem properties, where opportunities might exist to develop affordable housing in ways that would also solve community problems. This site was the first choice among the three dozen properties evaluated. The site offers the chance to renovate the four-plexes into PC97-32 Page 3 5/1/98 duplexes in a cost effective way. The addition of the garages provides a needed amenity an~ creates an intedor garden and play area. Demolition of the gas station and office building provide the chance to create a residential presence on Bass Lake Road as well as a rare opportunity for new construction. The additional land from the School District allows enough townhouses to be built to make the project economically feasible. In the fall of 1998, PPL presented a concept proposal to the New Hope EDA followed by a meeting for the neighbors to the site (Crystal residents) in early November. Adjacent homeowners.expressed support for the redevelopment because PPL committed to improve drainage problems from the site as well as solve the property management problems experienced from the vadous owners over the years. To meet requirements for project funding, the EDA voted approval of a Redevelopment Agreement with PPL on February 9, 1998, which makes $900,000 available plus the City's agreement to condemn properties which cannot be obtained by pdvate negotiation. C. Rents and Property Mana_~ement Rents for the 22 market rate units are set at $709 for the three-bedroom townhomes and $780 for the four-bedroom units. Heat and electricity are paid by the tenant, estimated at $81 to $101 per month..Financing from'the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency requires that. these units be occupied by families with maximum incomes of $31,600 to $35,240 (at the time they move in). Twelve units have rents which allow families to pay 30 percent of their income. The cost to develop these units, plus a 40-year rent subsidy, are proyided by the Metropolitan Housing Opportunities Program (MHOP). Eight of these units need to be offered first to residents on a Minneapolis Public Housing waiting list; the other four (and any not accepted by people on the first list) are for New Hope residents. Six of the MHOP units will be three-bedroom units and six will be fourJbedroom units. One three and one four-bedroom unit will be made handicapped accessible. All residents (market rate and MHOP) will be carefully screened: each must have a good rental history, adequate income to afford the rent and no cdminal background. PPL will prOvide an on-site management office (currently planned to be built out in the basement of one of the four-plexes) as well as an on-site caretaker. PPL also operates a Self-Sufficiency Program, which provides services for PPL residents such as counseling and social service programs, assistance with finding child care, budgeting, better employment situations and child and adult education. Amenities: · Large units (1,200 or 1,700 square feet + usable basement space) · 1.5 or 2 baths per unit · Garage and one off-street parking space per unit · Private outdoor space and common landscaped courtyard with playground equipment · Licensed child care adjacent to site · Large public playground and playing fields adjacent to site · Community education and other programs adjacent to site · On a bus line, convenient shopping D. Timeline/Budget A project budget, including redevelopment and development costs and financing, is enclosed. The project did receive approval from Hennepin County for HOME loan and funding has also been approved by the Met Council. Other funding decisions are pending, but the project is drawing favorable comments from the entire Twin Cities area. The closing is scheduled for on or before August 31, 1998,.with construction to begin one week after. Construction time is seven months. Full occupancy is planned for May 1999. PC97-32 Page 4 5/1/98 E. PPL Background Information PPL is a nonprofit community development corporation which has 26 years experience rehabilitating and building new housing. PPL has built over 860 housing units and owns and manages 350 units in the Twin Cities. PPL's property management company maintains PPL's long-term commitment to the community, providing professional services and access to support for residents who need it. PPL develOped and now manages 50,000 square feet of commercial space and operates four businesses which provide job training for hard-to-employ adults. 12. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified, including the City of Crystal. A neighborhood meeting was held on April 23 with most persons attending the meeting being favorable about the project. The owner of the Breckenridge building came in to review the plans and expressed concern about ample parking for employees in that building. ANALYSIS " REZONING 1. Per the Planner's report, the applicant is requesting that the gas station (B-3) and the office building (R-O) sites be rezoned to R-3, Medium Density Residential Zoning District. The City of New Hope uses the following criteria when evaluating the zoning request: A. Was there a mistake with the original zoning? The individual sites have been developed with land uses consistent with the existing zoning. In this light, it would be difficult to claim the current zoning was a mistake. B. Have conditions changed that warrant consideration of a change in zoning? In review of the proposed project site, staff believes that the following conditions exist that warrant a change in zoning: 1. Both gas station and office building are located on small over-utilized parcels. The sites are characterized by older buildings, large paved areas, and no green space amenity. The age and condition of each of the parcels in the redevelopment site contributes to a declining neighborhood image. In the opinion of staff, the conditions of each of the sites can be improved to a greater degree in combination with one another than if redevelopment of each site is pursued independently. 2. Both the gas station and the office building are non-conforming with regard to required setbacks and lot area. Additionally, the gas station is non-conforming in relation to the conditional use performance standards for convenience stores with gasoline related to lot area. 3. The parcels within the proposed project site currently have six curb cuts onto Bass Lake Road -- within a distance of 327 feet. This curb cut arrangement is non-conforming in relation to the number of curb cuts and setbacks between curb cuts. 2. These conditions suggest that there has been a change in the character and operation of these parcels that warrant consideration for the requested rezoning. Through a change in zoning, the City would allow for the assembly and redevelopment of the parcels comprising the project site. This redevelopment effort will improve the physical conditions of each of the sites, eliminate the existing non-conformities, improve access and circulation onto Bass Lake Road, and provide housing that responds to an identified housing need. 3. The conditions and the character of the site has changed to warrant considering a change in zoning. Staff recommends that the City approve the rezoning, but withhold formal action on the rezoning (publication) until the development stage plans are approved and PPL demonstrates ownership of all project site properties. PC97-32 Page 5 5/1/98 GENERAL PUD REQUIREMENTS 1. The purpose of a PUD is to provide for the grouping of land parcels for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel by parcel, piecemeal, sporadic and unplanned approach to development. It is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering of buildings and activities. It is further intended that PUDs are to be characterized by central management, integrated planning and architecture, joint or common use of parking, maintenance of open space and other similar facilities, and harmonious selection and efficient distribution of uses. 2. The processing steps for a PUD are intended to provide for an orderly development and progressions of the plan, with the greatest expenditure of developmental funds being made only after the City has had ample opportunity for informed decisions as to the acceptability of the various segments of the whole as the plan affects the public interest. The various steps are: (a) Application Conference. Preliminary discussions. (b) General Concept Plan. Consideration of overall concept and plan. (c) Development Sta,qe Plan. One or more detailed plans as part of the whole final plan. (d) Final Plan. The summary of the entire concept and each Development Stage Plan in an integrated complete and final plan. 3. The General Concept Plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the City showing his basic intent and the general nature of the entire development before incurring substantial cost, This Concept Plan serves as the basis for the public hearing so that theproposal may be publicly considered at an early stage. The following elements of the proposed General Concept Plan represent the immediately significant elements which the City shall review and for which a decision shall be rendered: ^. Overall Maximum PUD Density Ran.qe. B. General Location of Major Streets and Pedestrian Ways. C. General Location and Extent of Public and Common Open Space. D. General Location of Residential and Non-Residential Land Uses with Approximate Type and Intensities of Development. E. Sta.qin.q and Time Schedule of Development. F. Other Special Cdteda for Development. 4. The following exhibits, analyses and plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and Council during the PUD process, at the times specified in this Code: (1) General Concept Sta;le. (a) General Information. (i) Owner. The landowner's name, address and telephone number and his interest in the subject property. (ii) Applicant. The applicant's name, address, and telephone number if different from the landowner. (iii) Consultants. The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have contributed to the development of the PUD plan being submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer and surveyor. PC97-32 Page 6 5/1/98 (iv) Title of Applicant. Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject property to effectuate the proposed PUD. (b) Present Status of Premises and Adiacent Properties. (i) Description. The address and legal description of the subject property. (ii) Zonin.q. The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands within 500 feet of the subject property. (iii) Map. A map depicting the existing development of the subject property and all land within 500 feet thereof and showing the precise location of existing streets, property lines, easements, water mains and storm and sanitary sewers, with invert elevations on and within 100 feet of the subject property. (c) Narrative Description. A wdtten statement generally describing the proposed PUD and the market which it is intended to serve, showing its relationship to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the City. (d) Site Conditions. Where deemed necessary by the City, graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions at a scale of 100 feet shall be submitted and shall contain the following: (i) Contours - minimum two foot intervals. (ii) Location, type, and extent of tree cover. (iii) Slope analysis. ~ (iv) Location and extent of water bodies, wetlands, and streams and flood plains within three hundred feet of the subject property. (v) Significant rock outcroppings. (vi) Existing drainage patterns. (vii) Vistas and significant views. (viii) Soil conditions as they affect development. (e) Concept Drawin,q. Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept including but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements, public and common open space, residential and other land uses. (f) Number of Units. A statement of the estimated to[al number of dwelling and/or other units proposed for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and as a percent of the total project area, which shall include at least the following: (i) Area devoted to residential uses. (ii) Area devoted to residential use by building or structure or use type. (iii) Area devoted to common open space. (iv) Area devoted public open space. (v) Approximate area, and potential floor area, devoted to commercial uses. (vi) Approximate area, and potential floor area, devoted to industrial or office uses. (g) Sta,qed Development. When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond a single construction season, a schedule for the development of such stages or PC97-32 Page 7 5/1/98 units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each suc, stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space and dwelling units to be provided or constructed dudng each such stage and the overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to stage. (h) Common Areas. When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common open space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or service facilities. If it is proposed that such open space be owned and/or maintained by any entity other than a governmental authority, copies of the proposed articles of incorporation and bylaws of such entity shall be submitted dudng the development stage. (i) covenants. General intents of any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to property included in the proposed PUD. (j) Market Feasibility. Where deemed necessary, a market feasibility study including an analysis of the proposals economic impact on the City. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 1. Per the Planner's report, within an R-3 Zoning Distdct townhomes are allowed by conditional use permit provided they satisfy the requirements of Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulation of the' New Hope Zoning Code. The following paragraphs evaluate the proposed site plan against the PUD performance standards. A. Ownership. PPL is anticipated to be the single owner and manager of the complete project. Single ownership is seen as positive, to insure responsible site maintenance and management. Currently, PPL does not have total control of all the parcels within the project area. Any CUP/PUD approval shall be subject to total site acquisition. B. Comprehensive Plan. New Hope's 1976 Comprehensive Plan designates the project site for commercial and mid density residential land uses. Since then, the existing land uses have exhibited signs of site and building deterioration. The '1998 Comprehensive Plan TaCtics Summary identifies the project site as a pdodty site for redevelopment. The PPL project will accomplish the City's redevelopment objectives for the area. Additionally, the proposed housing types are consistent with the housing objectives identified in the City's 1996 Housing Action Plan and its 1997 Affordable Housing Study. C. Density. Within a PUD, the density shall be determined by standards agreed upon between the applicant and the City. Currently, the existing housing site has 32 housing units on 2.45 acres, producing a gross density of 13 units per acre. The PPL project will enlarge the total project site through acquisition of the adjoining gas station site, office building site, and a portion of the Thorsen School site to the north. The total size of the project site will be 3.84 acres. PPL proposes to convert seven of the four-plex buildings to two-unit townhomes, the eighth four-plex building will remain as the Breckenridge Group Home. PPL will also construct 20 new townhome units, resulting in a total of 35 units on the site. These efforts will result in a reduction of site density from 13 units per acre to 9.1 units per acre. The resulting density is consistent with medium density residential ranges of six to ten units per acre, and is consistent with density allowed by New Hope's PUD zoning standards. D. Utilities. The applicant has submitted a preliminary utility plan. The following utility elements are required by Ordinance: 1. All utilities including but nOt limited to telephone, electricity, gas, and cable television sha~ 9e located underground. PPL has indicated that the site plan will comply with this requirement. PC97-32 Page 8 5/1/98 2. Where the sanitary sewer exceeds 300 feet in length, provisions must be made for manholes to allow adequate cleaning and maintenance of the lateral. The utility plan provides manholes along the sanitary sewer lateral. The greatest separation between manholes is 265 feet. 3. Where more than one building is served by the same water service, shut off valves should be located in such a way that each unit's water service may be shut off individually. The utility plan shows individual water service to the new townhome units. The existing buildings have one water service line for each building. PPL is investigating the use of flow meter to divide the water usage between tenants. 4. The five hydrants shown on the utility plan will be relocated on the building side of the private drive. This location will provide easy access and use of the hydrants. E. Drainage. PPL has met with New Hope, Crystal, and lSD 281 staff in an attempt to design a storm water drainage plan that adequately resPonds to the project needs and corrects existing storm drainage problems along the rear yards of the adjoining single family homes and the school. The system laid out in the plan includes the following elements: 1. The southeast quarter of the site will drain to catch basins and storm sewer that flows to Bass Lake Road. 2. The balance of the site will drain north via storm sewer along the perimeter of internal private streets. Storm sewer inlets from the adjoining single family lots will connect to on-site catch basins in an effort to relieve some of the area's existing drainage problems. The site storm water is intended to outlet into a pond located on the School District property. In severe storm events, the pond would outlet north through storm sewers to 58"~ Avenue. The drainage plan is still in= process, pending discussion with lSD 281 who must be willing to grant easement over their property for the drainage pond and storm sewer. F. Grading Plan. To date, the City has not received a completed grading plan. The plan will be submitted with developmental/final stage plans. G. Landscape Plan. The PPL landscape plan illustrates extensive landscape plantings. Generally the landscape plan appears to be very positive. The items identified in the Planner's report will be addressed in development stage plans. H. Roadways - Private. The PPL project will be accessed via a private street that encircles the housing units at the perimeter of the site. The circulation pattern is viewed favorably for the following reasons: 1. Automobile traffic is segregated from the common open space and pedestrian paths. 2. The street design provides for proper traffic movement and maneuvering space for automobiles and large trucks. 3. The street design provides excellent sight lines for motorists using the street. 4. The private streets and parking areas will have bituminous surface. Concrete curbing is proposed along the entire private street. The applicant is requesting a variance from the PUD private street width of 25 feet. The site plan illustrates a proposed street width of 22 feet. The reduced street width is dictated by the site's size, the location of the existing buildings, and the required setbacks. The setback between the existing buildings and the side lot lines provides a physical hardship in attempting to meet both the required setbacks and Providing a 25-foot street width. At 22 feet, the private drive is the equivalent to a drive aisle in a parking lot offedng two 11-foot traffic lanes. With the reduced private street width, the following conditions will be imposed: PC97-32 Page 9 5/1/98 1. The pdvate street shall be posted "no parking-fire lane" at 50-foot intervals along the pdvate strew,. The curb will also be painted yellow designating it a fire lane. 2. The 90 degree parking stalls adjoining the private ddve shall be oversized at 9 feet by 20' feet, 8 inches. The larger parking stalls offer greater maneuvering space for cars accessing and egressing the parking stalls. I. Parking. The New Hope Zoning Code requires townhomes to provide at least one enclosed and open parking stall per unit. The site plan illustrates that each townhome will have a single car garage and a parking space in front of the garage to meet the City's Code. Additionally, nine guest parking spaces are provided on the site plan. J. Trails/Sidewalks. The site plan and landscape plan do not illustrate the proposed sidewalks throughout the project area, however, these details will be provided dudng the development stage approval. K. PUD Setback Standards. The proposed project complies with the required setbacks from the perimeter lot lines and adjoining R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. However, PPL is requesting variances from the PUD required internal setbacks, specifically: 1. The New Hope Code requires buildings to be set back 15 feet from the pdvate street and parking area. The northeastern and northwestern most townhome units are within four feet of a guest parking stall. The site plan could comply with his standard through the elimination of the parking stall, however, the need for parking suggests that the vadance may be appropriate. To protect the affected townhomes, the proposed parking stalls will be curbed to prevent automobiles from hitting the unit. Additionally, the parking stall has been located away from windows to avoid a visual impact on the homes. 2. The New Hope PUD regulations require a separation between buildings equal to one-half the sum of the height of the adjoining building. There are two areas within the site plans where the applicant has not met this required setback. The first setback vadance locations deal with the existing four- plex buildings within the center court of the proje~. These buildings have a 20-foot setback between buildings where by ordinance a 22-foot setback is required. This pre-existing condition can only be remedied through variance. 3. The second area requiring variances from this standard is the setback between the new townhomes on the north end of the site and the garage additions on the existing buildings. These locations provide a 17-foot setback where a 19-foot setback is required. The non-conforming setback has resulted from a southern shift of new townhomes to accommodate a drainage pond on the northern edge of the site. 4. The requested PUD setbacks are internal setbacks that will not impact adjoining properties. The variances are a result of the existing site constraints unique to the site in regards to the following items: a. Redevelopment of existing building. The location, size and configuration of these buildings establishes a physical constraint that must be integrated into the site design. b. The site configuration is limited due to existing property ownership patterns preventing the site from being enlarged. c. Existing drainage issues relating to this site and adjoining properties dictate a drainage solution that encumbers this property and complicates the site design. It is staff's opinion that this redevelopment project is unique and the constraints of the site present physical hardships that warrant approval of these requested variances. PC97-32 Page 10 5/~I/98 L. Building Issues. In review of the building design, the following issues were identified and must be addressed in the subsequent development stage submissions: 1. The New Hope Zoning Code limits the building length of townhomes by 80 feet without an offset of 10 feet. In redeveloping the existing buildings and attached garages, the townhomes on the east and west side of the site have a length of 205 feet without an offset of 10 feet or more. The provision of garage spaces for each of the units is perceived as being an important amenity for the site. The retrofitting of the existing buildings with garages cannot be done without variances due to the location and proximity of the building on the site. 2. The other building issues identified in he Planner's report will be addressed with development stage approval. 2. The City Engineer has reviewed the concept stage plans and his comments, along with photos of the site and drawings regarding drainage issues, are attached. Please review the comments and drawings. 3. It is staffs opinion that ample information has been submitted for PUD concept stage approval and staff endorses the proposed land uses and are very supportive of the general site layout. Concept stage approval is contingent upon the submission of the appropriate development stage plans. SUBDIVISION 1. Per the Planner's report, currently the project site consists of 11 parcels of land which PPL is proposing to consolidate into a single lot and block legal description. The lot consolidation will clean up the legal description, simplify property taxes and result in single ownership of the site. ^. Lot Area. Review of the requested subdivision reveals that the proposed lot will be 3.84 acres in area, and 327 feet in width. The site exceeds the lot size standards of the R-3 Zoning District. B. Setbacks. The proposed site plan illustrates that all buildings comply with the required R-3 setbacks from the perimeter lot lines. Variances have been requested for a number of internal setbacks. C. County Approvals. The site fronts on Bass Lake Road (County Road 10). As a County road, Hennepin County must approve the access location and any right-of-way dedication for Bass Lake Road. D. Easements. The proposed subdivision must provide utility and drainage easements of 10 feet wide, centered on rear or other lot line. In addition to the lot line easements, the applicant must provide easements of the proper size and location covering any public utility and may be within the site and proposed drainage areas. 2. As per routine policy, the plat was submitted to the City Department Heads, the City Attorney, City Engineer, utility companies, and Hennepin County for review and comment. 3. The City Engineer reviewed the preliminary plat and has indicated that once final development plans are completed, the appropriate drainage and utility easements must be provided over all public storm sewer that is collecting drainage from other properties. 4. The City Attorney reviewed the preliminary plat and made the following comments: A. The owners of the land to be platted are not listed. B. The legal description of the real estate to be included in the plat is not listed. The legal description must also be illustrated by the plat drawing. C. Based upon the preliminary plat, but without the confirmation possible with legal descriptions, it appears the plat includes some land which is zoned R-O, R-3, and B-3. ' D. Certain information required for preliminary plat by City Ordinance Sections 13.041(3) and (4) is missing. PC97-32 Page 11 5/1/98 E. Title evidence showing ownership of the real estate included in the plat will be necessary before th= final plat can beal3pmved. 5. Hennepin County reviewed the plat and made the following comments: A. The developer should dedicate a consistent seven feet of additional right-of-way to total 40 feet from the centerline of CSAH 10. The 10-foot drainage and utility easement should be identified for trail purposes also. These actions will accommodate any future roadway upgrading and pedestrian/bicycle · . paths. B. Access should be limited to one entrance near the westerly property line. All other approaches must be removed upon redevelopment. C. All proposed construction within county right-of-way requires an approved Hennepin County permit " pdor to beginning construction. This includes but is not limited to access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. D. The developer must restore all areas, within the county right-of-way, disturbed during construction. 6. Minnegasco was the only utility company that responded and wants an existing easement that they have referred to on the final plat (see attached correspondence). 7. Staff are recommending approval of the subdivision as a preliminary plat subject to the condition that the above items are addressed, and recommend consideration of final plat in conjunction with the development stage review. RECOMMENDATION ~ Staff recommends approval of the concept stage PUD/CUP, variances, rezoning, site and building plan review and preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. PPL acquire ownership of all properties. 2. Submission of development/final stage plans that address all issues outlined by Planning Consultant, Building Official and City Engineer. 3. Drainage issues be resolved, per City Engineer's comments. 4. Preliminary plat be revised to incorporate all recommendations and final plat be submitted with development stage plans. Attachments: Address/Zoning/Topo Map 4/21 City Attorney Correspondence 4/10 PPL Correspondence 4/28 Hennepin County Correspondence Development Application 4/14 Minnegasco Correspondence 4/30 Planner's Report Application Log Site Plan 4/30 City Engineer Correspondence & Photos Zoning Map Survey Site Plan/Notes Concept Utility Plan Concept Drainage Plan Landscape Plan Building Elevations/Floor Plans 4/24 PPL Correspondence Preliminary Plat PC97-32 Page 12 5/1/98 N. ~'H AVE N. i !~: I E~ AVE'. AVE H" AVE. N O-OVERDALIr AVE ROlO ! t ---. I & ST, RAPHEL ~ ~ CATHOLIC - ~ ~" I ELM ~ CHURCH .... AvE N ~! ~.~,~+:~ 1~ .... BROOKLYN PARK ; LAKE '~ x e7~.7 ROAD x 87L(, April [0. [998 Bill Sonsin, Chair Members or'the Planning Commission City Council Members City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, ~ RE: Bass Lake Townhomes -- Development Application Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council Members: Project for Pride in Living is very pleased to submit a Development Application for this project. Included is a request to rezone two of the three parcels within the site. zoning variances to accommodate the proposed construction, subdivision approval, and a conditional use permit for this Planned Unit Developmem. PPL began working with City staff ia the spring o~' 1997 to identify problem buildings and explore the possibili~ of redevelopment. One of the City's highest priority redevelopment are~, the eight t'out-plexes on the north side of Bass Lake Road between Pennsylvania and Nevada. offered a unique opportunity. Oa this site, the proposed project can accomplish four goals simultaneously: provide much needed rehabilitation to the fout-plexes, eliminate the non- residential gas station and o~ce building, create three and four bedroom townhouses which are in high demand, and provide responsible and responsive property management. While the current properties have created some maior problems for other neighbors and the city, there are some significant .assets: the courtyard with mature trees and ..'he adjacent Thorsen Family Resource Center. The proposed project has 34 units. [4 four-bedroom units created by renovating the current four-pie×es into side duplexes and twenty new three-bedroom townhouses. Land for the townhouses is made available :hrou~_i~ demolition of the gas station and office building and through the purchase or' [00 feet of the School District at Thorsen. The City's commitment of $900,000 has been extremely helpful in obtaining the balance of the .financing. The attached narrative provides information on project plans, history and financing. On beh.~lf of :he PPL Development Team working on d~is project. [ want to express our appreciation or' ~ ~.,r -~ ii or' d~em h~ ~ been supportive, helpful. I"orthcommg. kno~ led_~eable and a pleasure to work ~ ich. ~,~, ~ !,_,~.,~ :"~r~ ard to discussin$ this prOJect ~ ith ~ou. ',C_.../ / E.',~:f(m~ e Director Dan Donal~ue. Cit.', Give me a fist~ and I eat for a clay; teact~ me to fisl~ and I eat for a lifetime. 9 BASS LAKE TOWNHOMES DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ~oject for Pride in Living proposes to redevelop the block between Pennsylvania and Nevada on Bus Lake Road. The project cormsu of thirty-four rental towahomes designed for larger families with tom-teen four-bedroom and twenty three-bedroom units. The founeea four-bedroom ~ are created by renov~ seven of rite existing fourplexes into side-by-side duplexes; fl~e ~ are 1700 ~uare fes~ wi~ two fifll balks ph~ afull height basement and a garage. (In ten units the garases are attached). The fourplex~ have brick exteriors and surround a courtyard with mature t~ees. The new townhomes will also be oriented to the courtyard. The three-bedroom, 1200 square foot units will hive one l/2 beths and attached garages. This site wu noted u a high priority t'or redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan Update. Land t'or the new construction includes the purchase ~ta~ umJMd portion of'tM school distric~ land north of the existing four-plexes and, adjacent to Bass Lake Road on the south, the purchase and demolition ot'a problem IPs stolon and small commercial Imiklin~.. The seven f.ourplexeS:co be renovated have seven different owners and troubled property man~; the complex has the distinction off having the hi~l~sl numb~ of police calls to a New Hope residential address, There are 28 two-bedroom units in the current fourplexes. The el~ fourplex in ~ complex was remodeled f.or use u a ~roup home for men~ll¥ ill adults, run by the nonprofit Community Care Corporation. This fourplex will remain and PPL pla~ to purchase rights to renovaIe the exterior as well as a right of first refusal it'the building is to be sold. History of tke Peejed Proect for Pride in Living is a'nonprofit community developmem corporation, now in its 26th year of' opera~ing housinff, commercial development, employment and job training prol!rams. As part of a stratei37 to look for opportunities to develop subui'ban rental housing, PPL visited eight c:ties to solicit iisls of problem properties, where opportunities might exist to develop affordable housin8 in wsys that would also solve cornrnunity problems. This site wu the first choice among the three dozen properties evaluated. The site offers the chance to renovate the problem fourplexes into duplexes in a cost eff'ectt~ e way The addition of the garages provides a needed amenity and creates an interior garden anc[ play area which is separated from all car traffic and very safe for children. Demolition of the gas station and office building provide the chance to create a residential presence on Bass Lake Road as well as a rare opportunity for new construction. The additional land from the School Dis:nc: allows enough townhouses to be built to make the project economically feasible. Page l of 4 10 tn the fidl of 1998, Pl)L presented a concept proposal to the New Hope Economic Authority, t'ollowed by a moetinj of the neishbers to the site (Crystal residents) in uriy'November. Adjacent homeowners exixused support t'or the redevelopment because PPL committed to improve drainage problems from the site as well as solve the property management problem, experienced ~om the various owners over the yeats. To meet requirements for project Rmdin8, the EDA voted approval of a Redevelopment A81'eement with PPL on February 9, 1998 which makes S900,000 available plus the City's. asreement to condemn properties which cannot be obtained by private nego~on. Rents for the 22 market rate un~ts ate set at $709 for the three bedroom townbomes and $780 for the four bedroom units. Heat and electricity are paid by the tenant, estimated at'Ss! to $ !01 per montit F'mancin~ ~tom the Minnesota Eousm8 Finance ASency requires that these units be occupied by ~nih'es with ~ incomes of' S31,600 to S3:5,240 (at the thne they move in). 12 units have rents which allow families to pay 30% of'their income. The cost to develop.these units, plus & forty year rent subsidy, ate provided by the Metropolitan l-[ousin$ Opportunities Prosram (MI-lOP). F, isht of these units need to be offered first to residents on a Minneapolis Public Housin8 waitinj list; the other tour (and any not accepted by people on the first list) are t'or New Hope re,dents. Six of the M~OP units will be thee bedroom units and six will be bedroom units. One three and one tour bedroom unit will be made handicapped accessible. All residents (market rate and M~OP) will be cate~ully screened: each must have a good renta~ l~istory, adequate income to &fiord the rent and no Cl'imin~ background~ PPL will provide an on-site manasement office (currently planned to be built out in the basement of'one of'the f'ourplexes) as well as an on-site caretaker. PPL also operates a Sett'-Sufficienc~ Pro81'am, which provides support services for PPL residents such as counselin8 and socia~ ser~¢e pro81'arns, a.qsistafF, e with finding childcare, budsetin8, better employment situations and chalet adult education. ,4ateAifids " n Larp units (1,200 or 1.700 squ~e feet ~- usable basement space) a !.5 or 2 baths per unit · Crardse and one o~-street parking space per ulut · Private outdoor space and common tandsc3ped court'yard with play~'ound · Licensed child care adjacent to site · Large public pl~,y83'ound ~nd playing fields adjacent to site · Community educa~on and other pro,fa, ms adjacent to site · On a bus ilne, convertient shopping Page ~- of 4 11 Redev~t Co,ts: Total Per [~nit. Acquisition of'~as stmon, or,ce building, school ' ' land, acquisition of"excess" units, relocation 1,265,000 Sitework, including stornl sewer, demolition, 454,65~ Subtotal Redevelopment 1,954,65~ 57,490 D~ve~pment C~ts: Acquls~on of land and buildings 437,000 Construction and contingency 2, 527, 019 Design, legal, professional, development fees ~)3,284 Financing & Cart~ Charges, reserves 142,904 Subtotal Development 3,710,207 109, t24 Total Devdopment Cast ..' 5,4~4,S64 Financin[: Minne~ta Housin$ Finance A~ency first mortgqe S34,037 Minnesota Housing Finance A~ency del'erred loan 393,120' Fan'~ly Housing Fund del'erred loan 340,000 Metropolitan Housing Opportunities (MI-IoP) grant 1,335,119' Net eqttity ~'om ~e of tax credits 1,582,588 HOME Loan eom Hennepin County 400,000 City of New Hope/ED& 900,000 Total Funds " 5,484,864 A decision on the Hennepm County G-rant is scheduled tot May 12. The ~fmnesota Housing Finance A&ency (includin8 the Family Housing Fund loan) is scheduled to make lundin8 clectsion$ on Nay 28, 1998. Nationa~ Equity Fund ha~ made a preliminary commitment, with a final anticipated by Sune 22. The ¢losm$ is scheduled for on or before August 3 I, 1998, with construction to begin one week a, Rer. Construction time is seven months. Full occupancy is planned for May, 1999. Page 3 of 4 PPL is a mmllmfit community development corporation 'which ha~ 26 ye~ experience rehabilimin~ and ~ new house. PPL hu built over 860 houain~ utm and owr~ and manages 350 unit~ in the Twin Citiea. PPL's property managenent company maintains PPL's Ion6 term commitment to the community, providi~ professional services and acce~ to support for residents who need it. PPL developed andnow ~ $0,000 square feet of commercial space and operates four businesses which provide job tmni~ rot' hard-to-employ adults. ..' Developer Project for Pride in Livin6 Steve Cramer Executive Director 2'74-851 ! JeffHelmeke Dir. of Development 874-3301 Chris W'dson Project Coordinator 874-3314 Shari Ptm Ptopm7 Man. er 874..3302 Development Con.nultanl LLna Kugler Ptoje~ Man&~r 827-2189 Design ; Lunninff/Wende Bob Lunnin6 221-091 ~ Engineer BKBM loci Meier 333,~/101 Legal IDorsey & Whitney LIP Robert $ilvernmn 340-2742 Survey Lot Survey Comp~ Greg Prash 1560-3093 Page 4 of 4 REQUEST** RI:ZON~G OF PROPERTI]:S ZONED R-O AND B-3 TO Applicant requests fiat 7300 Bm Lake Road, currently zoned B-3, be rezofled to R-3. The proposed resideati~l deve~opme~ is no~ aflowed in r~ An off'er to purchase h~ been made for this prope~ but ~he owner doe~ not wi~ to en~err~ ~ off'ers coahn~ent upon finance. Theref'ore, r~ property will be purchased by PPL ~er May 1995 or ~n'oush condemn~on u outlined in the New Hope EDA/PPL l~development Applicant requests that 7332 Bass Lake Road, currently zoned 1~-O, be rezoned ~o R-3. While towrdMuse development is allowed as a conditional use in R-O districts, rezonins is required to conform to the replattin8 of'the property, which will cre~,e one tax parcel. PPL. is in negotiations to purchase this property. REI~I.~EST: CONDmONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT Applicant requests that a condition,il use permit be sranted to l:mmit the Bass Lake Townhome development as described in the attached Development Application. REQUEST: ZONING YARIA~CES The following variances of' Section 4.19 of' the New Hop~. Zonm8 Code Planned Unit Development regulations are requested in order to accommodate the proposed project. These ere made necessary by the need to redevelop this area which is constrained by the existing eight buildings and site size. This area is targeted as a hiSh priority redevelopment area in the New Hope Tactics Report (t998) and RtLfills community objectives as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan Update. Both desipi and financia~ considerations have determined the total number of' units end the ex'tent of' the new construction. Numbers refer to the attached site plan. l Applicant reque~,,,s a variance of' the 15 foot setback requi~'ement to 4 feet bet'ween perkins stalls and townhouses at these locations. The site and drainage plan, end the ~'or perkin~, require this con_~guration. 2. Applicant requests a variance of'the requirement for separation of'buildings fi.om the required 19 feet to 17 feet between the new towT~homes and the garage at'tached to e~stin8 buildifl8. This is required by the location of the existing buildings and the boundaries. 3 A. pplicant requests a variance ot'~he requirement for separation of'buildings from required 2:2 feet to the 20 ~'oot distance separating the existing buildings. 4 Applicant requests a variance ot'~he e~erior waft length fi.om 80 feet to 120 feet ~o ~he rehabilitated townhomes to have the at~ached garages. 5 Applicant requests a variance of ~he private roadWaY w~dth from :~5 feet to 2:~ t'eet ~o allow additional landscaping end open space ~' A~nsltruqu~t~&varian~'om43 t'e~tto41 _~?tfromt~fi'ontoftl~parkingst~il~o ~"'~" tlss~l~dths ~ drY. Parkin$ ~ta~s are 9 re~t ~ ~ allows ad~luate The three parcels are ~ unplatted. Applicant requests suixfivision approval for the'property identi~ed on the att~hed preliminary plat. 15 PROPERTIES INCLUDED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Status as of 4/10198 PII~ ADDRESS TYPE OWNER STATUS ZONING 05 118 21 31 0007 7300 Bass Lake Rd Gas station Murphy Oil none~ B-3 05 11821 31 O101 7302 Bass Lake Rd fourplex Scott Wheeler PA: R-3 05 11821 31 O102 7304 Bass Lake Rd fourplex CarrieSchuett ltrasmt~ R-3 05 118 21 31 O103 7306 Bass LakeRd fourplex Keith Collins PA R-3 05 11821 31 O104 7308 BassLakeRd fourplex GaryHempeck PA R-3 05 118 21 31 O105 7310 Bass LakeRd fourplex Todd Hempeck PA R-3 05 11821 31 O106 7312 ! Bass Lake Rd fourplex $ohnW.Foster PA R-3 05 11821 31 O107 7314 Bass Lake Rd group HalGaven ltragmt4 R-3 home 05 118 21 31 O108 7316 Bass Lake Rd fourplex Jason Seitz PA R-3 05 118 21 31 0008 7332 BassLakeRd officebldg Metro Express offer R-O school yard District 281 pending6 ~ Offers made by PPL not accepted; probable condemnation. : Each PA-Purchase Agreement-contains a provision requiting sellers to cooperate with all governemntal approvals as long as there is no cost to seller. 3 Offer letter signed; Purchase Agreement pending. ~ PPL intends to purchase rights to common land and to make exterior improvements; building to retain Group Home, leased to Community Care Corporation and run as Breckenridge. PPL will take an option to purchase to prevent undesirable sale.. ~ Offers have been made by PPL, no agreement to date; need for land was eliminated in earlier versions of the site plan. Purchase agreement appears likely; condemnation would be an alternative. ~ District has agreed to sale, pending public heating and subsequent Board ratification. · " SUMMARY OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING (PPL) NEW., H'OPE'.EDA make the loan. PPL rePrumsM that it has tbs .autho~ to enter into the ~ ~xl to. nnm~. EDA and the City haw the ri~ht to appr0val ~ plan~ incitu~ approvil ot- Xfne~,~tiations ~ the EDA a~rees to ind~im ~ otto odm'wise acqu~ the may inn'eue the amount of the loan. if above a ~ amount PR. will provid, tl~ EDA with copi~ of ~ payment requests ~om all finanana sources and. mp~ont ?. Monitorin[ of th~ Wojot:, Afl~ Oecapaacj, PPI. will I~ive the ~DA the rjR_bt to hlspect the properties upon 24 hours notice except m , .an eme~. PPL will x, equ~ d~at th other project l_~a_~rs: altow ?b_- EDA paRicipate ~n and receive reports ot'theii- monitorin~ .and inspection proceduret PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 30 April 1998 RE: New Hope - Project for Pride in Living: Bass Lake Townhomes FILE Noi 131.01 - 97.05 BACKGROUND Project for Pride in Living Inc. (PPL) has submitted development applications for the redevelopment of a block between Pennsylvania and Nevada Avenues. This block currently consists of eight four-plex residential buildings, a non. conforming gas station, and a non-conforming office building. The current land uses have created a number of problems for both the City of New Hope and the adjoining Crystal neighborhoods. Due to the condition and character of the land use in this block, the City of New Hope has identified these sites as priority for redevelopment in the Tactics portion of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The proposed project will serve to implement the foil.owing goals: 1. Provide some much needed rehabilitation of the existing four-plex buildings through their conversion to two unit, side-by-side townhomes. 2. Create three and four bedroom townhomes which are in high demand within the northwest suburban communities. 3. Eliminate the non-conforming gas station and office building along Bass Lake Road. 4. The project will be .an aesthetic enhancement along Bass Lake Road and will provide ongoing responsible and responsive property management through PPL. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 ~ 6 PHONE 6 I 2-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC~ WINTERNET CO'~, 5. The redevelopment project will also prOvide the opportunity to correct some historic drainage problems for the site and adjoining single family lots. These goals are consistent with the City's objectives for the area and its 1.996 Housing Action Plan. The City has made a financial commitment to assist in implementing these redevelopment efforts. City staff has been meeting with the PPL development team since December 1997, working to resolve issues related to the site plan design and development application. The PPL development application includes the following: 1. A request to rezone the entire project site to R-3, Multiple Family Residential. The project site currently has three zoning districts - R-3, R-O, and B-3. The single zoning district will accommodate the proposed use and requested subdivision. 2. A request for a subdivision/lot combination to combine all 11 of the existing parcels of land within the proposed project site into a single lot and block legal description. 3. A request for a conditional use permit/planned unit development to allow townhomes per Section 4.074 (3) of the New Hope Zoning Code.' 4. Due to site's size, configuration and building constraints, the site plan as' it is designed is requesting the following variances from the New Hope City Code: a. Section 4.193 (3) (c) requires buildings to be set back 15 feet from the curb line from private roadways and parking areas. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a four foot setback between buildings and parking stalls at the north end of the site. The need for parking and site drainage requires this reduced setback. b. Section 4.193 (3) (d) requires buildings to maintain a separation setback equal to one-half the sum of the height of the two adjoining buildings. The applicant is requesting two variances from this performance standard. The first variance involves the setback between the new townhomes on the north end of the site and the garages attached to the existing buildings (a 19 foot setback is required, a 17 foot setback is being requested.) The second variance deals with the setback between existing buildings in the center of the project site (a 22 foot setback is required, a 20 setback exists.) c. Section 4.193 (5) (d) prohibits a townhome structure from having a length greater than eighty (80) feet without an offset of 10 feet or more. By connecting the three existing buildings on both the east and west side of the site with garages, the structure length becomes 205 feet long without a 10 foot offset. ' Page 2 d. Section 4.172 (11) requires private roadways to have a 25 foot minimum width. The applicant is requesting a 22 foot private roadway width to allow additional landscaping and green space. f. Section 4.036 (4) (h) (v) requires 90 degree parking to provide a 24 foot drive aisle width. The applicant is requesting a reduction to a 22 foot width. Parking stalls are nine feet wide, which allows adequate turning radius for cars accessing and egressing the parking stalls. At this point in the development process, the applicant has not completed all of its detailed development plans. As such the .PPL project is being presented for planned unit development conceptual approval. Following the concept stage approval, PPL will be submitting more complete development stage plans which will be presented at next month's Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION' The proposed redevelopment project will go a long way in improving a substandard site within the City of New Hope. PPL has not progressed to final development' plans. As such, only conceptual review has been done. Based on the information provided, we offer the following recommendations: '~= Rezoning. The conditions and the character of the site has changed to warrant considering a change in zoning. We would recommend that the City give the applicant direction on the acceptability of the rezoning but withhold action on the rezoning until the development stage plans are approved.and PPL demonstrates ownership of all project site properties. Subdivision. Based on the information presented, the City may approve the subdivision as a preliminary plat and consider final plat in conjunction with the development stage review. Any approval of the Preliminary plan should be subject to the following conditions: 1. PPL acquire ownership of all the properties in the project site. 2. Proper drainage and utility easements are dedicated. The size and location of needed easements shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. 3. Hennepin County approval of the Bass Lake Road right-of-way dedication and access points. Page 3 Conditional Use Permit/PUD. The New Hope Zoning Ordinance divides the PUD review into three stage~: general concept, development stage, and final plan. Based on the information received to date, only general concept consideration is appropriate. In review of the submitted plans, we would endorse the proposed land uses and are supportive of the general site layout. Approval of the general concept plan will.be contingent that the submission of detailed plans for development stage review that addresses the various design issues outlined in the body of this report. Variance. The Proposed site presents a number of physical constraints that complicate its redevelopment and full compliance with City Code. PPL has requested a number of variances related to building size, setbacks and private roadway width. In examining the need for these variances, we find that the site configuration, the existing building locations, and setbacks, and area drainage issues present physical hardships unique to this site warrant consideration of the variance requests on conjunction with submitted concept plans. City staff would recommend approval of the requested variances in conjunction with the concept plan approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission to detailed development stage plans that address the design issues outlined in the body of this report. ISSUES ANALYSIS ? Property Ownership. The applicant has provided a list of properties involved in the proposed project. The applicant's list indicates that they do not' have total control of the parcels comprising the project site at the time of these applications. In recognition of the circumstances, as well as the need to move this project through the review process, we recommend that any conceptual approvals suggested in this report shall be contingent on PPL's successful acquisition of the entire project site. Rezoning. The applicant is requesting that the gas station (B-3) and the office building (R-O) sites be rezoned to R-3, Medium Density Residential District. The City of New Hope uses the following criteria when evaluating the zoning request: Was there a mistake with the original zoning? . The individual sites have been developed with land uses consistent with the existing zoning. In this light, it would be difficult to claim the current zoning was a mistake. Have conditions changed that warrant consideration of a change in zoning? In review of the proposed project site, staff believes that the following conditions exist that warrant a change in zoning: Page 4 1. Both gas station and office building are located on small over-utilized parcels. The sites are characterized by older buildings, large paved areas, and no green space amenity. The age and condition of each of the parcels in the redevelopment site contributes to a declining neighborhood image.-' In the opinion ,of staff, the conditions of each of the sites can be improved to a greater degree in combination with one another than if redevelopment of each site is pursued independently. 2. Both the gas station and the office building are non-conforming with regard to required setbacks and lot area. Additionally, the gas station is non-conforming in relation to the conditional use performance standards for convenience stores with gasoline related to lot area. 3, The parcels within the proposed project site currently have six curb cuts onto Bass Lake Road within a distance of 327 feet. This curb cut arrangement is non- conforming in relation to the number of curb cuts and setbacks between curb cuts. These conditions suggest that there has been a change in the character and operation of these parcels that warrant consideration for the requested rezoning. Through a change in zoning, the City would allow for the assembly and redevelopment of the parcels comprising the project site. This redevelopment effort will imProve the physical conditions of each of the sites, eliminate the existing non-conformities, improve access and circulation onto Bass Lake Road, and provide housing that responds to an identified housing deed. Subdivision. Currently, the project site consists of 11 parcels of land which PPL is proposing to consolidate into a single lot and block legal description. The lot consolidation will clean up the legal description, simplify property taxes and result in single ownership of the site. Each of the objectives is endorsed by th~ City staff. Lot Area. Review of the requested subdivision reveals that the proposed lot will be 3.84 acres in area, and 327 feet in width. The site exceeds the lot size standards of the R-3 Zoning District. Setbacks. The proposed site plan illustrates that all buildings comply with the required R-3 setbacks from the perimeter lot linesl Variances have been requested for a number of internal setbacks. County Approvals. The site fronts on Bass Lake Road (County Road 10). As a County road, Hennepin County must approve the access location and any right-of- way dedication for Bass Lake Road. Easements. The proposed subdivision must provide utility and drainage easements of 10 feet wide, centered on rear or other lot line. In addition to the lot line easements, the applicant must provide easements of the proper size and Page 5 location covering any public utility and may be within the site and proposed drainage areas, Conditional Use Permit. Within an R-3 Zoning District, townhomes are allowed by conditional use permit provided they satisfy the requirements of Section 4.19, Planned Unit Development (PUD) of the New Hope Zoning Code. The following paragraphs evaluate the proposed site plan against the PUD performance standards. Ownership. PPL is anticipated to be the single owner and manager of the complete project. Single ownership is seen as a positive, to insure responsible site maintenance and management. Currently, PPL does not have total control of all the parcels within the project area. Any CUP/PUD approval shall be subject to total site acquisition. · Comprehensive Plan. New Hope's 1976 Comprehensive Plan designates the project site for commercial and mid density residential land uses. Since then, the existing land uses have exhibited signs of site and building deterioration. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan Tactics Summary identifies the project site as a priority site for redevelopment. The PPL project'will accomplish the City'{ redevelopment objectives for the area..Additionally, the proposed housing types are consistent with the housing Objectives identified in the City's 1996 Housing Action Plan an'd its 1997 Affordable Housing Study. Density. Within a PUD, the density shall be determined by standards agreed upon between the applicant and the City. Curreptly, the existing housing site has 32 housing units on 2.45 acres, producing a gross density of 13 units per acre. The PPL project will enlarge the total project site through acquisition of the adjoining gas station site, office building site, and a portion of the ThOrson School site to the north. The total size of the project site will be 3.84 acres. PPL proposes to convert seven of the four-plex buildings to two-unit townhomes, the eighth four-plex building will remain as the Breckridge Group Home, PPL will also construct 20 new townhome units, resulting in a total of 35 units on the site. These efforts will result in a reduction of site density from 13 units per acre to 9.1 units per acre. The resulting density is consistent with medium density residential ranges of six to ten units per acre, and is consistent with density allowed by New Hope's PUD zoning standards. Reviewing this density in the context of the overall site plan, staff would recommend that the requested density be approved as part of the PUD consideration. Page 6 Utilitle~_ The applicant has submitted a preliminary utility plan. This plan shall be subject to~ the review and comments of the City Engineer. The following utility elements are required by Ordinance: 1. All utilities including but not limited to telephone, electricity, gas, and cable television shall be located underground. PPL has indicated that the site plan will comply with this requirement. 2. Where the sanitary sewer exceeds 300 feet in length, provisions must be made for manholes to allow adequate cleaning and maintenance of the lateral. The utility plan provides manholes along the sanitary sewer lateral. The greatest separation between manholes is 265 feet. 3. VVhere more than one building is served by the same water service, shut off valves should be located in such a way that each units water service may be shut off individual. The utility plan shows individual water services to the new townhome units. The existing buildings have one water service tine for each building. PPL is investigating the use of flow meter to divide the water usage between tenants. 4. The five hydrants shown on the utility plan will be relocated on the bui'rding side of the private drive. This location will provide easy access and use of the hydrants. The hydrant locations must be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Inspector. Drainage. PPL has met with New Hope, Crystal, and lSD 281 staff in an attempt to design a storm water drainage plan that adequately responds to the project needs and corrects existing storm drainage problems along the rear yards of the adjoining single family homes and the school. The system laid out in' the plan includes the following elements: 1. The southeast quarter of the site will drain to catch basins and storm sewer that flows to Bass Lake Road. 2. The balance of the site will drain north via storm sewer along the perimeter of internal private streets. Storm sewer inlets from the adjoining single family lots will connect to on-site catch basins in an effort to relieve some of the area's existing drainage problems. The site storm water is intended to outlet into a pond located on the School District property. In severe storm events, the pond would outlet north through storm sewers to 58th Street. The appropriateness of this drainage plan is still unresolved pending discussion Page 7 with lSD 281 who must be willing to grant drainage easement over their property for the drainage pond and storm sewer. Gradln~ Plan. T0date, the City has not received a grading plan. This plan' is critical to the overall site layout to define drainage patterns, building locations and slopes on the site associated with sidewalk development and site landscaping. The new townhomes have tuck under garages, this building design raises issue with relatively flat topography of the site. The grading plan is required to illustrate how these buildings will be integrated into the site. Landscape-Plan. The new PPL landscape plan illustrates extensive landscape plantings are proposed. Generally the landscape plan appears to be very positive. However, the plan will be subject to review and comment of the City Forester. In review of the landscape plan, we offer the following comments: 1. The landscape plan conflicts with the written comments from Lisa Kugler in that the fence detail and perimeter site landscaping have not changed to match her description. The applicant must revise the plan to accurately reflect the proposed fence and perimeter site plantings. 2. The landscape plan and the site plan fails to illustrate the sidewalk network proposed for the site. ~ ~= 3. The landscape plan does not include a planting schedule to allow for the review of plant sizes. 4. Four trees in the southern court yard are not identified by species. 5. No grading plan has been submitted and as such we are unable to provide comments with regard to slopes, sidewalk grades, and plant locations. 6. PPL is considering an irrigation system and will obtain a price as part of the bid process. Roadways - Private. The ppL project will be accessed via a private street that encircles the housing units at the perimeter of the site. The circulation pattern is viewed favorably for the following reasons: 1. Automobile traffic is segregated from the common open space and pedestrian paths. 2. The street design provides for proper traffic movement and maneuvering space for automobiles and large trucks. Page 8 3. The street design provides excellent sight lines for motorists using the street. 4. The private streets and parking areas will have bituminous surface. Concrete curbing is proposed along the entire private street. The applicant is requesting a vadance from the PUD private street width of 25 feet. The site plan illustrates a proposed street width of 22 feet. The reduced street width is dictated by the site's size, the location of the existing buildings, and the required setbacks. The setback between the existing buildings and the side lot lines provides a physical hardship in attempting to meet both the required setbacks and providing a 25 foot street width. At 22 feet, the private drive is the equivalent to a ddve aisle in a parking lot offering two 11 foot traffic lanes. With the reduced private street width, the following conditions will be imposed: 1. The pdvate street shall be posted "no parking-fire lane" at 50 fOot intervals along the pdvate street. The curb will also be painted yellow designating it a fire lane. 2. The 90 degree parking stalls adjoining the private drive shall be oversized at 9 feet by 20 feet, 8 inches'. The larger parking stalls offer greater maneuvering space for cars accessing and egressing the parking stalls. Parking. The New Hope Zoning Code requires townhomes to provide at least one enclosed and Open parking stall per unit. The site plan illustrates that each townhome will have a single car garage and a parking space in front of the garage to meet the City's Code. Additionally, nine guest parking spaces are provided on the site plan. PPL has eliminated the parallel parking stalls per staff recommendations and the private street will be posted "no parking-fire lane". PPL is requesting a variance from the 24 foot drive aisle width required for 90 degree parking lots. The justification for this variance is the same as the variance for private street width. Trails/Sidewalks. The site plan and landscape plan fail to illustrate the proposed sidewalks throughout the project area, This detail should be provided as a condition of approval. Based on the review of past submissions, the following issues must be addressed: 1. The past sidewalk details raised concerns with regard to residents cutting through the landscaped areas to avoid the longer circuitous routes offered by the sidewalk in the southern court yard. Page 9 2. The appliCant has altered the building plans for the new townhomes providing a doorway on the street side of the townhome. The doorways are loCated on the side of the garages. This loCation presents concerns as to segregating the pedestrian access to the doorway from the driveways. 3. PPL is investigating establishing a trail connection between the housing project and the Thorson Community Center. This improvement is being discussed with lSD 281. .. PUD Setback Standards. The proposed project complies with the required setbacks from the perimeter lot lines and adjoining R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. However, PPL is requesting variances from the PUD required internal setbacks, specifiCally: 1. The New Hope Code requires buildings to be set back 15 feet..from the private street and parking area. The northeastern and northwestern most townhome units are within four.feet of a guest parking stall. The site plan could comply with this standard through the elimination of the parking stall, however, the need for parking suggests that the variance may be appropriate. To protect the affected townhomes and the proposed parking stalls will be curbed to prevent automobile from hitting the unit. Additionally, the parking stall has been located away from Windows to avoid a visual impact on the homes. 2. The New Hope PUD regulations require a separation between buildings equal to one-half the sum of the height of the adjoining building. There are two areas within the site plans where the applicant has not met this required setback. The first setback variance locations deal with the existing four-plex buildings within the center court of the project. These buildings have a 20 foot setback between buildings where by ordinance a 22 foot setback is required. This preexisting condition can only be remedied through variance. 3. The second area requiring variances from this standard are the setback between the new townhomes 'on the north end of the site and the garage additions on the existing buildings. These locations provide a 17 foot setback where a 19 foot setback is required. The non-conforming setback has resulted from a southern shift of new townhomes to accommodate a drainage pond on the northern edge of the site. 4. The requested PUD setbacks are internal setbacks that will not impact adjoining proPerties. The variances are a result-of the existing site constraints unique to the site in regards to the following items: Page 10 a. Redevelopment of existing building. The location, size and configurat~ ;. these buildings establish a physical constraint that must be integratec the site design. b. The site configuration is limited due to existing property ownership patterns preventing the site from being enlarged. c. Existing drainage issues relating to this site and adjoining properties dictate a drainage solution that encumbers this property and complicates the site design. In total, this redevelopment project is unique and the constraints of the site present physical hardships that warrant consideration of these requested variances. Building Issues. In review of the building design, the following issues were identified must be addressed in the subsequent development stage submissions: 1. The new townhomes are three-story buildings with tuck-under garages. The appropriateness of this building design cannot be fully evaluated until a site grading plan is provided. 2. Porch, deck and court yard details must be provided with development stage Pians. 3. The site plan should indicate which townhomes will be accessible for disabled residents. 4. PPL has enlarged the garages on the olde'r buildings by two feet in length, per recommendation of the Design and Review Committee. 5. Building construction plans will be required with the development stage submissions. 6. PPL has revised the floor plan showing a doorway on the street side of the new townhomes. This raises the issue of how'the doorway will be protected from driveway traffic 7. The New Hope Zoning Ordinance limits the building length of townhomes by 80 feet without an offset of 10 feet. In redeveloping the existing buildings and attached garages, the townhomes on the east and west side of the site have a length of 205 feet without an offset of 10 feet or more. The provision of garage spaces for each of the units is perceived as being an important amenity for the site. The retrofitt, of the existing buildings with garages cannot be done without variances due to location and proximity of the building on the site. Page 11 PPL has provided a scaled building elevation of entire 205 foot building. The Planning Commission should comment on the acceptability of this variance. 8. The building elevations illustrates the exterior building finishes, City staff recommends that PPL consider using an anti-graffiti sealant on the stucco exterior finishes. Public Safety Concems. The site plan layout does not provide for easy police surveillance of the center court yard. Police patrol is complicated by the building lengths and building locations that inhibit views of the court yard and patio areas. To address these concerns, the following recommendations have been offered and must be incorporated into the subsequent development stage plans: 1. The sidewalk design be revised to provide patrol car access to the court yard at the south end of redeveloped four-plex buildings. 2. PPL must submit a site lighting plan that would serve to illuminate the sight line corridors into the court yard and between buildings. The lighting plan must illustrate illumination contours that would not negatively impact adjoining properties. Signage. PPL has provided a narrative description of its signage plan. Based on the description offered, it appears that the proposed signs will comply with the City'S'sign regulations with regard to sign area and heights. A detailed sign plan should be provided to illustrate the requested signage and proposed locations. CONCLUSION The PPL project offers a redevelopment opportunity to correct a problem site in New Hope. The development applications submitted to date offer the City review and comment in the project at concept stage. Page 12 Single Family residential ~dditional site area to be acquired I Building to remain ~. Property to be acquired Bass Lake Road I' = 150' - 0" Site Conto×t and t. ocation Map 7302 - 731 ~ Bass Lake Road EXHIBIT A ~-.-------.. " " ~ ' ' ... ir ~ C / · ' ~ ' .' R ~I0[N £ GARAGE 7 GARAG~ . . R~SI D[NCE ~. N~ TO~NNO~ ~ T~N~ · F''q GARAGE '~/~P~ ' .,, ~PA~ATION '% /: INFTLL L ,,>..</ hALL ', / ~ ~E~O~L~ ~--~ ~A~ TO~NHOME' / ",, / !'~ I (,~ ~ ~ m RESIDENCE I Z RE Sl OENCE % ' % ~ ~ ~ GARAGE ~ ~TAIL TO~NNO~ TO~NNO~ = ~ c (CO, RD, NO, 10) bA~S LAKE ROAD ~ ~ n ~Z ~ITE PLAN ~ I < ?'~* t~ > EXHIBIT D-1 SITE PL~ ~:....,' . n/ "~.:;..,~.: ~.: . · '~.-' i.':' :. '.. : ~-~ p-~--~ . ': "' · . · ,:~."~ ..' ~ ~' .'?. ..... <E ,.~.'\:t ... ?-.'.: ... ".., , NE~ ..,-, ,:' - ., EXHIBIT 0-2 SITE PLAN NOTES ~NV. r~ 870.4 RIM EL. B77.! ~NV. (L 871.4 ! I HYO. 6' GV 6' LF..aO & I ~2 6x~ '. mu ~ 878.e 1 _.. I~. ~L 869.4 ~LD I~V~ CLFAN OUT_ (T~P~C~) IdH§ INV. EL 868.4 ..... _ . E..Y.,L~ TIIN I~. EL 875.~5 EXISTING UH EXIST. WATER EXIST. WATER S~CE WET T~ EXIST. EXHIBIT E CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN ~L e?3.o , 8'7 / I ~1' ~CP · 0.3~ CB! C8! ~w (L 'e.S / ~.~ / ~, ~. / / EL 877 8 / ~ / t I 18' 1~ "~, ~L E 8745 / 5x ~ ~% ......... .......... :N~' EL B'5 EXHIBIT F CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE PLAN ,,., ..... ~1 : / ¢~2 i .12' 2~' ~CP ~, o.4x, ~ ~a.O CL 8z365 8742 INLET EL ~76.0 875.0 ,,, ' ", .---._ : I "- / - - ' ~ / ~ ; ~ / i ~ /~ I ' i T -- // :~ / ~% // , . '., t CS'~ '~"w 878.6 . "~.;-.: - ,'~:'. ,' "~ ' '" AUTUMN ~LA~7£ ASH · e, A T NO~ERN EN TRANCE ".":'~, .~'?, ;:: a'.. '" :.' ~' L . ~,~g~'...~: : .~'., ~.. ~:,1~'~;'.AT N~[~ ~R . ~ ~ALL DECK. r~. 'AUXIN ~LAZE' aSH · :: LOw ~[N C~TYA~D ~,~ ~ * LOW S~N WALL ' " (.2) 'GR~EN~' 'GREENhoRn' LIN0~N · . , . ~ ''."' ,.,..;t.,.:. ",. ~N~S ~,~ FEN~ -- 0N CL FENCE (11~ ~NLESSAT INNER'H~USTr~ nc-- ' ' '*'*' '' '.",: ' INNER PLAY 6R~A '~EEN~'IR~'~ '' . ........ .' (~ '~REENSPIRE' L~ND~N. . ,' ' ' L · 'AU~MN MARC'. ~gERRY ..~.I..~,~" ~r':t DWARF 8U~ N~EYSUCKLE HED~ AT. INN~ C~RTYA~$ ., ,,..;...'~,.,T ." ~. AT COURTYANO, T~ ,~ P~CHES ~ .~ALL 0~S, ~P. "~ ':['..' i' : , , ''.' (TSg) 'SCAN~A' '~ ''~ OWARF ~USH - ~RU8 MASS ~ .~ . ..~..:. AT FRONr PO~CH~S. T'r~ RED ' I 0R S~ALL ~C~ r EXHIBIT G LANDSCAPE PLAN I 7302-7316 BASS LAKE ._~,~ ~.. Il ........ (~ E~.Xj~TIN~ I~L~,,-NEH COUI~TYAR[~ ELEVATION EXHIBIT H BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PL I~NIT A HAN~ICA~ Iq=AN /,~%..~NIT A FLAT PLAN (~) EXlSTtNF¢ ~.L~G-NEYq C~ G ~UI~,I~ ~ FIIR~T I:J,,,(p~IR I~AN . Q ~UI~,I~ A/B ~EC, ONO I:I,.O~IR PI,AN UNIT,...,., ~ Dlt~.~T I~!..t~::~ I~I..AN Q UNIT 6 eEOONO i=L.igOIR P1.AN ~ '. ~ .-~ . :...."':.'.' .. ' :.'......... ' . · . -. : ~-.. ...? :.-.~ -.. . -: .... : ~ .. .. l' t~ UNIT C, ®ARA®E FLOOR F~LAN Development April 24, 1998 l~rk McDonald , ~,~~ City of New Hope 4401 Xylon A~nue No~h ~,nneap0t,~. New Hope; ~ 35428 ~: Resub~ssion of Plans - PPL Bass Lake Tow~omes Dear Mr. McDonald, Enclosed please find a wrkten response to each o~the items in the Apri 15 memos from the Development Renew Meeting, ~an Brixius and Randy Ku~z. Copies of the resub~tted pi~s are being sent under separate cover. We believe that we have taken your reco~endations in each area, except [n'a few instances noted in the attache~ response l'herc ~e a number of items whic~ require drawings at the level of detml needed to apply for the building permiz; we are 90 days aw~y tYom construction drawings. Howler, we ~lly intend to comply w~th all applicable building codcs and New Hope requkements. We will provide a review set of constm~ion drawings to Mr. Sandstad as soon as they are available, ~ his input can be incorporated You ~,ill note that four parking spaces Mve been elicited at tM northern end o~the site (two for drainage and two more based on your recommendations); wc have ~so eliminated one=space to create vehicle su~'eillance of the couay~d. Therefore, you will see four parking spaces on the site plan on the ~uthem edge o~the prop~y. It is our h~tent~on to t~slad~ a~td landscape noah of these spaces so they are not apparent when ddv~n~ do~n Bass Lake ~oad. This w~s d~scusscd at the landscape design meatia~ we held on Apdl 21 but not yel added lo the landscapin We will submit :his plan as soon as possible. I apologize for the delay in gettin~ the su~ey elevations so the grading plan c~ be completed review'ed by the Cky Engineers and School District. I also apologize for the delay elevation with the correct ~rade to you (I am promised it by 4/29) Unfo~Unately, this is the absolute worst time of year for su~eyors and arc~tects. We w[[I do our v~ best to has:ca both o~ these alon~ We are ~mpressed wkh the thoroughness of your rev[e~ and pleased with the improvements to projec~ which we have made b~sed on your recommendations Wc hope you will agree. Please let me know i~there is addhton~ info~Uon you n:ed Other~vise, we will look fo~'~d our presentation at the Plannh~g Commission on May 5. Thank you fro' your CC Steve Cramer Chris Wil~on Bob Lunning EXHIBIT I APPLICANT'S COMMENTS RESPONSE TO KECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE APRIL 15, 1988 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW M EETI'NG ~'~ I Final plans to be submitted for building permit will be signed by the architect or engineer as appropriate 2 Private drive will be marked as indicated, see attached signage plait 3 Other signage- see attached signage plan 4 A~ noted on the plan, site lighting will bc one halffoot candle over thc entire exterior of' the site, including the courtyard Locations and fixtures will be included in the final plans submitted for building permit review Porch, deck and courtyard detaili will be on the final plans, locations are indicated on the resubmitted plans. Two of the townhouses will be fully accessible, as noted on the resubmitted plans. Per your recommendation, the garages for the existing buildings will be lengthened by two feet. This is shown on the resubmitted site plan All utilities will be located or relocated underground 9 Fence material has been changed, per your recommendation and the neig.hbors Perimeter fencing will bc 6 foot chain link ~ith ~n ai'borvitae and juniper hedge. 10 See resubmitted site and landscaping plan tbr additional sidewalks. Sidewalks through the courtyard are viewed by PPL as play area and also a method for preserving plantings. 11 A design meeting with Close Associates was held April 21 to review these recommendations and plan a more varied and detailed landscaping plan. After input from the City Forester a revised landscaping plan will be submitted. 12 Building details will be shown on the plans submitted for the building permit. A copy of the scope of work is attached for your information This was prepared for our lenders and as the basis for our cost estimate. All construction and rehabilitaUon ,,vill meet LrBC and New Hope requirements Occupancy separations and area separations will be built to code Basements plans: in the existing buildings the basement ,.,,'ill be shared by both residents, with separated laundry and storage facilities Replacement with egress windows has not been included Smoke detectors in existing buildings will be added to meet code Existing building heating v, ill be replaced by new individual forced air furnaces. Accessible units will be in the townhouses and will include an elevator 13 Parallel parking spaces have been removed t4 .an elevation has been resubmitted Set: resubmitted site plan for surveillance lane into courtyard area No reducnon in garages for the exis6ng buildings or change of location can be accommodated wither, Enancing and. management constraints Corrected eleva.:ions are included in the resubmitted plans. New pedestrian access for the townhomes has been created, per your recommendation, as shown on ~he resubmitted s{te plan 16 Easemems will be shown preliminary pla~. to be resubmitted bY April 30 17 See separate response to Mr. Ku~z's memo. 18 Concrete curbing is included at no,hem end of~e ~ite 19 Boun~ identification will be the end of the p~imeter t~nce located on the east and we~t . · boundaries of the site 20 PPL ~11 investigate whether an ~ti-graffitti sega: can be used on stucco Other items discussed at the April 16 meeting: · Sidewalk or trail from housing to Thorsen building, school district's preliminary response is that this would have to be located at the perimeter to avoid interference with playing fields Further discussion will be held on this topic. · Garage elevations and the use of trench drains' per your recommendation and further refinement, garages for the townhouses have been redesigned to eliminate the use of trench drains.. · Basement egress windows in existing buildings: PPL avoided basement seParatio..n and egress windows to avoid use of the basement as a sleeping space, If costs permit, addition -. of basement egress windows could be reconsidered. Water re~emion area and grading plan. Os[erman School w~ cited as an example and pictures were taken to illustrate plan for neighborhood meeting held on April 23. f"P[. Resuhmtx.~ion. ?:Lee $ RESPONS£ TO ALAN B'R. IXIUS M£MO OF 1:5 APRIL. 1998 RE: SITE PLAN REVIEW · PPL has negotiated purchase agreements with all property owners except Murphy Oil. owner of the Spur station Final and complete pians to be submitted for the building permit will be uniform Landscaping and site plan have been revised. · Subdivision PPI. will contact Hennepin County by April 30 for the right-of-way dedication and access Final plat will include public easements, including utility and drainage easements on and through ?PL property and proposed easements on adjoining properties. · Utilitie~ · All utilities will be located underground New townhomcs will have individual water service Rehabilitated townhomes have one service for each existing building. PPL is investigating use of flow meters to divide usage between tenants. Hydrants will be located on the buildin~ side of'the roadway. ' ' Roadways/Parking ::= Concrete curbing around the entire private street is shown on the resubmitted plans. Thc parallel parking stalls in the northern portion have been eliminated at your request, as shown in the resubmitted site plan. Landscaping Plan The perimeter fence will be cons:rutted of 6 foot chain-link and a combination of arborvitae and juniper bush plantings. Crabapple Trees shall be at least two inch caliper trees and are illustrated on the resubmitted landscaping plan A landscaping plan with some revisions is resubmitted, additional revisions ,,,,'ill be made as the grading plan is completed The rev~scd landscaping plan includes significantly greater diversity. PPL is considering an irrigation system and xvill obtain a price as part of the bid process A stair has been added to the "W" trail in the southern portion of the site Close Associates ,*'ill set up a meeting with the City Forester. ~urther refinements to the landscaping plan are anticipated and additional discussion will be helpful PUD Yariinces The resub~t~ site plan illustrates vehicle access to su~eill the cou~yar~, adjacent to the handicapped parking space · As noted on the plan, site lighting will be one h~ffoot candle over the emile exterior of · - the site, including the courtyard Locations and fixtures ~ll be included in the final plus suborned for building permi~ review. · ~ elevation of the 205 foot building is included in the resubmitted plans RESPONSE TO API:~IL 15, 1998 5,IE5'!O FROS,] RANDY KURTZ TO DOUG SANDSTAO · All curb will be painted u,.ith yellow paint Is it possible to use colored'concrete instead, to reduce maintenance costs'~ .- Fire lane signs will be posted every 50 feet. see attached signage plan. Hydrant locations have been moved to The to~'nhouse side of the road. Proper water flow will be provided to each hydrant, as recommended. SIGNAGE PLAN FOR PPL BASS LAKE TOWNBOMES Address i,dentific~on ,o.f individual units 3 inch metal numerals, located a minimum of(5 fect above porch floor; at road and courtyard entranc¢~. Breckenrjdg~, If Breckenridge desires a site sign, one will be installed at the front door of 73 ! 4 Bass Lake Road. Sign will be engraved metal N'0 Paxking- Fire Lane Locations will be marked on final plang. Signs to ~e metal, mounted on galvanized me:al poles, located at 50 foot interv~s along the road. Signs to be located three feet from curb. _Project Si~n A wood project ~gn will be located at the east curb cut, to be ! $ inches high and 6 feet long, Sign to be. installed with the bottom 4feet above the ground. Site Office The site office will be identified with a sign, type .and location to be determined. I.atet. I--landic, appcd Park!hq The handicapped parking stall will he identified by a sign affixed to the adjacent building I I I .I I April 21, 1998 Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North '- New Hope, MN 55428 RE: PPL Addition Our File No.: 99.15047 Dear Kirk: I have examined the-proposed preliminary plat for PPL Addition and have the following comments: ": 1. The owners of the land to be platted are not listed. 2. The legal description of the real estate to be included in the plat is not listed. The legal description must also be illustrated*by the plat drawing. 3. Based upon the preliminary plat, but without the confirmation possible with legal descriptions, it appears the plat includes some land which is zoned R-O, R-3, and B-3. 4. Certain information required for preliminary plats by City Ordinance Sections 13.041 (3) and (4) is missing. 5. Title evidence showing ownership of the real estate included in the plat will be necessary before the final plat can be approved. Be sure to contact me .if you have any questions. Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha. Assistant City Attorney EASEMENT 19~.~, by andbetween Donald S B~inski Ind Ellz~t L BabJnsk~ hushed ~d vile , of the ~ =~ the law· of the St~ of Delaw~ ~d d~y au~z~ to ~ bu~ness in · e Stye of ~nne~ta, p~ of ~e s~ p~, h~ caO~ "GRA~EE". 1. ~e G~OR ~in considenfi~ of the s~ of One ~11~ ud o~ ~ ud v~u~le con~dentlon, to c~ in had p~d by the GRANTEE, Cb ~t wharf is hereby acknowle~, ~ --h~y ~t to ~e GRANTEE, su~n and assays, ~o~ver, the ~t at all fires to coat.ct, o~e, inset, m~n- c~, ~, ~t~ or ~move ~s m~ns, se~ce pi~s ud ~nces th~to, onder and ~n ~e follo~n~ des~ p~see in the Vi J l a~o of N~ Ho~ ~ of Henneo in ~d State of ~nne~i: I) The East twenty (20) re·t, ·nd .. ~,~ 2)The North twenty (20) f~e~ of all that part lying East of the Vest one hundred and slx'(106) feet, and also 3) The East twenty (20) feet of the Vest one hundred and twenty- six (I2&) feet of the North one hundred (100) feet, of th· following described tract of land; That Dirt of Lot 32 Auditors Subdivision No 226, HenneDin County, Ninnesota, described ·S follows; Beginning et the Southeast ¢orn·r of the Vest one half of said - LOt 32; thence North to a Doint one hundred (lO0) feet South the Southeast corner of the North six (6) acres of said Lot 32; - thence ~·st to a Doint on the Vest line of said Lot 32 dis:an; - ~=-' one hundred (I00) feet South from the Southwest corner of the ~or:h - six (6) acres of said Lot 32; thence South along said Vest line -" to · Doint one hundred and seventy-eight and two tenths (178.2) feet North fr~m the South llne of said Lot 32; thence East one hundred (tOO) feet; thence South to a Ddt'nS in the South line of said Lot 32 distant one hundred (100) feet East from the Southwest corner thereof; thence East to the &dins of beginning exceDt the one hundred and thirteen (113) feet of the East one hundred and six and seventy-six one hundredths (166.76) feet of the ~est two hundred end ninety-six and seventy-six one hundredths feet of said Lot 32. 3. The GRANTOR ! herein aSres ~ that the easement hereby franted shall not be altered or encroached upon either by fillinf, excevstion, emctio~ of buildin~s or psrmeseut encloacr~s which would interfere with access to faa facilities located therein ~ which would otherwise obstruct access thoro in ny mesner: provided, however, that ~er u~mtion may occupy the hminhef~e described ma but mst be locmd at a distance from the faa mann equivalent to twice the depth of the excavations made to install said utilities, except where 'crosain~ the faa main at anfAee 8vesmr than 45° and in no case shah excevetioon For other utilities he mede closer than ten (10) font From the faa mttn ex. cept at cronannfs aa hereinbefore set fo~l~ 4. In the event that fas service ia discontinued, the GRANTEE shall have the rifht, but shall not be required, to enter upon the above described promises and rumors all pipes, manns and connsc~ons which have been placed on said premises by it. 5. This instrument and the covenants and qreements herein contained shall inure to the beonfit of and be bindin~ upon the parties hereto, their personal repre- seutatives, successors and uaiSUS. ::= -' STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. a Not~ Public within and for smd County, person~ly appeared Doneld S 8abiflski Ifld El izab~th L Babinskt, hushed ~nd wife, to me known to he the ~ ~desc~bed in the tom~ing ins~t and acknowle~ that they have ex~uted ~e s~e as the i r f~ act and de~ Nota~ Henneptn County, Minnesota ~y commission expi~s Hennevin Countv .~. Aa ~.~u~d Oplmr~m.i~y ~.mployer ~/ April 28, 1998 Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave. N. New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Proposed Plat - PPL Add'n CSAH 10, NW Quadrant Nevada Avenue Section 5, Township 118, Range 21 Hennepin County Plat No. 2457 Review and Recommendations Dear Mr. McDonald: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require county review of proposed plats abutting county roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: · The developer should dedicate a consistent 7 feet of additional right of way to total 40 feet from the cemerline of C SAH 10. The 10-foot drainage and utility easement should be identified for trail" pPaUr~.ses also. These actions will accommodate any future roadway upgrading and pedestrian/bicycle · Access should be limited to one entrance near the westerly property line. All other approaches must be removed upon redevelopment. · Al.1 prpp, ose.d construction within county right of way req .u~r. es a_9. approved Hermepin County permit pnor. to ~vegmnin~ ,cons, traction. TIu'.'s- includes, but is not limite..ct to acce_ss, drainage and utility consu'uc, tion, traita_evetopment, and landscaping. Contact our Permits ~ection a~ 930-2550 for the appropnate permit t0rms. · The developer must restore all areas, within the county fight of way, disturbed during construction. Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at 930-2548. As a matter of procedure, we request that the City Clerk inform us of the City Council's action on the right of way and access provisions. Thomas D. Jgt~on, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ:DKZ:jrh cc: Pete Tulkki Dave SwensOn Dep~mlent ofPt~bllc Work~ 320 Wasi~gton Ave~e South ,~:.vc~'m'?a;~- Hopkim, Minmsota 55343-~4~6 (612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513 TI)D:(612)930-2696 Mmnegasc , A ~ ENERGY COMPANY Kirk McDonakl Director of Cemmunity Developrnent .. 4401 Xylon Avenue North' .. New HoPe, MN. 55428 RE: Preliminary Plat of PPL Addition Minnagasco easement number 64-58 Dear Mr. McDonald: .- With reference to the preliminary plat of PPL Addition, Minnegaeco currently has an easement within the plat. I have enclosed a copy of Minnagasco's easement number 64-58, recorded with the Hennapin County Recorder on October 9, 1964, in book 2462 of Deeds on page 532 as document number 3503229. Minnagaeco requests that thia easement be referred to on the final plat. Thank you for the advance notice and could you please send me a copy ~of the final plat when it is approved. Please call me at 321-5381 with any question.. , := Respectfully, MINNEGASCO Right-of-Way Administrator pc: Lot Surveys Company, Inc. West Linden Avenue Box [ [G5 Minneapolis. MN :;3440-1165 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 6/6/98 8/5198 97-32 Project for Pride in Living Inc. 4/7198 2516 Chicago Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55404 874-8511 Attn: Steve Cramer Exec. Director Lisa Kugler 4737 Garfield Avenue S. Minneapolis, MN 55409 827-2189 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 pedod 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 dare'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. Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, RE. · Joseph C. Anderiil<, RE. · Marvin L. Sorvala, RE. Richard E. Turner, RE. · Glenn R. Cook, RE. - Robert G. Schunicht, RE. Rosene Robert V~'. Rosene, RE. and Susan M. Senior Consultants Michael T. Rautmann, FtE.· Ted K.Field, RE. · Kenneth JR Anderson, Sidney IR W'illiamson, RE., L.S. · Robert E Kotsmith Offices: St. Paul, Rochester, ~/illmar and St. Cloud, MN Engineers & Architects MEMO TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Mark Hanson SUBJECT: PPL- Bass Lake Road PUD - Concept Review Our File No. 34- Gen E97-30 DATE: April 30, 1998 DISCUSSION: The above development provides for redeveloping the property at 7302-7316 Bass Lake Road. In addition the two properties on Bass Lake Road (gas station and office building) and a portion of Robinsdale School district property to the north (Thorsen School - open area) are proposed to be acquired and included in the project. Photos of the existing site and adjacent properties are attached. The attached drawings represent the following: · Existing site and adjacent properties · Proposed development and adjacent properties (storm water retention area is conceptual and has not been approved by school district) From an engineering standpoint the following must be considered in approving the concept for the PPL Development proposal as it relates to storm water runoff and site grading: · The existing storm water runoff from the site impacts the adjacent reSidential properties to the east and west in Crystal. The existing 33" diameter storm sewer in Bass Lake Road which accepts storm water runoff from this site does not have additional capacity for storm water runoff from this site. The storm water runoff from the existing site which drains onto the residential properties in Crystal and open space to the north is intended to drain north. However due to the flat grades the storm water runoff from these areas is somewhat land locked and does not drain. The goal to improve storm water runoff for this development is the following: --Maintain the existing storm water runoff (not increase) to Bass Lake Road. --Improve storm water runoff to the north by constructing storm sewer pipe (to improve grades) for the properties in Crystal and driveways serving this development. --Provide storm water retention on the remaining open space on the school property or a portion of this property due to the limited capacity of the 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 [] 612-636-4600 · Fax: 612-636-1311 existing storm sewer in Thorsen School property and in 58th Avenue to the north. · The elevations of the existing site are higher than the adjacent properties in Crystal. The site grading due to the addition of storm sewer will allow the existing driveways to be regraded and blend into the existing properties in Crystal somewhat better than they do today. The site grading for the proposed north buildings on the school property, storm water retention area, and remaining open space has not been resolved. The engineer's for the developer, school district, Crystal, and New Hope are to meet and develop an acceptable plan to be further reviewed. The goal of this site grading for the open space and along the properties in Crystal is the following: --Improve the elevation difference between the existing driveways and residential properties in Crystal. Contain all storm water runoff from driveways by use of curbs and storm sewers. --Grade a depressed area to direct all storm water runoff to an acceptable place such that storm water can be retained until capacity is available in downstream storm sewers. --Regrade and maximize the use of the remaining open space on Thorsen School property encumbered by storm water retention and new development. CONCLUSION: The engineering details as it relates to improvements for storm water runoff and site grading have not been finalized. The storm water improvements will provide benefit for the residents in Crystal and the remaining open area on 'rhorsen School property. However a reduced open space on the school property and additional development including storm water retention may not offset the benefits gained by regrading and storm sewer improvements. Improvements on both sides of the common property line with this development can only happen with the cooperation of the Crystal residents and school district. The existing six accesses onto Bass Lake Road serving three different land uses will be reduced to two accesses which will be the benefit to users of Bass Lake Road and Hennepin County. The sanitary sewer and water service for supply / fire protection will be upgraded in accordance with today's standards. o E~ o West Drive Looking North East Drive Looking South North Drive Looking East East Drive Looking North West Drive to Bass Lake Road Looking South Bass Lake Road Looking West from East Drive Crystal Residence's Backyard West Side Courtyard Area Open Area between buildings for proposed garages North Property Line East North Property Line Looking West West Corner. Retaining Wall Difference. Thorsen School Open Space Looking South East from Parking Lot Thorsen School Open Space Looking South from Parking Lot Thorsen School Open Space Looking South West from Parking Lot CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 98-07 Request: Discussion Regarding Certificate of Survey Requirement Location: City-Wide PID No.: Zoning: R-l, Single Family Residential Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: May 1, 1998 Meeting Date: May 5, 1998 SUMMARY 1. At the March 2 Planning Commission meeting, there was discussion by several Commissioners regarding .imposing a requirement on single family homeowners to have a certificate of survey completed on their property for housing expansion projects, As you are aware, the City Code does not currently require this and for many years the City has accepted a signed "site plan declaration" instead . of requiring a survey. City staff requested that this. issue be discussed by the Codes & Standards Committee before any action be taken. The Building Official prepared some comments on this issue to initiate the discussion and he has prepared the attached memo and graphics. 2. The Codes & Standards Committee discussed this issue at the March 20 meeting and directed staff to get input from the City Manager and City Council to determine if there was support to require certified surveys for residential expansions prior to pursuing this issue further. The City Manager has indicated he does not believe the Council would support imposing this requirement on R-1 property owners, therefore, staff recommends that this issue not be pursued. 3. The Committee again briefly reviewed this issue at its April 22 meeting and was in agreement with staff's recommendation. The chair of the Committee requested that this matter be placed on the May Planning Commission agenda to that the full Commission could consider this recommendation. 4. The recommendation from the Codes & Standards Committee and staff is that a code amendment not be pursued to require certified "as built" surveys for single family home expansions, as it is doubtful that such an amendment would be supported by the Council and the current "site plan declaration" process is adequate in most cases and is not as costly for homeowners. The Building Official may require an "as built" survey for residential property expansions if he identifies the need for one, and "as built" surveys are already required for all commercial and industrial projects. RECOMMENDATION That a code amendment not be pursued to require certified "as built" surveys for single family home expansions. Attachments: 3/20 Building Official Memo & Graphics Excerpts from 3/2 Planning Commission Minutes Conlinunlry IJevelolJlnelB! Helno TO: Kirk McDonald, Director FROM: Doug Sandstad, Building Official / Zoning Admini.~trator DATE: March 20, 1998 RE: Consideration of Requiring "As-Builf' Surveys - Plznning Comm, App8. I understand that some d!~ussions have begun on the advisability of requiring more precise documentation of real property from applicants who seek p]znning Commi*~on and Council approval through our Special Zoning Procedure procesz (code section 4.20). The challenge, always, is to balance the need for standards to ensure the protection of health, safety & welfare, without heaping undue burdens and costs upon the public. Lot surveys are the matter of specific interest, today. I have often said that the single most valuable piece of written material in our "property file;' for most New Hope properties is a lot survey. There are two di~erent types of lot surveys: · "As-built~ ( A } · '~Boundary~ or vacant land [ B ] See the attached exhibits, A-1 and B-1 to illustrate these types. The "A" type is highly valued and expensive to obtain. The "B" type is inexpensive and usually older- 1960-1970 vintage, made before construction of any building. In our 5,000 property files, we have "B" surveys on 85 % of our homes, made before construction and "A"'s on 3 %. The '~B", in a typical homeowners file, will show a pencil sketch of a home and garage made by the builder on an ink lot survey made a few months earlier. In example B-I, the land surveyor certified the accuracy of this basic data, only: · Compass north · Scale of drawing [undistorted ] · Platted easement- location, type and width · Boundary dimensions · Legal description · Dimension to center of street right-of-way · Survey Co. name / address · Surveyors personal signature, MN Registration Number · Date of survey [1960] [ preceding home building permit ] Imagine that an Acme Homes Co. employee drew a rough sketch of a house and garage on B-1 in order to apply for a building permit in 1966. It would represent the intended locati°n of a ~°me. In numerous cases, the builder constructed a different shape or sized home in a different location on the lot. in ~ the Surveyor has aH of the above, detail and much more: · Actual building sizes · Actual building setbacks to propert~ lines · Actual street curb location · Actual power pole locations and overhead elec. lines · Actual fence location · Date of survey, AFTER home building permit · Actual driveways · Large'trees · Spot elevations [sea level reference] · Actual buildings nearby on adjacent land [if close] · Actual pond or creek waterline, if any exists Clearly, A-! is the most valuable survey that shows precise building information, rather than estimated or approximate. It is no surprise that"A" surveys cost 2-4 times the amount of a "B". ' A homeowner may pay $300, or more, for a small lot as-built survey in 1998. Commercial & industrial lot surveys are similar in general types, but 3 - 20 times more expensive. Our practice has been to accept minor residential plartning commission applications in most cases with a "B" survey, as long as they took the time to verify building size and location, making corrections and signing our staznp: SITE ~ DEG'LAFIATION · O1:10WNEI~ I~EPI~ESENTATIVE AND THAT THIS ~ I$ COMPLETE AND .. [~AT~ . All of the problems with uncertainty about lot l~ne setbacks involve single & 2 family request, which represents the bulk of our 5,000 properties.. On some applicati~m~, I have required an as-built "A" survey, for good cause, under existin$ authority, in most. cases, we are effectively saving applicants $300 of an additiomd filing fee, that will add 2 - 6 weeks delay to their application. My public feedback indicates that we should relax red tape, instead of adding more barriers to the use or investment in their homes. i 116 Cent~l Ave. .~lldl~ IOm, Minn. ' CASWE ENGINEERING CO. B-1 Registered Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY " hereby certif} that this is a true and correct represer:~,."~t,,:~:~ of a survey of ~he boundaries of the !,-,nd described ra ~ t does not purpor: to show imp~ovementl on'e~croachme.-'s, if any. As sur"~yed by me this~. ~ ~_ ~J~ ,~ _ ~.~~ __, ~. CASWE~INEERING CO. ~e ~o~ /~_~_Book__ Page ...... ~nnesota ~e~strat~on ~o.~~ .... alon~_ 36th Avei~ue would cause a problem when the street is reconstructed to four lanes of traffic in the near future. This could also impact properties along 49th Avenue if that street ia converted to four lanes of traffic. Brixiua replied that after discussing the setback reductions with the City Engineer, the Engineer felt that an 80-foot right-of,way would be adequate to make those future improvements. Art 80-f0ot right-of-way is currently being utilized along Winnetka Avenue and 42nd Avenue, and would be adequate for any future improvements along other thoroughfares. Brixius stated that in areas that have not been platted, the suggested right-of-way would be 30 feet or 75 feet from the center line. CommiSSioner Svendsen reiterated that where 36th Avenue wee widened to four lanes in Crystal, the property owners abutting 36th Avenue lost a great deal of front yard area. Brixius responded that in areas currently utilizing a 50-foot front yard setback, the setback would be changed to 35 feet making a big difference in the front yard, however, at the same time, the buiidable area of the lot increases significantly. Commissione~ed that upon adoption of a reduced rear yard setb/,je~.o..r for any type o .f .'~a~ianca or improvement, that the City req~cate of survey signed I~y a registered land Surveyor in ordetl~ to~al[e~_Hny mistakes~..jj3.-m'essurements. Chairman Sonsin stat~Lthat [he'aeon the City h~s not always required a lot survey was the co~t-~ the property owner. Commissioner Svendsen felt that the cost of the survey was small in comparison to the cost of an addition to the property. Commissioner Oelkers 'agreed and stated that several surrounding communities require a survey. Oeikers questioned why the front yard setback was not reduced to 25 feet. Brixius stated that the consensus was that the front yard was used for garage/driveway access and the Codes & Standards Committee wanted to be sure that [here would be adequate visibility. Chairman Sonsin interjected that in some of the newer areas in Maple Grove and Plymouth utilizing a 25-foot front yard setback, that all of the houses are built using the same setback, which makes for a uniform appearance along the street. Due to [he fact that New Hope was fully developed and had only scattered site redevelopment opportunities, a larger setback change would [end make an uneven appearance along New Hope's streets. The Commission has always felt that the rear yard was the property owner's personal space and more lenience was given for variances in the rear yard. Oelkers stated that after reviewing the Comprehensive Plan Update that several areas slated for development or redevelopment might be better suited if a 25-foot front yard setback would be allowed, such as Pond Place. Brixius repliid that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee had not yet determined exactly what land use options woutd be appropriate. It may be possible to allow a smaller front yard setback in such a situation. Any future redevelopment resulting from the Comprehensive Plan, may require some innovation because of the size of the parcels and the cost involved. There ~ion~"~garding whether the City shouic~ requir/e/~~certified survey from P~operty owners. Mr. MclDonatd s~nditio_n requ!rin~g/a survey should not be added thi~a-m~ndment, but l:he_C~3des-~tandardS Committee and staff could research this issue and look at the past history. The City does require site' plan declaration. Commissioner Oelkers questioned whether or not a bay window wouict intrude into the setback or if it would be an exemption. Brixius Planning Commission Meeting 2 March 2, 1998 th~f glnerally setbacks are established by the exterior wall of the structure. According to the code, the definition of a setback ia 'the minimum horizontel~diatance between · building and · street or lot line, the minimum distance ie measured at ground level from the lot line to a point on the ground under the moat outwardly extended portion of the side of the structure nearest the lot line.' 8rixius added that there is a Permitted encroachment section that allows several uses. to project into thl encroachment by two feet, however, thie section does not specifically list bay windows. The City Attorney stated that his oDinion was that a bay window would be an encroachment into the setback. The fact that there wac no foundation under the bay window would not make a difference. Discussion ensued that a bay window was not at ground level, however, the definition statee that the measurement is taken from the outward portion of the structure. Commissi~n~ed whether there should be some menti~, of ~ .certified _S~l~ey included with the amendment. Mr. Sondrall poinjlf~d out that mention of a.~vey would be better suited to another sacl~~o_~d_e_.d~tin~ specifically with that issue. This code sectl~deela only with setback requirements. MOTION M~ion by'Commissioner I. andy, sec~ded by Commissioner Keefe, to Item 4.1 ckme the pulpit beefing and approve iqanning Caee g7-31, Ordinance No. 98-04, An Ordinance An~nding the New Hol~ Zoning Code by Reducing the ~ Yard Satbacl~ in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning !~ and Amending the Satba~ Regulst]er~ on Collactoz St~at~ end Thmoughf=, City of New Hol~e, Petitioner. Voting in favoc. Cameron, Keels, I. andy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Svendsen, Anderson Voting against: None Al~ent: Hemken, Kramer Motion carried. This ordinance amendment will appear on a future City Council agenda. PC96-27 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Comprehensive Plan item 4.2 Updste review. Mr. Brixiua stated that the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee had been working on this for the last six months. One of the documents completed was the Planning Inventory, which wee an accumulation of data concerning the natural environment, land use, social profile, transportation and community facilities. These are existing conditions in the community and would be the base data used in planning for the future. Brixius stated that New Hope's population 'has declined slight]¥ during .the last few years. There has been, however, an increased number of housing units with individual household size declining, due to more empty-nesters. The' population forecasts from Metropolitan Council to the year 2020 indicates an additional 278 to 484 new housing units. The 1990 Census indicated New Hope to be an aging community. SOme of the observational information that had been included in the plan update stated that New Hope was starting to repopulate as homes are sold to young families. This trend is good for the local retail community in that the young families with children generally spend their money in the communiW. Brixius stated that current land use patterns .are reflective of single Planning Commission Meeting :3 March 2, 1998 circulation problems. District 29: Strong industrial area with some outdoor storage problems. There ia a single family home in the middle of this industrial park that may offer redevelopment opportunities in the future. Mr. Brixius stated that issue identification had been accomplished in each of the Planning Districts. The next stel3 would be to prioritize the issues, due to the fact that there a great deal of redevelopment opportunities that would require a large amount of money. If an identified property was being used well, the City would not be interested in taking over the property. If the opportunity for resale arose or if the property was not being maintained and there would be a safety concern, the City may want to be proactive in the acquisition of the site. The City would need to determine when action was necessary and when it was not. Mr. McDonald interjected that some of the issues identified would be presented to the Planning Commission in the next few months. Brixius stated that the Committee had identified several goals to assist in achieving the kinds of living, working and recreations environments that are desired for the community. The policies attached to those goals are definite courses of action which would lead to' the general achievement of the plan. Brixius explained that a land use plan would be prepared next by identifying areas where a land use change should be considered. Drafting of the text follow the land use plan. The public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Update would probably take place in summer. COMMITTEE REPORTS Design &Review Commissioner Svendsen reported that the Committee was looking Item 5.1 forward to reviewing plans prior to the April Planning Commission meeting. Mr. McDonald stated that applications for April include Winnetka Center upgrade, Post Haste Center text amendment and upgrade, SuperAmerica redevelopment and Paddock Labs expansion. There may be two additional applications for April, including a CCI addition and Hardware Hank addition. McDonald stated that, according to the existing code, a day care center would not be a permitted use in a shopping center in a B-4 District, therefore, a text amendment would be required for Post Haste center. The day care may be a good way revitalize the center. The SuperAmerica development would require purchase and demolition of one or two existing buildings, and rezoning the entire site. · ' Commissioner Svendsen extended an invitation to the two new Commissioners to sit in at the Design & Review meeting before being assigned to a committee. Codes & Standards Chairman Sonsin stated that Codes & Standards would be meeting on Item 5.2 March 25 and would be revie~xt amendment for the day care operation at Post Haste~sh~r~ing center.~ McDonald stated that accessory building o~nance amendment would be ready for review the March meetingl The survey issue mentioned earlier in this meeting could be discussed ~/~he Committee. The 13t~nning Consultant was reviewing the Sign Chairman Sonsin mentioned that if any other Commissioners wanted Planning Commission Meeting 7 March 2, 1998 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 97-27 Request: Consideration of Ordinance No. 98-05, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Modifying the Regulations Applicable to Accessory Buildings and Garages in Residential Districts Location: PID No.: Zoning: R-1 Single Family, and R-2 Single and Two-Family, Zoning Districts Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: May 1, 1998 Meeting Date: May 5, 1998 BACKGROUND 1. The City of New Hope is requesting consideration of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code by modifying the regulations applicable to accessory buildings and garages in residential districts. 2. Although a public hearing notice was published to conduct a public headng on this ordinance amendment at the April 7 Planning Commission meeting, staff requested and the Commission agreed to table the public hearing until this meeting, as staff wanted to discuss minor modificatiohs to the ordinance with the Codes & Standards Committee prior to consideration by the full Commission. 3. The Codes & Standards Committee reconsidered this ordinance amendment at its April 22 meeting and the Committee and staff are now in full agreement with the ordinance. 4. The City Attorney has prepared the final draft of the ordinance, which incorporates input from the Committee, Planning Consultant and City staff. 5. The ordinance would be applicable to all residential properties in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. Mailed notice to property owners is not required for a Zoning Code amendment that would be applicable on a City-wide basis. ANALYSIS 1. This study of the current City ordinances regulating garages and accessory buildings and recommendations to modify the regulations is a result of specific direction from the City Council in the fall of 1997 for the Planning Commission to undertake a study of accessory buildings, garages and related code issues. That direction from the Council came after consideration of the Geislinger garage variance issue. 2. The study of this issue by the Codes & Standard Committee has taken place over the past six months and there are a number of reports and memos from the Planning Consultant and Building Official that are attached for your review and information. From the start of the study, it was determined that the current regulations addressing accessory buildings and garages were difficult to read and interpret. The Committee examined typical and extreme accessory building sizes, which presently exist in the City. 3. The proposed ordinance deletes the current regulations on accessory buildings and adds the following sections: Section 1. Section 4:032(3) "Accessory Buildin.qs, Uses and Equipment" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by repealing in their entirety subsections (a) "Integral Part," (b) "Rear Yard Limitations," (c) "Garage Location Limitations," (d) "Further Location Limitations," and (f) "Area Limits, Storage." Section 2, Section 4.032(3) "Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment" of the New Hope City Code. hereby amended, by adding new subsections (a) "Permitted Locations and Setbacks," (b) "Prohibited Locations," and (¢) "Permitted Sideyard Setback Variance" to read as follows: (3) Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment. An attached .qara.qe or attached accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building. Attached .qarages and attached accessory buildin.qs shall meet all required building setbacks of the applicable zoning district. Detached .qara.qes and accessory buildings must comply with the location, setback, size and area restrictions of this section. (a) Detached Structure Locations and Setbacks. Accessory garages and buildinas, both attached and detached, are permitted in side yards and rear yards. Detached structures are also subiect to the following setback conditions: (i) side yard interior 5 feet (ii) side yard abutting a street 20 feet (iii) side yard abutting a collector or arterial street 30 feet (iv) all rear yards - accessory buildings 5 feet (v) all rear yards - garages 10 feet (b) Prohibited Locations. No garage or accessory building shall be located in any front yard or a drainage and utility easement. (c) Special Side Yard Setback Variance. Notwithstanding §4.032(3)(a) of this Code, a three-foot variance into a required side yard will be permitted for construction of an accessory building or garage subject to the following conditions and §4.22 of this Code: (i) The physical constraints of the lot make the encroachment necessary to maximize indoor storage on the property which would be prevented by strict compliance with setback standards. (ii) The proposed structure will not be located in a drainage or utility easement. (iii) The City Council shall determine that the building will not negatively impact the neiahborin~ or adiacent property. (iv) The same or similar quality building material shall be used in the accessory building as in the principal building. Additionally, the exterior appearance and architectural design of the accessory building are to be similar to that of the principal building. Section 3. Sections 4.032(3)(e) "Area Limits, General," (g) "Garage and on-site Parking Space," and (h) "Limit on Numbers" are hereby renumbered Sections 4.032(3) (d), (e) and (f), respectively, and amended to read as follows: (d) Area Limits, General. Accessory building and garage area in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts shall be limited to a combined total area of 1,400 square feet. Also, no individual ¢lara~e or building structure shall exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area or exceed 15 feet in height. (e) Garage and On-Site Parking Space. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any dwelling shall be required to provide a_Qn off-site parking space for at least one automobile per dwel n.q to be housed in addition to any garage space to be used. Every dwelling unit hereafter erected shall be so located on the lot so that garage space for at least two vehicles, either attached or detached, can be located on said lot. PC97-27 Page 2 5/1/98 (f) Limit on Numbers. Ever lot in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts shall be limited to no more than two accessory buildings_, includin!:l an attached aaraae. 4. Essentially, the ordinance amendment provides · A cumulative total of 1,400 square feet for accessory building, storage and garage purposes, with the restriction that no single garage or accessory structure shall exceed 1,000 square feet. This 1,000 square foot standard corresponds with building code regulations and is the area allowed by many other cities. · The ordinance allows a three-foot encroachment into the required side yard setback for the construction of accessory buildings or garages, if certain conditions are met. · Gives more flexibility to property owners on how to utilize the square footages allowed in the ordinance and allows enough flexibility to allow expansions for three-car garages. · Maintains setback standards so that accessory buildings are not located within drainage/utility easements. 5. The Codes & Standards Committee reviewed this final draft ordinance amendment in April and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 98-05, as drafted. Attachments: Public Hearing Notice Ordinance No. 98-05 3~30~98 City Attorney Correspondence 4/16/98 Building Official Memo 3/31/98 Building Official Memo 3/27/98 Building Official Memo 2/25/98 Planner's Report 1/7/98 Building Official Memo 12/22/97 Planner's Report 11/19/97 Planner's Report 7/18/96 Planner's Report (excerpts) PC97-27 Page 3 5/1/98 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY MODIFYING THE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND GARAGES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS City of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 7th day of April, 1998, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon A,~enue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a pubJic hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code. Said ordinance will have the affect of amending §4.032(3) regulating the setback requirements in residential zoning districts for accessory buildings and garages. Specifically, said structures will be allowed in side and rear yards subject to the regulations set forth in amended §4.032(3). All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose: of being heard with respect to the zoning code amendment. Accommodations such as sign language interpreter or large printed materials are available upon request at least 5 working days in advance. Please contact the City Clerk to make arrangements (telephone 531-5117, TDD number 531-5109). Dated the 16"' day of March, 1998. si Valerie J. Leone Valerie.J. Leone City Clerk (Published in. the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 18th day of March, 1998.) ORDINANCE NO. 98-05 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY MODIFYING THE REGULATIONS ,. APPLICABLE TO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND GARAGES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.032 (3)"Accessory Buildings, Uses .and Equipment" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by repealing in their ~ entirety subsections (a)"Integral Part', (b)"Rear Yard Limitations", (c)"Garage Location Limitations", (d)"Further Location Limitations" and (f)"Ama Limits, Storage". Section 2. Section 4.032(3)"Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding new subsections (a) 'Permitted Locations and Setbacks", (b)'Prohibited Locations" and (c)'Permitted Sideyard Setback Variance"to read as follows: (3) Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment. An attached .qara.qe or attached accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building. Attached garages and attached accessory buildings shall meet all required building setbacks of the applicable zoning district. Detached garages and accessory buildings must comply with the location, setback, size and area restrictions of this section. (a) Detached Structure Locations and Setbacks. Accessory ._garages and buildinqs, both attached and detached, are permitted in side yards and rear yards. Detached structures are also subject to the following setback conditions: (i) side yard interior 5 feet (ii) side yard abutting a street 20 feet (iii) side yard abutting a collector or artedal street 30 feet (iv) all rear yards - accessory buildings 5 feet (v) all rear yards-~ara,qe 10 feet (b) Prohibited Locations. No ,qarage or accessory buildinq shall be located in any front yard or a drainage and utility easement. (c) Special Side Yard Setback Variance. Notwithstanding~.032(3)(a) of this Code, a 3 foot variance into a required side yard will be permitted for construction of an .accessory building or gara,qe subject to the followin,q conditions and,Eft.22 of this Code: The physical constraints of the lot make the encroachment necessary to maximize indoor stora,qe on the property which would be prevented by stdct compliance with setback standards. (ii) The proposed struCture will n°t be located in a drainage or utility easement. (iii) The City Council shall determine that the buildin,q will not negatively impact the neighboring or adjacent Pr0Pertv. (iv) The same or similar quality building material shall be used in the accessory building as in the principal building. Additionally, the exterior appearance and architectural design of the accessory building are to be similar to that of the principal building. Section 3. Sections 4.032(3)(e)"Area Limits, General", (g)"Garaqe and On- Site Parking Space", and (h)'Limit on Numbers" are hereby renumbered Sections~ 4.032(3) (d), (e) and (f), respectively, and amended to read as follows: (d) Area Limits, General..Hc ~.?.~_ccessory building e~ and garage area rc:~dc.".t~:l u:c: shall be limited to a-combined total area of 1,400 no individual garage or building structure shall ncr exceed ha:m~-ed 1,000 square feet of floor area or exceed 15 feet in heiqht. (e) Garaqe and On-Site Parking Space. ,."'.. ..... ~....,.,,.;* ~'"'.., ,...,. ~"~. .. ,;..........'~ ~,.,~, · '+ .... + .... ~ ..... ~' '~ .... ";"', Each applicant for a building permit to construct any dwelling shall be required to provide a_.B.n off-street parking space for at least ""'" 1 automobile per ,-.....a,. dwellinq to be housed in addition to any garage space to be used. Every dwelling unit hereafter erected shall be so located on the lot so that "* '~""+ c "'"' ~'~ ~". garage space for at least 2 vehicles, either attached or detached, can be located on said lot. (f) Limit on Numbers. Etch Every lot in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts shall be limited to no more than 2 ~ accessory garage. Section 4. Section 4.032(3)(i)".Air Conditioners", t~)"Accessory Antennas" and (k)"Pumo Island Canopy"are hereby renumbered to sections 3.032(3)(g), (h) and (i) respectively. Section 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated this ~ day of ,1998. W. Peter Enck, Mayor ATTEST: Valede Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun Post on the day of ,1998.) ComucK & So~'nmu,L, P.A. ST~e~ ~ SO~ A~O~YS AT ~W M,C~L ~. ~ E~b~ Ex~uU~ ~ce P~ L~ ~N p. ~c~ ... 8525 E~br~k Crying SHARON ~ C. ~* S~te ~203 Br~ P~k, M~e~m 55443 March 30, 1998 Kirk McDonald Director of Community Development City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Accessory Garage and Storage Building Ordinance No. 98-06 Our File No: 9~.49806 Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed a revised Ordinance No. 9805 for consideration after the close of the public hearing on this matter at the April 7, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. I have made several changes to this Ordinance in follow up to the recommendations made at the March 25, 1998 Codes and Standards meeting, a subsequent telephone conversation I had with the City Planner and the March 27, 1998 letter I received from the Building Official. Specifically, provision (3)(b) in Section 2 of the Ordinance has been modified by removing superfluous language contained in the pdor draft. However, the enclosed modification does not change the substantive meaning of this provision from its predecessor. The same kind of changes were made in provision (3)(c)(iv) in Section 2 and (d) and (e) in Section 3 of the Ordinance. Also, i deleeed Section 5 of the previous draft dealing with a proposed change to the setbeek language of the yard requirements found in Section 4.034. Alter discussion wilh the City Planner, it was determined that an amendment to this Section was not needed as previously proposed. Specifically, this Section deals with the yard requirement setbacks for the principal building which would include an attached garage. The existing language in Section 4.034 permits attached garages to be located within five feet of the side yard lot line consistent with the setback provisions of the new Section 4.032 (3)(a). Therefore, no change needs to be made to existing Section 4.034 and as a result, the amendment in the pdor draft ordinance has been removed from the revised ordinance enclosed. March 30, 1998 Page 2 Regarding Subd. 4.032(3)((]) in Section 3 of the Ordinance, the maximum size of any storage structure has been increased to 1,000 square feet. This change was requested by the Building Official. The other requested Building Official changes were made as well. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondmll slm2 Enclosure cc: Al Bdxius, City Planner Doug Sandstad, City Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk To: Kirk McDonald From: Doug Saudstad Date: April 16, 1998 Re: Accessory Buil&!ng Size Limitations Thi.~ memo elaborates upon my 1-7-98, 3-27-98 and a.ax-98 Accessory bui]rllng reports to you. The aspec~ we are focusing on, today, is maximum accessory b,~il&ing sizes. Both garages and sheds are discussed.' Exhibit WA" and ~B' show actual garages in the city, with margin notations about the potential shed size on these lots, totnllng 1,400 square feet [sf ]. Curiously, the smaller is a triple and the larger is a double garage In both instances, the owners have room to expand garage to the side [ one wants to do it thi.~ summer ] without a var/ance. A typical single car addition is 10 or 12 feet wide, due to the standard ? foot wide overhead door. Since the exis~.ing garage depths are c[rastically ~ifferent, a 12 foot full- depth conventional addition to the side would add 372 sffor WA" and 264 sf for "B'. Option "A" with addition is not permitted by city code, today, as it exceeds the 900 sf MA~ [ 1,092 sf ]. Option '~B' can be built, since it will total 884 sr. If we allowed a 1,000 sf garage, owner "A' could add a 9 foot wide addition [ 999 sf ] and "B' could add a 14 foot one [ 928 ]. E:~hibit "C' illustrates a nice-sized 528 sf d~uble garage, that could add a 20 foot addition [ 958 ], if side yard space permitted. Keep in mind a few ideas that reflect my New Hope observations and f~mili/Ix/ty with owners "wishes": · Typical buflaing construction quality and m~intenance is BEST for the ' al. welling including attached garage, IVIARGINAL for a detached garage s_nd '~POOR' for a shed. This results/rom materials, size, use, location, etc. Attached garages have much more value, as an investment. Since we encourage expansion and reinvestment, perhaps it maJces sense to encourage the BEST .type of accessory buil~ling, more garage, less POOR shed space available. Th/s deci/mng quality as you move away/rom the home is "normal". On a g/ven lot, if we bump up the max. garage size, we reduce the max. shed size. · Encourag/ng larger indiv/dual garages w/ll result in fewer detached bmlcLmgs of both types. We can dec/de to allow more than one garage, at the same time that we permit a larger one, as long as the total maximum is 1,400 sr. · TheUBC (Uniform Building Code) section 312 establishes a 1,000 sf tlueshold for garages [called '~F' Occupancies] above which construction rules are sti~ened:' we frequently try to synchronize our local codes with national standards. · Many of our homeowners understand the security and aesthetics of storing boats, motorcycles, trailers & snowmobiles indoors, but are faced with a zoning hamer, or two. Some of these face the 900 sfbarrier and some face the current one garage prohibition. · The vast majority of our problem accessory buildings are sheds. Thi.~ may result from their smallness. We may want to revisit our past practice of not requiring a builrllng permit for small sheds, up to 120 sr. Or we could exempt all sheds from a buil&ing permit, but require a fixed $25 'Storage Shed - zoning permit' fee, so that locations, at least, are correct and not within a drainage easement or 12 inches from a lot line. We could require just a site plan [or survey], with a few facts such as owner, address, proposed use, distance to nearest building, construction materi~].~- 'wood' or 'metal', 'concrete slab' or 'wood flooff' and distance from both nearby lot lines. · Permitting larger garages reduces the need for a second driveway, whether the zoning code allows it, or a variance is required. Cc: Exhibits UBC 312 file .I ~-'/ /., ., , . ,, .. '_,--," ~ ~, ~: ~ I'_,A. Ce'" I I I /(. ~, 7' ~,';,~"~:,/..' ,C,~-.,:~- 9 ~ ~DITION F-XISTING DOUBLE GAi~AGE = 720 ef If 280 ef GAP, AGE ADDED -- ~ ,0OC SCorag~ abed.could be 5uil~ -500 sf Only 400 ~f Shed ]~ '.~.. ~ ~~. ~ ~.~:~;**. . :. :. :..... ~. .., ~t_ .. ..:,~ . . ~ .... . - 12' ~DITION ~ISTING ~E G~GE ~ 620 sf If 380 sf GAUGE ~DED SCorase Shed Could be built ~ 500 sf Only 400 sf of Shed C EXISTING DOUBLE GARAGE - 528 sf Storage Shed could be built - 500 sf 21' ADDITION If ~72 sf GARAGE ADDED = [,000 sf Only ~00 sf Shed allowed 1994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 311.10.4-312.5 have two or more exits. For landing p?tforms or roof areas less than 60 feet (18 288 mm) in length, or less than 2,000 square feet ( 186 mz) in area, the second exit may be a fire escape or ladder leading to the floor below. 311.10.5 Federal Aviation Administration approval. Before operating helicopters from helis- tops, approval must be obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration. SECTION 312 - -- REQUIREMENTS FOR c. nnllr~ U OCCUPANCIES 312.1 Group U Occupancies Defin include 'buildings or struc- tures~or p_onions thereof, and.shall be' ~te ga~arports, sheds and agricultural buildings. . EXCEPTl'O'~"~l~applicable (see Section 101.3) for agricultural buildings, see Appendix Chapter 3. Division 2. Fences over 6 feet ( 1829 mm) high, tanks and towers. For occupancy separations, see Table 3-B. 312.2 Construction, Height and Allowable Area. 312.2.1 General. Buildings or parts ofbuildhlgs cla~ed a.q Group l I I3ivi~ic~l! 10ccu~.ancies be- cause of the use or character of the occupa ci~hall not exceed 1,000 square fe~t~99 m'-) in area or one story in height except as provided in Section 312.2.2. ~,L, b,.,;;d;,,~ ,.,, purt~$n thereof that ex- ceeds the limitations specified in this chapter shall be classed in the occupancy group other than Group U, Division 1 that it most nearly resembles. 312,2.2 Special area provisions. The total area of a private garage used only as a parking garage for private or pleasure-t)~p.e motor vehicles where no repair work is done or fuel dispensed may be 3,000 square feet (279 m-), provided the provisions set forth in Item 1 or 2 below are satisfied. More U, Division 1 than one 3,000-square-foot (279 m2) Group , Occupancy may be within the same building, provided each 3,000-square-foot (279.m-) area is separated by area separation walls com- plying with Section 504.6. 1. For a mixed-occupancy building, the exterior wall and opening protection for the Group U, Division 1 portion of the building shall be as required for the major occupancy of the building. For such mixed-occupancy building, the allowable floor area of the building shall be as permitted for the major occupancy contained therein. 2. For a building containing only a Group U, Division I Occupancy, the exterior wall and open- ing protection shall be as reqUired for a building classified as a Group R, Division 1 Occupancy. 312.2.3 HeadroOm clearance. Garages in connection with Group R, Division 1 Occupancies shall have an unobstructed headroom clearance of not less than 7 feet (2134 mm) above the finish floor to any ceiling, beam, pipe or similar construction except for wall-mounted shelves, storage surfaces, racks or cabinets. 312.3 Location on Property. For fire-resistive protection of exterior walls and openings, as de- termined by loca.tion on property, see Section 503 and Chapter 6. COlnln[InilT IJevelol, lnen! Helm, TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Doug Sandstad DATE: March 31, 1998 RE: "Accessory Building" Text Change Proposal h~ recent weeks, city staff and our consulting planner, AL Brixius, have focused on desirable changes to outdated codes that mav result in new standards. One subject of study has been accessory buildings and garages. The maximum size of garages is limited to 900 sq. ft., today, and may. be increased. ! have been asked what the basis would be for an increase in maximum accessory building size, and how big is reasonable ? There has been an increase in the public desire to build a larger or second garage on residential land within the city. This parallels the statewide trend to more commonly build a 2 or 3 stall ga_rage on new homes. My Jan. 7 Memo has provided detailed background on local experience and interests. Two requests in the last 10 days may be illustrative of the "need" for change: · Homeowner # 1 asked me on March 19 if he could build a 2~a garage on his : corner lot, with a total size over 1,000 sq. ft. · Homeowner #2 asked me on March 24 if he could expand his existing big garage to add a third stall, totaUing 1,150 sq. ft. As it happens, both properties are in excellent condition, with a routine desire to store more of the boats, cars trailers and stuff-inside. The nature of what is a "$ car garage" is worth discussing: The width and depth of existing garages vary, but the size ranges include: single garages 180-$60 sf double garages 400-740 triple garages 660-800 A homeowner who wants to add a 10' wide single garage stall to an existing double that has 740 sf is prohibited by code since it would exceed 900 sr. Such is the case for homeowner #2. Many homeowners are not able to expand the existing garage due to property constraints and only have an option for the 2na §arage, if city code is changed. If the property owner has a 528 sf double garage, they could not add another double garage with our existing 900 sf max. I have noted that the State Building Code has different rules that apply to a private garage exceeding 1,000 sf. [ See exhibit "A" ] Since it appears that many more accommodations can be made, locally, under a 1,000 sf limit, ! recommend that we increase the allowed garage area to 1,000 sf, / lot., a modest 11% bump. 4401 Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 612-531-5100 City Hall Fax: 612-531-5136 New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Police: 612-531.5170 Police Fax: 612-531.5174 Public Works: 612.533-4823 Public Works Fax: 612-533.7650 TDD: 612-531.5109 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531-5175 Maxch 27, 1998 Steve Sondrall via Fax Re: Proposed Ord. 98-05 "Accessory Buildings" Dea~ Steve, Kirk and A1 and I found a couple of tiny glitches in the draft ordinance you provided. They are: · page 1; 4.032 (3) a [vi "all rear yards- garage 10 feet" looks great, but conflicts with page 3; 4.034 9c) "...accessory garage.., may be located within five feet of the rear yard lot line" · page 2; 4.032 (3) d "Accessory building or garage area in the R-1 through R-3 zones" should read "R-1 through R-2': zones which parallels the intent of 4.032 (3) f. NOTE: Lead paragraph "Section 3" contains an error; "are hereby renumbered Sections 4.032 (3) [d], [e], and [fi" is how it should read. · [same paragraph} "no individual garage.., shall exceed nine hundred square feet" . We would like to increase the building maximum to at least 1,000 sf, after discussing it further. · An editorial suggestion to improve clarity: Use all text OR all numerical references to these numbers throughout the ordinance, rather than switching from text to numbers and back. Please call, with questions, or feedback. Kirk McDonald, Director of Commumty Development Sir~erely,,. .,~ - ~o~v~n, ~, uilaLg Official / Zoning Administrator cc: A1 Brixius file Family Styled L; ty ,.~.,:;,, [,.,.:,~:., For Family Living COMMUNITY PL. ANNINO - DI~$1ON MARKI='T iRi='Si=,ARCH~.-.,~ MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 25 February 1998 RE: New Hope - Accessory Buildings FILE NO: 131.00 - 97.14 . BACKGROUND On February 12, 1998, City staff met to discuss revisions to the City's accessory building ordinance. Through this review, a number of issues were raised which should be further diScussed with the Codes and Standards Committee and Planning Commission prior to approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Draft Ordinance Amendment ISSUES AND ANALYSIS · Format: The City Attorney has reformatted the accessory building performance standards. In review of the new format, staff believes that the regulations are easier to reference and understand. · Under Provision 3 attached accessory buildings or garages are considered an integral part of the principal building and must comply with the standard setback of the zoning district. 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 C(DM · Detached' Accessory Building Setbacks: Provision 3 (a) outlines the specific setbec~ for detached accessory buildings. The listing of the accessory building. setbacks in this section provides an easy reference. Provisions 3 (a) (iv) and (v) identify different rear yard setbacks for detached accessory buildings and garages. In staff discussion, the City Building Inspector indicated that there is a use and Building Code distinction between storage buildings and garages. Garages typically are larger in size, have the potential for a wider range of uses and present greater fire safety concerns than storage buildings. In respect to these concerns, it is suggested that a 10 foot rear yard setback be required for garages compared to a 5 foot rear setback for storage buildings. · Provision 3 (b) Prohibited Locations is intended to prohibit a detached accessory building from being located closer to the street than the principal building. In review of this language, the following suggestion is offered: 1. The reference to "required side yard· is not needed in this provision in that it repeats the setback requirements found in 3 (a). · Provision 3 (c) Special Side Yard Variance has been rewritten to establish review criteria that allows both the Planning Commission and City Council to make a finding on the acceptability of this variance. · Provision 3 (d) Area Limits defines the floor area of accessory buildings. Following discussion of the Staff and Codes and Standards Committee, it was determined that a specific accumulative cap of 1,400 square feet for all accessory buildings was more appropriate than a percentage of rear yard area. The 1,400 square foot cap is based on historical standards and should not result in any nonconforming properties. The 1,400 square foot cap will also be easier to apply to future accessory building requests. · Provision 3 (e) has been revised to require single family homes to be sited on a lot in a manner that would also accommodate the construction of garage space for two vehicles, either attached or detached. · Provision 3 (f) limits the number of accessory buildings to no more than two per lot. Under this provision, the accessory buildings may consist of two garages. 2 CONCLUSION Upon review of the accessory building amendment and the preceding summary of changes by the Code and Standards Committee, the ordinance amendment may, proceed to Planning Commission and public hearing. pc: Steve Sondral Doug Sandstad 3 MEM'O FROM: DOUG SANDSTAD DATE: JANUARY 7, 1998 - RE: BACKGROUND; R. 1 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS R-1 PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACKS Part I of this memo provides requested information on actual New Hope experiences with R-1 accessory, buildings, both attached and detached. Included are some typical descriptions, summaries and "projections" based upon my personalfsrniliarity with the estimated 5,000 dwelling lots. Part II of the memo addresses R-1 principal building setbacks, typical and actual, in order to assess expansion- potential effects if setbacks are ; reduced. In each case, I will paraphrase homeowners stated interest in mskin g future relevant improvements. I. Accessory Buildings in R-1 & R-2 Zones In the past, we have allowed one garage and one [non-vehicle] storage shed. Playhouses and treehouses on private property are ignored by code and staff. We have approximately 6 homes, today, with 2 separate garages, most of which were granted a variance. Consider these loCal observations: · Homes with 0, 1, 2 and 3 accessory buildings of all types: 0 = .001% i = 70.999 % 2 = 28% 3=1% · Accessory bldg sizes range from 36 to 900 sq. ft. · Typical garage sizes in the city are: type: size: percentage ~ single = 220 sf 23 % -' double = 484 sf 76.9942 % triple= 616 sf .0012 quadruple = 900 sf .0006 [none] .004 total: 100 % continued... · Typical storage shed sizes range from: tYPe: size: percentage: small [ up to 120 sf] 10 % NO PERMIT OR INSPECTION big 121 - 500 sf 6 % [none] 84 % total: 100 % · Storage sheds built on a concrete slab=30 %. [ Garages = 100 %] · Storage sheds are permitted in rear yards only, accounting for small ratios: small sheds[ 100sf] = 2 % of typical rear yard -61' x 80' [4,880sf] big sheds [ 400sf ]= 8 % of typical rear yard · ."A rear yard is not always a rear yard". Rear yards on comer lots may appear to be sides, since we de~ine these yards by city code. Many of our dwellings on comer lots are nonconforming - where building front does not match "zoning front" yard. These. matters are important when construction or sale are contemplated. · No dwelling in the city has a garage or shed, or combination, big enough to approach the 25 % rear yard threshold being considered. Most are well under 10 % of rear yard. · Garages must be distinguished from sheds, prior to construction. · Storage sheds tend to be located closer to property lines than garages. · Approximately 40% of the storage sheds are too close to property lines, or are located in a prohibited yard. · An estimated 10 % of the storage sheds are too close to the adjacent home or garage, in violation of building codes designed to limit the spread of fire between buildings. · National and New HoPe fire experience, building codes and the insurance industry, have long recog~i~.ed a much greater likelihood of fires in garages than dwellings. An effective "firewaff' is required when a garage is attached to [or within 6 feet of] a dwelling. Storage sheds without vehicles do not seem to have the s~me fire risk.. · Many homeowners have expressed a desire for a second garage building, perhaps 8 % of them. · A correlation exists between increasing numbers of recreational vehicles and trailers [and complaints] and a desire/need for more garages. · 75 % of the owners who want a 2"d garage need a 2nd driveway for access. In other words, less than 2 % of our homeowners are both interested in a 2"~ garage and do NOT need a 2"~ dn'vewa¥. continUed... · Detached garages are much cheaper to build [on "floating~' slabs] and seldom match the style and quality of the principal building, dwelling. Less money is spent on ms~ntenance for all detached buildings. · The closer a detached building gets to a rear lot'corner, the more stuff ends up behind it for the neighbors to see, e.g. junk, debris, dog-pens, branches, firewood, leaves and blue tarps covering ????? ·The very last building mamtbnance/repair dollar bill MAY t~ind its way to the back wall of a detached garage or shed. Maybe not. · Many of our lots are narrow, preventing front & side garage expansion. · It is common, today, where four rear yards meet at a point, to see multiple storage sheds nearby. · The Building code imposes tougher standards on garages than sheds--a required concrete floor [or similar] is one exsmple. · All of our lots have room for a storage shed, but only 5 % have space for a 2"a garage with easy access off a side street on a corner. Perhaps 15 % of our owners would consider a drive-through access to a 2-a garage behind the existing. Only 1% have room for a 2~a garage on the other end of the home [from exis~.ing garage] accessed by a 2"a driveway. · If 2 garages are permitted, will driveway standards change from "suitable to control dust and drainage" to alloTM rock, clay or mud ? Driving into a 2-a garage that is down the hill in the backyard will create a number of challenges: Front or rear ws!lrout grades exceed 20 % commonly, but we have a maximum 10% slope for drives. Erosion can be signifi,cant on sloping lots, without an asphalt or concrete drive. A detached 2"4 garage in the rear yard increases the variety of land uses and hazards to people and buildings while decreasing effective emergency response ~e, due to barriers lilre fences, hil]~, restricted access, increased distance from street and water hydrants. ·Property owners seldom 'q~now~' exactly wher'e their lot lines are-they esti m ate. ·If 2 garages are permitted, a certain ~mount of business-related violations can be expected. · Because of future drsinage problem potential close to lot lines, we should consider requiring a greater .setback to property lines for detached buildings as a nuisance buffer trade-off. Five feet, estimated, is not enough. One recent exsmple was a misplacement of fencing 7 feet onto a neighbors lot. I reCommend a 10 foot mlnim~m rear setback for accessory buildings,.if we 2_mend the code to permit multiples. continued... COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN HARKET RESEARCI MEMORANDUM TO: Doug Sandstad FROM: Bob Kirmis / Alan Brixius DATE: -22 December 1997 " RE: New Hope - R-1 District Accessory Buildings and Setbacks FILE NO: 131.00 - 97.14 This memorandum is written as a follow up to the Codes and Standards Committee meeting on 17 December at which the R-1 District accessory building and setback requirements. Accessory Building Requirements The Codes and Standards Committee has recommended that the City's Zoning Ordinance be amended to regulate cumulative accessory building area (detached and/or attached) solely by percentage of rear yard coverage (rather than a specific square footage reference). Specifically, a maximum rear yard coverage of 25 percent has been proposed. This change has been integrated into a revised memorandum addressing this issue (see Exhibit A). As part of the Committee's consideration of this matter, they have requested information regarding typical and extreme accessory building sizes which presently exist in the City. In recognition of your experience and knowledge in this area, we would appreciate an indication of present community conditions in regard to cumulative accessory building sizes. 5775 WAYZATA E~OULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 5 PHONE 6 I 2-595-cJ~3~ FAX 6 I 2-5cJ5-9837 B · COI~NUNI'TY PLANNIN(~ - D~-'$1GN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM (Revised) TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Dan Sjordal / Alan Brixius DATE: 19' November 1997 (19 December i 997) RE: New Hope - R-1 Accessory Buildings FILE NO: 131.00 - 97.14 BACKGROUND In response to numerous variance requests prompted by home improvements or desired home expansions, the Code and Standards Committee has directed staff to review the City's accessory building standards within the R-1 Zoning District. An initial review of these standards was prepared in July of 1996. With this report, we have summarized the findings of the 1996 report and outlined staff recommendations for ordinance amendments. ISSUES ANALYSIS As noted in the July 18, 1996 report, the current regulations addressing accessory buildings are difficult to read and interpret. In evaluating Section 4.032 (3), accessory building use and equipment, we offer the'following comments: Accessory Building Location. The following existing provisions address Iocational -' standards for accessory buildings in New Hope: (b) Rear Yard Limitations. No accessory storage type buildings other than a garage shall be located in any yard other than a rear yard. Comment: This provision singles out accessory storage buildings and requires them to be located only within the rear yard of the lot. We question whether it is necessary to address the use of the accessory building. 57'75 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55,4 PHONE 61 ;:::''595-9636 FAX 6t Z-595-9837 EXH'i'B]'T A (c) (~arage Location Limitation. In no case shall an accessory garage be located in a required front yard or a required side yard paralleling the depth of the principal structure. Comment: Provision (c) above appears to allow accessory garages (attached or detached) in front of the principal structure on the lot provided it complies with the required front yard setback. Question exists whether the City wants to accommodate front yard detached garages. (d) Further Location Limits. (i) Except as provided in this section, accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height and shall be five' (5) feet or more from all lot lines of adjoining lots and shall not be located within a utility or drainage easement. (ii) Upon the processing of a conditional use permit, the City may allow up to a three (3) foot encroachment into a required side yard for the purpose of constructing a garage, provided that: (a) The use of the structure is the storage of an operable passepger vehicles which are the property of the occupant of the principal structure. (b) The location of the structure is at minimum sixty (60) feet from the front property line or is located to the rear of the principal structure, whichever distance is greater.' (c) The proposed structure is not to be located within an established drainage or utility easement. (d) The City Council shall determine that the building will not negatively impact the neighboring property. (e) The same or similar quality building material shall be used in the accessory building as in the principal building. Additionally, the exterior appearance and architectural design of the accessory building is to be similar to that of the principal building. Comment: Provision (d) (i) should not include the height restriction as a Iocational requirement. 2 Provision (d) (ii) allows a setback encroachment by conditional use permit. To avoid variances, however, subprovison (b) requires an unusual setback. Why wouldn't this garage be allowed to meet the standard setback requirements? Suggested Locational Requirements: 1. Attached accessory garages shall meet the required building setbacks of the zoning district. 2. No detached accessory building shall be located closer to the front lot line than the principal building. 3. Accessory buildings shall meet the following setbacks: Side yard interior 5 feet Side. yard abutting a street 20 feet Side yard abutting a collector or arterial street 30 feet Rear yard setback " 5 feet 4. No accessory building shall be located within a drainage and utility easement. 5. Upon the processing of a conditional use permit, the City may allow up to a three (3) foot encroachment into a required side yard for the purpose of constructing a garage, provided that: (a) The side yard setback encroachment is required to provide access to the accessory garage. The physical constraipts of the lot prevent full compliance with the standard setback. (b) The proposed structure is not to be located within an established drainage or utility easement. (c) The City Council determines that the building will not negatively impact the neighboring property. (d) The same or similar quality building material shall be used in the accessory building as in the principal building. Additionally, the exterior appearance and architectural design of the accessory building shall be similar to that of the principal building. 3 Accessory Building Size and Number Requirements. The following existing provisions address the size and number of accessory buildings allowed within New Hope: (e) Area Limits. General. No accessory building or garage for single or two family residential uses shall occupy more than 25 percent of a rear.yard, nor exceed nine hundred square feet of floor area. except as may be conditionally permitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.20 of this Code. (f) Area Limits, Storage. Storage type building for single and two family residential uses shall be limited to a maximum of 500 square feet and shall be limited to twelve feet in height. {g) Garage and On-Site Parking S.oace. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one (1) private accessory garage structure for each dwelling. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any dwelling shall be required to provide off-street parking space for at least one (1) automobile per family to be housed in addition to. any garage space to be used. Every dwelling unit hereafter erected shall be so located on the lot so that at least a two (2) car garage; either attached or detached, can be located on said lot. (h) Limit on Numbers. Each lot shall be limited to one (1) accessory building in addition to an accessory garage. Comments: · It is not clear as to whether the building area restrictions outlined in provisions (e) and (f) above apply to single building or the aggregate floor space for accessory buildings. · Provisions (g) and (h) restrict the number of accessory buildings to two and specifies that each lot may have only one garage. We question why the City would prohibit the second accessory building from being a garage. Is the difference between a garage and storage building solely based upon the type of item stored within the building? Suggested Building Size and Number Standards for Accessory Buildings, 1. Accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 2. Single family and two-family uses within the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts shall be limited to no more than two (2) accessory buildings (including attached garages). 4 ,, 3. The accumulative floor area of all accessory buildings (attached/detached) in R-1 and R-3 Districts shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the rear yard. 4. No individual accessory building or garage attached 'or detached shall exceed nine hundred (900) square feet. The suggested changes to the accessory building regulations are intended to add clarity to the Iocational standards and flexibility in the use and size of accessory buildings. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall COMMUNITY LANNING · DESIG MARK*ET RESEARC MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Daniel Licht I Alan Brixius DATE: 18 July 1996 RE: New Hope - R-1 District Performance Standards FILE NO: 131.00 - 96.12 BACKGROUND The Codes and Standards Committee has directed staff to complete a survey of residential district performance standards, specifically, building setback and accessory building requirements. This directive has been prompted by numerous requests for variances from the rear yard and side yard setback requirements related to both principal and accessory buildings within the New Hope R-1 Single Family Residential District.. These requests for vadance are often prompted by home improvements or desired home expansions. Given the number of vadance requests which have been received and subsequently granted, and the efforts of the City to improve the existing housing stock identified in the recently adopted Housing Policy Action Plan, the Codes and Standards Committee believes some modification to the building setback and accessory building requirements may be appropriate. Attached for reference: Exhibit A- Zoning Map Exhibit B - R-1 District Plat Exhibit C - R-1 District Minimum Area Lot Rear Yard Setback Illustration Exhibit D - Accessory Building - Current Ordinance Exhibit E - Accessory Building - Draft Ordinance Amendment Exhibit F - Minor Variance - Draft Ordinance Amendment 5775 WaYZata Blvd.. Suite 555-St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 . 3. Reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 35 feet to between a numerical factor. 4. Develop a combination of options 2 and 3. Option 1 is not desirable as it will not alter the current situation and satisfy the goal of reducing the number of variance requests or provide homeowners with increased opportunities for home improvements. As illustrated by Exhibit C, reducing the rear yard setback requirement from 35 feet to 30 feet would increase the buildable area of a minimum area R-1 District lot, with a required minimum lot width of 75 feet by over 8 percent. Application of a rear yard setback requirement based upon 25 percent of the lot depth only increases the buildable area by over 5 percent for the same lot. " However, as illustrated bY Exhibit C, minimum area R-1 Distdct lots with depths less than 120 feet, (the result if the width is greater than 75 feet) application of the 25 percent setback requirement results in greater buildable area within the lot. Changing the rear .. setback requirement from 35 feet to 25 percent of lot depth results in an almost 15 percent increase in buildable area. Application of a 30 foot setback requirement equals an increase in buildable area of over 10 percent. In order to accommodate both shallow and deep lots, our office would suggest Option 4, a combination of a percentage and numerical requirement, applying the least restrictive to an individual property. This strategy will serve to maximize the buildable area of both shallow and deep lots. The Codes and Standards committee should discuss this requirement to determine an appropriate numerical standard. Regarding the numerical measurement, our office would not suggest going below a 25 foot setback requirement so as maintain the separation of abutting lots and structures. This minimum standard would ensure privacy and enjoyment of individual property. ~'~CESSORY BUILDING ORDINANc~ Current Ordinance. Section 4.032(3) of the Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit D) deals with accessory building requirements. As a result of a number of requests for variances related to the location and size of accessory structures, staff was directed to examine the current standards and identify possible amendments. The consideration of accessory building setback requirements has bcc~ discussed in the previous section of this report. However, a number of other issues related to the current accessory building Ordinance provisions haVe been identified. Specifically, there are several examples of continuity problems and contradictory provisions. 4 · Duolicate,Statements. The two sections from the accessory building provisions below duplicate each other regarding the placement of accessory buildings in the rear yard only: (b)Rear Yard Limitations. No detached accessory storage type buildings other than a garage shall be located in any yard other than a rear yard. (c) Garage Location Limitation. In no case shall an accessory garage be located in a required front yard or a required side yard paralleling the depth of the principal structure. In addition, item (b) suggests that a garage may be located in a yard other than just the rear yard. However,. Item (c) states that a garage may not be located in either the front or side yard. · Continuity_ Issues. Within the accessory building code, a number of statements are result in continuity problems as illustrated below. The two statements dealing with maximum area of accessory structures are related and should be organized together. The statement in item (f) related to height is not relative to building area and should be placed independently. (e) Area Limits. General. No accessory building or garage for single or two family residential uses shall occupy more than twenty, five (25) percent of a rear yard, not exceed nine hundred (900) square feet of floor area, except as may be conditionally permitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.20 of this Code. (f) Area Limits. ~tora_oe. Storage type building for single and two family residential uses shall be limited to a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet and shall be limited to twelve (12) feet in height. Suggested Ordinance Changes. Our office has prepared a draft Ordinance language (Exhibit E) to address the issues discussed above. This amendment can be considered more "housekeeping" than a major alteration of existing standards. The overall intent of the suggested amendment, summarized below, is to simplify the current accessory building ordinance and remove any repetitive or contradictory statements. · Item (a) has been revised to clarify that this sub-section defines the criteria for considering an accessory structure attached if it is physically connected to the principal structure. Existing: (a) Integral Part. An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the 5 principal building by a covered passageway... Suggested: (a) Attached Accessory_ Structures. An accessory building or structure shall be considered an integral part of tile principal building or structure if it is connected to -the principal building or structure physically or by a covered passageway. · Elements of current sub-sections (b), (c) and (d) which regulate the location of accessory structures have been consolidated into one ~Location Limits" sub- section. The provision for allowing encroachment into the required setback area by CUP has not been included. 'These requests in the past have been processed as variances, which staff believes is more appropriate. Existing: (b) Rear Yard Limitations. No detached accessory storage type buildings other than a garage shall be located in any yard other than a rear yard. (c) Garage Location Limitation. In no case shall an accessory garage be located in a required front yard or a required side yard paralleling the depth of the principal structure. (d) Further Location Limits. (i) Except as.provided in this section, accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height and shall be five (5) feet or more from all lot lines of adjoining lots and shall not be located within a utility or drainage easement. (ii) (b) The location of the structure is at minimum sixty (60) feet from the front property line or is located to the rear of the principal structure, whichever distance is greater. _- (c) The proposed structure is not to be located within an established drainage or utility - easement. Suggested: (b) Location Limits. (i) No detached accessory buildings, structures or uses shall be located in any required yard other than the rear yard. 6 --- (ii) Setback Requirements. All accessory buildings, structures and uses shall be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from ali lot lines, .ten (10) feet from all lot lines adjacent to a public right-of-way and ten feet from the principal structure to which it is accessory. (iii) No accessory building, structure or use shall be located within an established drainageway or utility easement. · Items (e), (f) and (g) of the current Ordinance may be consolidated into one "Area Limits" sub-section. As illustrated by the survey of adjacent communities and illustrated by Exhibit F, New Hope's current size limits are appropriate given the minimum lot sizes of the R-1 District. The draft ordinance does clarify that the maximum area applies to all attached and detached structures combined. However, additional accessory area may be provided for by conditional use permit. Existing: (e) Area Limits. General. No accessory building or garage for single or two family residential uses shall occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of a rear yard, not exceed nine hundred (900) square feet of floor area, except as may be conditionally permitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.20 of this Code. (f) Area Limits. Storage. Storage type building for single and two family residential uses shall be limited to a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet and shall be limited to twelve (12) feet in height. (g) Garaqe and On-Site Parking S.o~. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one (1) private accessory garage structure for each dwelling. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any dwelling shall be required to provide off-street parking space for at least automobile per family to be housed in addition to any garage space to be used. Every dwelling unit hereafter erected shall be so located on the lot so that at least a two car garage, either attached or detached, can be located on said lot. Suggested: (c) (i) No accessory building, structure, use, or combination thereof, for single and two family units shall exceed nine hundred (900) square feet of floor area or twenty- 7 --- five (25) percent of the total area of the rear yard, except as may be permitted conditionally in accordance with Section 4.20 of this Code. (ii) Storage type detached accessory buildings or sb*'uctures shall be limited to a maximum of five hundred '(500) square feet. (iii) All new single family and two family dwelling units hereafter construCted shall be located on the lot so as to accommodate a minimum of a two (2) stall garage. · Sub-section (h) of the current Ordinance may be redrafted to clarify that a single family or two family lot is allow~cl one accessory attached/detached garage plus one detached storage-type building. Existing: (h) Limit on Numbers. Each lot shall be limited to one accessory building in addition to an accessory garage. Suggested: (d) Number of Structures. (i) Each single family and two family lot shall be limited to one (1) garage structure, whether attached or detached. (ii) Storage type accessory buildings and structures, other than a garage, shall be limited to one (1) structure per single and two family lot. · Sub-section (e) of the draft Ordinance specifies that detached accessory structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height. This requirement was previously incorporated as part of the location limits of the current Ordinance in sub-section (d)(i) and (f) which were contradictory regarding the height of accessory structures other than garages. Existing: (d)(i) Except as provided in this section, accessory buildings and .. garages shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height and shall be five (5) feet or more from all lot lines of adjoining lots and shall not be located within a utility or drainage easement. (f) Area Limits. Storage. Storage type building for single and two family residential uses shall be limited to a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet and shall be limited to twelve (12) 8 · - - feet in height. Suggested: (e) Heioht. Except as provided in this section, accessory buildings and structures shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. · Sub-section (f) of the draft Ordinance specifies that materials for detached accessory structures shall be consistent with those utilized for the principal structure. This requirement was previously incorporated only as part of the CUP criteda for consideration of encroachment into the required setback of the current Ordinance in sub-section (d)(ii)(e). The draft Ordinance would make this provision applicable to all detached accessory structures. This is intended to .promote higher quality structures which are more compatible with the principal structure. SuggeSted: (f) Materials. All accessory buildings and structures shall be of similar architectural design and appearance of the principal structure, including the use of compatible materials. MINOR vAR"IAN,~S : Purpose. In connebt[,on with the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments discussed in the preceding section~he City may wish to again consider adopting procedures for the proCessing of minor vaH@,nces. The purpose of these procedur/eS' is to expeditiously process variance requests",,v,,vhich may be considered minor./~uch requests are often cases where hardship is the i~egult of existing property bei~pg'_affected by a public action including potential ordinance an~dments. 'or structure/el setback variances for which a precedence has previously been eMa,,blished or the~,o~posed encroachment is less than 5 feet. ~ / __ These requests ~re to.~3~, processed by City staff. The Planning Commission and C~ ~1 ~ ~OIv-"ed, only in the event of an appeal or an objection of a ~~nt prope~,~These procedures therefore would reduce the work load and processing of the City decis' -makers. Draft Ordinance, Our office~has drafted language which may be adopted as part of the Zoning. Ordinance to provid~the process discussed above. This draft ordinance has been attached as Exhibit F. ~t~is ordinance is summarized below:. · Minor varianCes are handled administratively by the City Staff unless a denied application is appealed or a potentially impacted property owner objects. · Variances defined as minor include hardships which resUlt from public actions and 9 structure-and setback deviations less than 25 percent of the normal requirement. in no case would a deviation exceed 5 feet. CONCLUSION As directed by the Codes and Standards Committee, our office has completed an analysis of the City's existing R-l, Single Family District rear and side yard setback requirements for principal and accessory structures. Our analysis suggests that possible amendments to these requirements are appropriate. This finding is based upon the precedence for granting variances from these requirements on the basis of questionable hardships and the desire to implement the goals of the recently adopted Housing Policy Action Plan. Our evaluation of New Hope's existing rear setback requirement indicated that some modification to these requirements would offer additional opportunities for home expansions by increasing the building pad area of individual lots. Our office does not believe.that a reduction in the required side yard setback would be advisable, given the potential negative impacts to adjacent properties and limited additional building area to be gained. /d~conjunction with the analysis of the setback-requirements, an evaluation of the Ci~'s~ _current accessory building requirements was undertaken. This evaluation revealed 0nly the nccd for some "housekeeping" changes to the existing ordinance in order to strengthen and clarify its provisions. A number of suggested text changes have been prepared for discussion by the Codes and Standards Committee. A draft ordinance was alSO prepared so that the relationship of the proposed text changes may be more clearly understood/ Finally, as this Zoning Ordinance review was prompted primarily by numerous variance requests, our office has developed language which may be incorporated within the Zoning Ordinance to allow for minor variances. The intent of these procedures would be to expedite relatively minor variance requests though an administrative process. This not only reduces the burden to the applicant of seeking a minor vadanca, but reduces the work load of City Officials as well. The Codes and Standards Committee should initiate a dialogue regarding the proposed minor variance procedures regarding their applicability in New Hope. 10 EXHIBIT C-3 (3) Accessory Buildings. Uses and Eauipment, (a) Integral Part. An accessory building shall be considered, an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the principal building by a covered passageway. (b) Rear Yard Limitations. No detached accessory storage type buildings other than a garage shall be located in any yard other than a rear yard. (c) Garage Location Limitatiorl. In no case shall an accessory garage be located in a required front yard or a required side yard paralleling the depth of the principal structure. (d) Further Location Limits. (i) Except as provided in this section, accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height and shall be five (5) feet or more from all lot lines of adjoining lots and shall not be located within a utility or drainage easement. (ii) Upon the processing of a conditional use permit, the City may allow up to a three (3) foot encroachment into a required side yard for the purpose of constructing a garage, provided that: (a) The use of the structure is the storage of operable passenger vehicles which are the property of the occupant of the principal structure. (b) The location of the structure is at minimum sixty (60) feet from the front property line or is located to the rear of the principal structure, whichever distance is greater. (c) The proposed structure is not to be located within an established drainage or utility easement. (d) The City Council shall determine that the building will n not negatively impact the neighboring property. (e) The same or similar quality building material shall be used in the accessory building as in the principal building. Additionally, the exterior appearance and architectural design of the accessory building is to be similar to that of the principal building. EXHIBIT D (e)' ' Area Limits. General. No accessory building or garage for single or two family residential uses shall occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of a rear yard, not exceed nine-hundred (900) square feet Of floor area, except as may be conditionally permitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.20 of this Code. (f) Area Limits. Storaoe. Storage type building for single and two family residential uses shall be limited to a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet and shall be limited to twelve (12) feet in height. (g) Garage and On-Site Parking Space. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one (1) pdvate accessory garage structure for each dwelling. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any dwelling shall be required to provide off-street parking space for at least automobile per family to be housed in addition to any garage space to be used. Every dwelling unit hereafter erected shall be so located on the lot so that at least a two car garage, either attached or detached, can be located on said lot. .- (h) I,jmit on Numbers. Each lot shall be limited to one accessory building in addition to an accessory garage. (i) Air Conditioners. Accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers (ground mounted) which generate noise shall be located in rear yards behind the rear building line. Air conditioning' cooling structures or condensers located within a reqUired side yard at the effective date of this section may lawfully continue and may be replaced at such a location provided the following conditions are met: (i) The cooling structure or condenser shall not produce noise levels contrary to Minnesota Statutes 9.423 and 9.424 of this Code. (ii) The cooling structure or condenser shall-be screened by landscaping, fencing, or other means rendering it concealed from view from adjacent property. (iii) The cooling structure or condenser shall not lie within a required drainage and/or utility easement. (j) Communication Rece0tion/'l'ransmission Devices. Satellite dishes, television and radio antennas and other communication transmission/ reception devices are permitted accessory uses within all zoning districts, provided they meet the following conditions: "- (i) [:l.e. jgJ3L_The communication device height shall not exceed twenty (20) feet from ground level. (ii) Yards. The communication device shall not be located within the required front yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street. (iii) Roofs. If vegetation or obstructions interfere with satellite signals at a location in any allowable placement area, the communication device may be placed on the roof of any authorized structure on the premises. (iv) Setbacks. The height of the communication device may exceed five (5) feet above the peak of the roof only by conditional use permit. COmmunication devices shall be located five (5) feet or more from all lot lines of adjoining lots and shall not be located within a utility easement. (v) Building Permits. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any communication device requiring a conditional use permit. Building permit applications shall be accompanied by a site plan and structural components data for the communication device, including details of anchoring. The Building Official must approve the plans before installation. (vi) Lightning Protection. Each communication device shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of New Hope. (vii) Electrical Code. Communication device electrical equipment and connections shall be designed and installed in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of New Hope. (viii) Color/Content. Communication devices shall be of a neutral color and any lettering or scenes contained on said device qualifying it as a sign shall be subject to the regulations of Sections 3.40 through 3.485 of the New Hope Sign Code. (ix) Effective Date. The provisions of this section shall be applicable to all communication receptio~transmission devices erected after April 7, 1988. All such structures existing prior to this date shall be addressed as legal non- conforming uses. Memorandum To: Planning Commission Members From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Date: May 1, 1998 Subject: Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on CouncillEDA actions. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. 1. April 13 Council Meetinq - At the April 13 Council meeting, the Council took action on the followi~ planning/development/housing issues: A. Project #573, Resolution Authorizing Publication of Notice and Holding of a Public ~ear~ Regarding the Sale of $212 Winnetka Avenue North: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Project #640, Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Call for Bids for Rebuilding of Tennis Courts at Meadow Lake School Park: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Project #623, Approval of Concept Plan for Hidden Valley Park Improvements: Approved, see attached Council request and report. D. Project #641, Motion Authorizing Staff to Negotiate with Property Owner for Potential Purchase of Multiple Family Dwellings Located at 7601 and 7641 62nd Avenue North: Approved, see attached Council request. E. Ordinance 98-13, An Ordinance Establishing Commercial Day Cars Facilities as Conditional Uses in the B-l, B-2 and B-4 Zoning Districts: Adopted. F. Planning Case 98-02, Request for CUP to Allow a Commercial Day Care Center in a B-4 Zoning District, and Site/Building Plan Review Approval, 9440 36= Avenue North: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission, subject to staff recommendations, see attached Council request and resolution. G. Planning Case 98-03, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan and Variances to the Sign Code, 4301-4471 Winnetka Avenue North: Tabled until April 27 Council meeting so petitioner could develop options for a single ground sign. H. Planning Case 98-04, Request for Site/Building Plan Review for Building Addition, Variance to the Front Yard Setback Requirement and Comprehensive Sign plan Approval, 8201 54~ Avenue Nor~ Approved, see attached Council request. I. Planning Case 98-05, Request for Site/Building Plan Review for Building Expansion, 3940 Quebec Avenue North: Approved without the sidewalk condition, see attached Council request. J. Discussion Regarding Traffic Control Request at the Intersection of 36th and Nevada Avenues: No action taken. K. Project ~608, Resolution Awarding Contract to TSPIEOS for Architectural Service for City Hall Indoor Air Quality and Remodeling Project: Approved, see attached Council request. 2. April 27 Council Meetincl - At the Apdi 27 Council meeting, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Proiect #~73,~.. Public Hearing - Resolution Authorizing and Approving Sale of 52t2 Winnetka Avenue North: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Planning Case 98-03,, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan and Variances to the Sign Code, 4301 - 4471 Winnetka Avenue North: Approved, see attached Council request and revised sign. C. Project #600, Resolution Approving Development Aclreement Between the City of New Hope and Rockford Owners Association: Approved, see attached Council request. D. Proiect ~608, Resolution Awarding Contract to Mayo Systems for the City Hall Microbial Abatement Project: Approved, see attached Council request. E. Project #608, Resolution Awarding Contract to Lund-Martin Construction for the City Hall Indoor Air Quality and Remodeling Project: Approved, see attached Council request. 5. Codes & Standards Committee - The Committee met in Apdl to continue discussion on the R-1 accessory buildings, Sign Code, and certificates of survey. 6. Design & Review Committee - Design & Review met in April to review plans for the PPL Project which will be presented at the May Planning Commission meeting. 7. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - The Committee has scheduled a meeting for June 11. 8. Project Bulletins - Enclosed are invitations to residents residing near Dorothy Mary Park and Civic Center Park inviting them to attend a neighborhood meeting regarding potential park improvements and a project bulletin regarding the 1997 street project. 9. Updated Commission Member List - Updated list including fax numbers and e-mail addresses. Separate attachment. 10. Ed's Expresso - Building Official memo regarding Ed's Expresso on Bass Lake Road. 11. Miscellaneous Articles - Also enclosed are articles from Zoning News and Zoning Bulletin. 12. Other planning/housing/development issues that staff have been working on, that will probably be considered at the June Planning Commission meeting, include: A. Avtec Finishing expansion B. Post Haste Comprehensive Sign Plan Attachments: 5212 Winnetka Avenue City Hall Indoor Air Quality Tennis Courts at Meadow Lake School 5212 Winnetka Sale · Hidden Valley Park Improvements Winnetka Center Comp. Sign Plan 7601 & 7641 62n" Avenue Apartments Sandpiper Cove Ordinance 98-13, Commercial Day Care City Hall Microbial Abatement Bright Start, 9440 36~ Avenue City Hall Indoor Air Quality Winnetka Center Comp. Sign Plan 8201 54~ Avenue Building Paddock Labs, 3940 Quebec Avenue 36"~ & Nevada Avenues Intersection COUNCIL Orlga'm~ Depa~h~mt Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development Consent Item No. By:. Susan Henry By:. 6.11 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING OF NOTICE AND HOLDING OF A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE SALE OF 5212 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 573) City staff have found buyers, Mahmood Kalim and Perween Akhtar, for the single family home at 5212 Winnetka Avenue North. A Purchase Agreement has been executed, subject to the approval of the City Council. By law, a public headng regarding the sale must be held with at! least 10 days published notice. The public hearing would then be conducted at the April 27 City Council meeting. Staff recommends approval of the resolution authorizing publication of notice and holding of a public headng regarding the sale of 5212 Winnetka Avenue North (Improvement Project #573). MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: , RFA-O01 I . COUNCIl, .T Originating Depax;...ent Approved for Agenda Ageada Section Parks and Recreation 4/13/98 Co ns en ~: Shad French J, ) Item No. ]~. By:.~/ 6.12 APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPEClFZATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR REBUILDING OF TENNIS COURTS AT MEADOW LAKE SCHOOL PARK (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 640) The 1999 Park CIP calls for rebuilding of the tennis courts at Meadow Lake School Park and contains $95,000 for this expenditure. The CAC advised that the City strongly consider doing this work in 1998 rather than waiting until 1999 and Co .uncil agreed at the March 23 meeting. Meadow Lake courts are in such poor shape that they have been dosed for the time being until this remodeling work can be done. The engineers have drawn up plans and specs. Staff is requesting approval and a call for bids. Bids will be advertised and opened May 6, 1998 for Council action on May 11"~. The City and School District have a lease arrangement on the property. The courts and hockey dnk were originally built by the City and have been and are to continue to be maintained by the City. The same situation exists at Sunny Hollow School for those tennis courts. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Adm/n/sWatlon: Finance: RFA-O0 ! ADVERT~S~ FOR BIDS Sealed bids will be r~ceived by. the City of New Hope, Minnesota at the City Hall, 'at 4401 Xylon Avenue, until 10:00 A.M., C.D.S.T., on Wednesday, May 6, 1998, at.which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud for the furnishing of all labor and materials and all else necessary for the following: 1998 Court Improvements - Meadow Lake Park Demolish and remove existing paving and fencing for three tennis courts. Furnish and install new paving and fencing for three tennis courts with miscellaneous site improvements and appurtenances. 290 LF 12" and 15" Storm Sewer 300 LF 4" Drain Tile Plans and specifications, proposal forms and contract documents may be seen at tbe office of the City Clerk, New Hope, Minnesota, and at the office of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers, 2335 W. Trunk Highway 36, St. Paul, MN 55113, (612) 636-4600. Each bid shall be accompanied by a bidd~s bond naming the City of New Hope as obligee, certified check payable to the Clerk of the City of New Hope or a cash deposit equal to at least five percent (5%) of the amount of the bid, which shall be forfeited to the City in the event that the bidder fails to enter into a contract. The City Council reserves the right to retain the deposits of the three lowest bidders for a period not to exceed 45 days after the date and time set for the opening of bids. No bids may be withdrawn for a period of forty-five (45) days after the date and time set for the opening of bids. Payment' for the work will be by cash or check. Contractors desiring a copy of the plans and specifications and proposal forms may obtain them from the office of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc., upon payment Of a non-refundable fee of $20.00~ See "Information to Bidders" for plan/specification fee policy. The City Council reserves the right to reject any and all bids, to waive irregularities and informalities therein and further reserves the right to award the contract to the best interests of the City. Daniel Donahue, City Manager City of New Hope, Minnesota © 1':~8 Bou~mu, u~, RC~eae. A~derlik & A.~_-_,,'-~ lac. COUNCIL RF. b'E T FOR ACTION Originating Depax'tment Approved for A~enda Agenda Section Consent Parka & Recreation D 4/13/98 Item No. By:. Shad French By:.// 6.13 APPROVAL OF CONCEPT .PLAN/ FOR HIDDEN VALLEY PARK .IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 633) The concept plan for Hidden Valley Park includes new playground equipment. The neighborhood met with staff, CAC representatives, and engineers laSt month to brainstorm about needed improvements. This concept includes their ideas. If this concept plan is approved, plans and specs will be developed and the neighbors will have a chance to review the plans before Council takes action as to approve the plans and specs on' May 11, 1998. The 1998 Park CIP contains $125,000 for new play equipment in a park. The Advisory Commission recommended that Hidden Valley be the location for the new play equipment. The existing equipment was installed in 1982 and is in need of replacement. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 Report On Hidden Valley Park Improvements City of New Hope City Project No. 633 File No. 34226 April 1998 /Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & ~I~ Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo Bonestroo, Rosene. Anderlik and Assooates, In .... an Affirmative Ac£~ot~/Equal Opportuntry E~plc ,er Principals: Otto G. 8onestroo, RE. · Joseph C. Anderlik, RE. · Marvin L. Sorvata, RE. Rosene Richard E. Turner, PL.- Glenn R. Cook. RE.. Robert G. Sc,u,,icht. ~E.. Jerry ~. Bourdon, ~E.. Robert ~. Rosene, RE. and Susan M. Eberlin, C.RA., Senior Consultants ~ Anderlik~ - A,,ociatePrinc'~al,:Howard A. ,anfor., PE.-KeJth A. Gordon. PE.- Robert R. Pfefferle, ~ ~ssocJ~es Richard ~,~oster, ~E.- David O. Loskota. ~E. · RoDert C. EusseK, A;I,A,. Mark A, Henso~, ~E.e Michael T. Eautmenn, ~E. · Ted K.Fieid, Sidney P ~iUiamson. RE.. ES. · Robert E Ko Offices: St. ~eUl, Rochester, ~iUmar and St. C1oud, MN · MiJwaukee, Engineers & Architects Apffi 7, 1998 Honorable Mayor and Council City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Re: Hidden Valley Park Improvements City Project No. 633 Our File No. 34226 Dear Mayor and Council Members: The enclosed report presents recommended improvements for New Hope's Hidden Valley Park Improvement Project. The purpose of the report is to present improvements and cost estimates. We will be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties to discuss this report at a mutually convenient time. Respectfully submitted, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Encl. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer Under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Mark A. Hanson, P.E. Date: April 7, 1998 Reg. No. 14260 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 · Fax: 612-636-1311 Table of Contents Transmittal Letter ........................................................................................................................ 1. Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... , ............. 2. I. ExecutiVe Summary ...................................................................................................... 3. Project Goals ................................................................................................................... 3. II. Project Description ......................................................................... : .............................. 3. Existing .... ~ ....................................................................................................................... 3. Proposed ............................................ ~ ............................................................................. 4. Cost Estimate .................................................................................................................. 8. Project Schedule .............................................................................................................. 9. '2 I. Executive Summary Project Goals The improvements proposed for New Hope's Hidden Valley Park Play Area are to accomplish the following goals. · To reduce on-going maintenance associated with out dated equipment and features. · To update existing features to provide a safer experience for park users. · To provide access in accordance'with the Americans with Disability Act (AD.A). · To provide a more user-friendly atmosphere for the different age groups as well as the adults. II. Project Description Existing Hidden Valley Park Play Area as it exists today is a play area that needs revitalization. The play area consists of two 2-seat metal swing set, 3 spring riders, and one play structure encompassing a variety of activities: all set in a sand bed Surrounded by a timber edging/retaining wall. Existing Play Area The play area and play equipment does not meet the accessibility requirement of the Americans with Disability Act. The play structure, swing sets, and spring riders do not have an adequate safe zone. The play structure is made of timber and the timber is reaching the limits of its life expectancy. Existing Play Area The existing retaining walls are starting to deteriorate and are in poor condition. The benches that are bull(into these retaining walls are not comfortable, cause slivers, and not in a location that interacts well with the play structure. The spring riders have lost their resiliency. A new, lower maintenance, safer and more accessible play system should be installed. The existing bituminous trails serving Hidden Valley Park have been evaluated as part of Project 633 (Park Trail Condition Evaluation). The evaluation does indicate trail reconstruction in Hidden Valley Park is required based on their existing condition. Proposed A play area should be a mix of different experiences; touch, sight, and hearing. Areas of different color, varying textures, and should have challenge. S.afety is, naturally, a concern of the parent. The object in the play area is not to create dangers from which the children will require protection. Play is not only for the development of the physical and manual skills, it is also a training ground for social interaction. What we are recommending for the Hidden Valley Park Play Area is a series of different play structures and play areas that can provide the necessary variety and stimulation that children need. The site plan below shows the existing features of Hidden Valley Park and the location of the Play Area just to the northeast of the hockey rink. 9~O.g .- Existing Site Plan - Hidden Valley Park A public meeting was held March 11, 1998 to solicit comments specifically from park users. It was well attended, 8 residents and 3 children. The comments and concerns of these residents will be integrated into the design of the new play area. Some of the concerns and comments are as follows: · The sand surface works well but at present contains some glass and thistles in the north comer. · Swings are an important feature, also swings that could accommodate adults. 5 · Benches closer to play structures, grouping of benches for social interaction, and benches that are comfortable. · A specific area for a sandbox would be a nice feature. · The spring riders are really enjoyed, especially diggers. The improvements proposed for Hidden Valley Park Play Area are still in the conceptual design phase and can be seen in the Concept Plan figure. < 9 950.5" X Concept Plan - Hidden Valley Park Play Area The play area Will take on a new form, one that follows the natural shape of the contours. A new retaining wall will be'installed along the north edge of play area #1. The materials under consideration are larger timbers (6 x 6/8 x8) or modular block. It is important that play area #1 does not infringe on the sledding hill to the northeast. 6 The demographics of the neighborhood include a range in age of children from infants up to eleven and older. The needs for age groups vary, and that is why we are recommending two separate play areas; play area #1 for the older children, and play area #2 for early childhood. The play area will be ADA accessible, containing elements of play and challenge for children with needs. A resilient surface will be incorporated to make these areas accessible as shown in View 1. This play structure is the type that would be located in Play Area #1. Play Structure - Concept - View 1 The colors are bright, stimulating, and inviting; offering a variety of experiences and opportunities. View 2 shows the same structure from a different angle. Play Structure - Concept - View 2 7 It is critical that children have opportunities to play. Children at play test their limits and explore their, surroundings, in View 2 you see that the children have options in choosing their activities, yet control those choices and determine the outcome of events based on their skills The last example of a play structure is in View 3, and this is an example of what could be installed in Play Area #2 for the youngest park users. Play Structure - Concept - View 3 This structure is designed for smaller children, yet still offers challenges and opportunities for the emerging physical, intellectual and social development needed. The color, play panels and imaginative spaces provide areas for play and experimentation, promoting confidence and development. The bituminous trail evaluation for Project No. 633 will be reviewed with staff. The recommended trail improvements will be coordinated with the construction of the playground improvements in August/September. The bituminous trail improvements can best be done by a bituminous contractor as part of an overall trail improvement project. Cost Estimate The estimated project cost for the Play area Improvements are: Play Area Improvements (Lump Sum) $ 95,625.00 10% Contingency $ 10,625.00 Subtotal $106,250.00 15% Design & Administration $ 18,750.00 Total $125,000.00 Project Schedule The proposed project schedule is presented below: Present Updated Concept Report April 13, 1'998 Plans available for Neighborhood Review (90%) May 1,1998 Approve Plans/Specification May 11, 1998 Bid Opening/Award Contract June 3, 1998 Play Area closes/Begin Construction August 3, 1998 Substantial Completion October 16,1998 Final Completion October 30, 1998 COUNCIL REVUES? FOR ACTION Originating Department AppFoved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development Consent Item No. By:. Kirk McDonald By:. ~ 6.27 MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NF..~TIATE WITH PROPERTY OWNER FOR POTENTIAL PURCHASE OF MULTIPLE FAMILY D~WELLINGS LOCATED AT 7601 AND 7641 62"= AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NCC. 613) At the February 23 City Council meeting, staff requested, and the Council authorized, appraisals of the: two multiple family dwellings located at 7601 and 7641 62n~ Avenue North. The request was made in response to correspondence the City had received from the owner of the two four-plexes stating that it was their intention to sell the property and inquiring if the City had an interest in the property. Both buildings have four two-bedroom apartments and were constructed in 1960. The two properties are located on either side of the building/property recently purchased by the City at 7621 62''~ Avenue. Staff is interested in potentially acquiring the property, demolishing the building, and land banking the site for combination with other adjacent parcels for future redevelopment purposes. The south side of 62r~ Avenue between West Broadway and Sumter Avenue has been identified by the Council as a potential future redevelopment area. The block has also been included in an area where tax increment financing funds from other districts can be utilized. These are non-TIF generating properties eligible for TIF expenditures. It is probable that relocation benefits would have to be paid to some of the tenants if the City acquired the property, however, the owner has indicated that three of the eight tenants have given notice that they will be moving out of the building in May. The appraisals of the two properties have been completed and are attached for your review. The current market values of the properties (tax book listing) and the appraisal's 'fair market values" of the properties are the same for each of the two buildings/parcels, as listed below: Current Market Values $ 26,000 land (Proposed January 1998 value for taxes payable in 1999) 94,000 building $120,000 Appraisal Fair Market Values $140,000 MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Admln/stmtiorc Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 4-13-9~''~ Staff is requesting authorization to negotiate with the property owner for the potential acquisition of the two properties. Any agreement reached would be subject to Council approval. Also, if agreements are reached to purchase the propertyl in the future staff will be requesting authorization to obtain the services of a relocation expert to assist the City with relocation matters. The acquisition of the properties and relocation costs would be paid for with TIF funds. COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Or/gtnattng DepaxLu~ent Approved for Agenda A~enda Section Ordi/i'ances & Community Development Resolutions 4-13-98 Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By:. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 98-13, AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING COMMERCIAL DAY CARE FACILITIES AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE B-l, B-2 AND B-4 ZONING DISTRICTS This is a Public headng to consider the adoption of an Ordinance Establishing Commercial Day Care Facilities as Conditional Uses in the B-l, B-2 and B-4 Zoning Districts. This public hearing is being held by the City Council as opposed to the Planning Commission, because the timeline for publication requirements could not be met in time to conduct th~ public hearing at the Planning Commission level. The Planning Commission did consider this ordinance at its Apdl 7 meeting and recommended approval of the ordinance. This Zoning Ordinance text amendment was initiated by Bdght Start Day Care who is proposing to lease space in the Post Haste Center, which is zoned B-4, General Business. The current Zoning Code only allows commercial day care facilities in residential zoning districts, usually as an accessory use to a school or religious facility. To accommodate a day care operation in a commercial zoning district, the Zoning Ordinance needs to be amended. It is important to note that although the text amendment was initiated by Bright Start for Post Haste Center, the amendment would not be specific to only that proposal or location. If approved, the text amendment would be applicable to all B-l, B-2 and B-4 Zoning Districts located in the City. Also, this public hearing is not a discussion on the specific application of Bright Start at Post Haste Center; it should be a general discussion regarding whether or not commercial day care centers are an appropriate use in all B-l, B-2 and B-4 Zoning Districts. If the Council determines that the use is appropriate and approves the ordinance amendment, then the specific proposal by Bright Start for Post Haste will be considered later.on the Council agenda. The attached Planner's report outlines the staff analysis of the requested ordinance amendment that would allow commercial day care by conditional use permit within the B-l, B-2 and B-4 Zoning Districts. This text amendment was reviewed by the Codes & Standards Committee at its March meeting and modifications were made to the draft ordinance based on the discussions at that meeting. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: A~lmi~tion: Finance: RFA-O01 Request for Action Page 2 z~-13.98 The issues that were reviewed by the Planner include the following: · Survey of Adioinin,q Communities: A survey of surrounding communities reveals that most cities recognize commercial day care as a commercial service and allows them within their commercial zoning districts. Generally due to concerns with traffic, outdoor play areas and other inherent use characteristics, most communities require day cares to receive a conditional use permit. · Chanqin,q Conditions within New Hope: The vitality and condition of New Hope's commercial areas have been cited as primary issues to be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan update. Efforts renovate, redevelop and revitalize the City's commercial areas are seen as a future priority. Part of this directive is to examine and amend the City's development regulations in an effort to promote reinvestment in the City's commercial centers. Amending the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow day cares in commercial zoning districts adds another potential business that may be introduced to existing shopping centers or commercial buildings. Day care facilities are compatible and complementary to other commercial uses in that they provide a needed community service and generate customer traffic for a commercial area. In this respect, staff believes that an amendment to allow day care facilities in commercial zoning districts is appropriate. · Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The. goals and policy statements drafted in the Comprehensive Plan Update for commercial areas are supportive of the proposed amendment. Commercial Goals: · Maintain and improve New Hope's commercial areas as vital retail and service locations. · Redevelop commercial sites that display building deterioration, obsolete site design, land use compatibility issues and a high level of vacancies. · Create a cohesive and unified identity of New Hope's commercial areas. Commercial Policies: · Work with local business people to gain an unclerstanding of the changin need~ of the bu$~nes~ environment. · Promote a full and broad range of office, service, retaining ami .e~e~ment ~ ~ commercial areas of New i-lo~. · Attract new .businesses to New Hope that are complimemaq to ~ ~ and contribute to the customer attraction and busine~ ~ of tl~ local comme~ · Promote the redevelopment and expansion of existing ~ ~ I~ C~ t~ ~ a ~ level of sales and bus~ attraction. · Consider complementary siterestive land uses such as tamed land ~4~ ~ t~e ~ of commercial sites. These land uses would serve to reduce the commem~ ~ of the ~ provide support for the remaining commercial land use. · Commercial redevelopment efforts to promote site Oesigns that ~ ~afe and conven~ pedestrian movement, including access for persons with disabilities. , Promote a community-wide perspective by continuing to give atten~on to each of New different commercial locations. Based on the above issues, City staff, the Codes & Standards Committee and the Planning CommIssion are supportive of amending the Zoning Code to allow day care facilities within commercial zoning districts by conditional use permit. Request for Action Page 4-13-98 3 The proposed text amendment, which was drafted by the City Attorney, would allow a state licensed day care facility serving 13 or more people as a conditional use in the B-1 (which rolls over to B-2) and B-4 Zoning Districts, if the following conditions were met: A. Off-Street Parkin,q: Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Section 4.036 of the City Code. The design and location of the facility drop off area shall not interfere with internal site circulation. B. Off-Street Loadin.q: Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with Section 4.037 of the City Code. The loading area size may be reduced or the requirement waived if the following conditions exist: 1. The site cannot physically accommodate a loading berth to the size required.. 2. Semi-trailer truck deliveries will not occur at the site or all deliveries will occur at such a time as to not conflict with customer or employee access to the building and parking demand. C. Outdoor Play Area: Outdoor play areas are landscaped and screened from abutting residential properties in compliance with Section 4.033(3) of the City Code. D. Si,qns: All signing and information or visual communication devices are in compliance with Section. 3.464(1)(d) of the City Code. E. General Conditional Use Requirements: The provisions of Sections 4.21 through 4.212(6)(c) of the City Code are met. F. State Re.qulations: The structure and operation shall be in compliance with State of Minnesota Department of Human Services regulations and shall be licensed accordingly. Pending discussion by the Council and any public comments received, staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment. 1/E~UEST FOR ACTION Originating Depa~ent Approved for Agenda _ A~enda Section Deve'l'opment Community Development & Planning 4-13-98 Item No. By: Kirk McDonald ~ PLANNING CASE 98-02, REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL DAY CARE CENTER IN A B-4 ZONING DISTRICT, AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL, 9440 36TM AVENUE NORTH, BRIGHT START CHILDREN'S CENTERS AND CARIBOU CORNERS, LLC, JAY MUTSCHLER, PETITIONERS Pending City Council approval of Ordinance No. 98-13 Establishing Commercial Day Care Facilities as a Conditional Use in the B-l, B-2 and B-4 Zoning Districts, the petitioner is requesting approval of a~ conditional use permit and site/building plan review approval to allow a commercial day care center at Post Haste Center, pursuant to Sections 4.20, 4.21 and 4.13 of the New Hope Zoning Code. The Bright Start Children's Center wishes to become a tenant in the Post Haste Shopping Center and is proposing to occupy approximately. 6,500 square feet in the northeast comer of the existing 22,000 square foot shopping center at the corner of 36"' Avenue and Highway 169. Post Haste Center was recently purchased and has new owners, who are attempting to revitalize the center with new tenants and site/building improvements. The shopping center was constructed in 1971 and the property contains 3.7 acres. Surrounding zoning and land uses include R-1 single family homes to the north and east, R-O office and R-2 twinhomes to the south across 36"' Avenue and B-3 gas/convenience store to the southeast, and Highway 169 to the west. The topography of the. site is generally flat, but tapers downhill at the northern and northeaster edges. An artificial three-foot berm was constructed in 1971 along the residential perimeter. Bright Start Children's Centers is a child cam company with locations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nevada, and New Mexico. Bright Start was founded in 1989 with four centers in St. Paul. They currently operate 44 centers nationwide. Seven of those centers are located in Minnesota. The Robbinsdale Bright Start Center is currently leasing space in the old Robbinsdale Senior High School. The Robbinsdale School District's Language Immersion Program is also located in the same building. Due to the expansion of the program, Bright Start's lease will end May 31, 1998. The facility would include areas for the Receptionist, Infant, Toddler, Preschool and School-Age classrooms. An NS.F. commercial duty kitchen offers breakfasts, lunches, and snacks to each child. Bright Start has 15-20 employees serving children from 80-90 families enrolled in their typical center. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: I RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 4-13-98 The hours of operation are 6:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Monday - Friday. Parents arrive any time between 6:30 - 9:00 a.m. to drop off their children and between 3:00 - 6:00 p.m~ to pick them up. A total of 8'- 10 parking stalls would be designated for parent drop-off/pick-up. The center is not open on weekends. The petitioner indicates that the licensed capacity for this location will be 121 children. There will be traffic generated by employees, parents dropping off and picking up their children and an occasional vendor delivery. During the morning peak hour between 7:00 - 8:00 a.m., they estimate they will generate roughly 120 trips (50 trips in and 50 trips out .to drop off children, 20 employee trips). Their food vendor will make weekly deliveries. The plans indicate that there will be a 7,000 square foot fenced in playground on the northeast end of the building, equipped with play structures specifically designed for each age group. Each class participates in outdoor playtime once or twice each day depending upon the weather. Group sizes are 20 - 30 children monitored by 2 - 4 teachers depending on the age of the children. The enclosure will be a chain-link fence. City staff encouraged the petitioners to conduct a neighborhood meeting with the adjacent property owners on the north end of the shopping center pdor to the Planning Commission meeting and provided addresses for such a meeting. In review of the conditional use permit and site plan, City staff and the Planning Commission examined the conditions of bOth the entire Post Haste Shopping Center as well as the specific elements of the Bdght Start Day Care. The plans include the following details: A. Parkin.q/Circulation: The shopping center has site access from both Jordan Avenue and 36"~ Avenue. The shopping center design provides driveway circulation and parking around the entire shopping center. The site survey indicates sufficient area for approximately +165 parking stalls with appropriate drive lanes. Examination of the site reveals that the shopping center parking lot and driveway are in poor condition and need repair. As a condition of the conditional use permit, it i$ recommended that the entire shopping center parking lot and driveway be repaired and improved. The property owner has agreed to install a new bituminous overlay over all of the shopping center parking lot and driveways during the summer of 1998. The day care is proposing to locate in the northeast comer of the shopping center, In review of the selected location, the following traffic circulation and parking features were considered: 1. The building is surrounded by driveways which offer the day care access and egress from two directions. The traffic circulation pattern is positive in that it will promote efficient traffic movement and business interchange between shopping center tenants. 2. The Zoning Ordinance requires day care centers to provide one parking space per employee, plus one space for each four students based on the maximum capacity of the center. The Bright Start Day Care is anticipated to have a maximum enrollment of 121 children and staff of seven per shift and one facility van. Based on City standards, the proposed day care would require 38 parking spaces. The site plan indicates 22 parking spaces needed to serve the facility. It does not appear that additional parking spaces are needed for the day care. Review of the shopping center parking indicates that the site has parking in excess of the City parking standards for shopping centers. 3. The applicant has reserved seven parking stalls near the day care entrance as short-term customer parking. These parking stalls are intended to serve as convenient short-term parking area for parents checking the child into the day care. 4. To make customer parking convenient, it is recommended that employee vehicles and the facility's van be parked in the northern parking lot. 5. The shopping center must provide one disability parking stall for every 25 parking stalls. Request for Action Page 3 4-13-~~'~' 6. The applicant is proposing traffic signage that would caution motorists' of the children's crosswalk on the north side of the building. These signs are located at the northwest comer of the building and southeast corner of the east parking lot. These sign locations appear to be appropriate. The applicant will also post stop signs at both sides of the proposed children's crosswalk. These stop signs are also highlighted by stop bars painted on the driveways. B. Pedestrian Circulation: An examination of the site reveals that the sidewalks around the shopping center are in poor condition. It is recommended that as a condition of the CUP approval, that the sidewalks be repaired and placed in a safe condition, The owner has indicated that sidewalk repair will be undertaken and completed by July of 1998. The day care is providing a playground located away from the building. To access the playground, children must cross the shopping center driveway. To insure child safety and minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, the applicant is proposing to establish a painted crosswalk with proper signage for the crosswalk. All playground visits are supervised and children Will only leave the building under controlled circumstances. In review of the pedestrian circulation, the following features were considered: 1. Except for emergency purposes, the building egress shall be via the eastern main entrance. The doors on the north side of the building shall not be utilized for building egress to avoid potential pedestrian/motorist conflicts along the north side'of the building. 2. The proposed traffic signage is an appropriate means to bring attention to the pedestrian crosswalk. C. Off-Street Loadin,q: BHght Start Day Care indicated that they receive food supplies weekly by truck. The deliveries are received through the front door dudng off-peak business hours so as not to interfere with business traffic. The Post Haste Center overall does not provide for designated off-street loading area. Under these conditions, the proposed day care zoning text amendment would allow the City to waive the off-street loading requirements. D. Outdoor Pla¥,qround: The Bright Start Day Care is proposing to construct an outdoor playground within the 70-foot wide green space in the northeastern corner of the site. The p~oposed playground .appears to be well designed and properly fenced. The following conditions ars suggested in conjunction with the playground design and operation: 1. Hours of playground use should be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. to reduce noise impact on adjoining residential properties. 2. The outdoor play area should be screened from adjoining residential properties. E. Landscape Plan: A landscape plan has not yet been submitted for review by City staff. The applicant has Indicated that a landscape plan is currently under way for the entire site. This plan will give attention to screening between the play area and the adjoining residential properties as well as 36a Avenue. The applicant is also requesting that the installation of the landscaping be deferred until the fall of 1998. This deferment raises some concern with regard to timing of the screening required for the outdoor play area. Additionally, the landscape plan should also address the removal of dead vegetation existing at the site. F. Trash Enclosure: The day care site plan indicates the removal of an existing trash enclosure. The applicant indicates that the two existing trash enclosures are planned to be consolidated into one and located in the northwest corner of the shopping center parking area. The site plan should illustrate the location of the trash enclosure. The applicant should also provide a design detail for the trash enclosure. Request for Action Page 4 4-13-98 G.Sic~nacle: The applicant is proposing to present a comprehensive sign plan for the entire shopping center in April 1998 for City review. H. Liohtin(3: The applicant has indicated that the current lighting on the site will not be altered. I. Draina,qe: Site drainage should be reviewed by the City Engineer in conjunction with the parking lot upgrade. (See following Engineer comments.) J. S i~: Prior to occupancy, the applicant must demonstrate that structure and operation has been approved and licensed by the State of Minnesota Department of Human Services. K. Development Contract;.: The shopping center owner is requesting that certain site improvements be deferred until later in the year. This arrangement is acceptable, if the property owner enters into a development contract and posts a eecuHty to guarantee that the required improvements are completed per the outlined schedule. L. Fire Lane: The petitioner needs to identify "No Parking - FIRE LANE' STRIPING,.PER Exhibit C from the Building Official The new owners of the shopping center have submitted a proposed schedule of improvements for the site, as follows: · Repair of existin,q sidewalk: The owner is undertaking the repair and expects to have it completed by the end of July. · New landscapin¢~ plan: A new landscaping plan is underway including screening between the play area and residential and along the'36"~ Avenue frontage. Plantings are scheduled to be installed late this fall so bum-out in the hot and dry summer months is avoided. · New Comprehensive Sian Plan; A new comprehensive sign plan is underway and is expected to be complete in April. A free-standing sign is expected to be included for approvals as part of that plan. · Pavin.q: The new owner plans to install new bituminous surfacing overlay over the parking and drive areas. This work is anticipated this summer. · Trash enclosures: The two existing trash enclosures are planned to be consolidated into one in the northwest comer of the parking area. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and his comments are as follows: · The access to the site will be from the ddveway onto Jordan Avenue or 36"~ Avenue. The Jordan access will probably be preferred 'because a 4-way stop exists at Jordan/36"' Avenues. The driveway access onto Jordan Avenue and 36"~ Avenue is shared by an easement with the adjacent property. It is suggested the existing access onto Jordan Avenue be widened to 28' - 30' wide (existing approximately 22' - 24' wide). The access onto 36t" Avenue is 40' wide, which is adequate, however due to the nature of the drive and its shares, it is suggested a more controlled access be defined by stripping or medians to prevent conflicts in 36~ Avenue. · The condition of the overall parking lot/drive aisles/concrete curbs/sidewalks is extremely poor. It has been stated bituminous resurfacing improvements will be made, however due to exceptional fiat grades, if storm sewer extensions aren't made, a bituminous overlay improvement will deteriorate quickly. The previous overlays along the north side of the building have nearly covered the existing curbs/sidewalks. It would also be desirable if the sidewalk along the north side of the building was wider due to its proximity to the existing drive aisle especially if the sidewalk is intended to be used by small children from the day care. ~ The overall parking lot layout, drive aisles, and pedestrian walkways should be represented on the site plan. In certain areas, the ddve aisles and parking lot lengths don't comply with standards. In other areas, such as the northwest comer and south parking lot, the drive aisles are exceptionally wide. It is recommended the parking lot improvements correct deficiencies in the layout. Request for Action Page 5 4-13-9~, Concrete medians may be desirable in certain areas to define the layout. · The playground improvements north of the parking lot provide for regrading this area. The regrading drainage from the playground area shall be directed to the parking lot and not the residential properties to the north and east. It would be desirable if storm sewer extensions in the parking lot are made to better collect runoff in this area and that consideration be given to providing drain tile to the playground area. Landscape improvements shall be carefully done in this area to screen the residential property. · The existing sewer and water service need to be shown on the site plan. The Planning Commission considered this request at its April 7 meeting and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The shopping center owner commit to the following overall site improvements to be completed: A. The sidewalks on the shopping center property be repaired including leveling the sidewalk, fixing broken concrete, etc. Sidewalk repairs must be completed by June 1 ,'1998. B. The overall shopping center parking lot be repaired and receive a bituminous overlay. The parking lot must be striped in accordance with the City zoning regulations and ADA requirements. Applicant shall submit a site drainage plan for review and approval of the City Engineer. Parking lot improvements must be completed by August 1, 1998. C. The applicant submit a landscape plan for City review and approval. Landscape plantings must be installed in accordance with the approved plan. The applicant shall remove dead landscape vegetation from the site. The installation of landscape screening around the playground and the removal of the dead landscape vegetation must be completed pdor to issuing occupancy permit to the Day Care. The balance of the landscaping must be installed by November 1, 1998. D. The applicant will submit a comprehensive signage plan for City approval and notify the City when the plan will be submitted the week of April 13, 1998.. E. The applicant will submit a revised site plan and design detail for the relocated trash enclosure for City approval and notify the City when the plan will be submitted the week of April 13, 1998. F. The property owner shall enter into a development contract and post a security to guarantee that the deferred improvements will be completed per the aforementioned schedules. 2. Conditions associated with the day care facility will be as follows: A. The day care designated seven parking stalls near the main east entrance as short-term parking. B. Day care employee vehicles, with the exception of two employee's vehicles who open/close the center and the facility's van, will be parked in the north parking lot. C. Except for emergency egress, the doors on the north side of the building will not be utilized for building egress. D. The loading area requirements are waived. E. Playground operations will be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and the playground shall be locked at all other times. F. The outdoor playground must be screened from adjoining residential properties prior to the day care receiving an occupancy permit. G. Prior to building occupancy, the applicant must demonstrate that the day care has been licensed by the State of Minnesota Department of Human Services. H. Installation of Fire Lane signs and yellow striping, all traffic control signage and disability parking/signage be installed before occupancy of the building by Bright Start. I. Rear gate on playground fence to be installed to allow access to north side 3: Site plan corrections, per the City Engineer's recommendations, i.e., existing utilities to be shown on site plan, etc. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 98-59 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 98-02 REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL DAY CARE CENTER IN A B-4 ZONING DISTRICT AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL AT 9400 36TM AVENUE NORTH (PID #18-118-21-33-0103) SUBMITTED BY BRIGHT START CHILDREN'S CENTERS AND CARIBOU CORNERS, LLC/JAY MUTSCHLER WHEREAS, the applicant, Bdght Start Children's Centers and Caribou Comers, LLC/Jay Mutschler, has submitted a request identified as Planning Case No. 98-02 for a zoning text amendment, conditional use permit to allow a commercial day care center in a B-4 Zoning District, and site/building plan review approval, pursuant to Sections 4.20, 4.21 and 4.13 of the New Hope Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public headng on Planning Case No. 98-02 on Apdl 7, 1998, found that all conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code for zoning text amendment, a conditional use permit, and site/building plan review approval 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 April 3, 1998; and WHEREAS, the City Council on Apdl 13, 1998, 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 zoning text amendment, conditional use permit, and site building plan review approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of New Hope that the zoning text amendment, conditional use permit to allow a commercial day care center in a B-4 Zoning District, and site/building plan review approval, as submitted in Planning Case No. 98-02, are approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The shopping center owner commit to the following overall site improvements to be completed: A. The sidewalks on the shopping center property be repaired including leveling the sidewalk, fixing broken concrete, etc. Sidewalk repairs must be completed by June 1, 1998. B. The overall shopping center parking lot be repaired and receive a bituminous overlay. The parking lot must be striped in accordance with the City zoning regulations and ADA requirements. Applicant shall submit a site drainage plan for review and approval of the City Engineer. Parking lot improvements must be completed by August 1, 1998. C. The applicant submit a landscape plan for City review and approval. Landscape plantings must be installed in accordance with the approved plan. The applicant shall remove dead landscape vegetation from the site. The installation of landscape screening around the playground and the removal of the dead landscape vegetation must be completed prior to issuing occupancy permit to the Day Care. The balance of the landscaping must be installed by November 1, 1998. D. The applicant will submit a comprehensive signage plan for City approval and notify the City when the plan will be submitted the week of April 13, 1998. E. The applicant will submit a revised site plan and design detail for the relocated trash enclosure for City approval and notify the City when the plan will be submitted the week of April 13, 1998. F. The property owner shall enter into a development contract and post a security to guarantee that the deferred improvements will be completed per the aforementioned schedules. 2. Conditions associated with the day care facility will be as follows:' A. The day care designated seven parking stalls near the main east entrance as short-term parking. B. Day care employee vehicles, with the exception of two employee's vehicles who open/close the center and the facility's van, will be parked in the north parking lot. C. Except for emergency egress, the doors on the north side of the building will not be utilized for building egress. D. The loading area requirements are waived. E. Playground operations will be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and the playground shall be locked at all other times. F. The outdoor playground must be screened from adjoining residential properties prior to the day care receiving an occupancy permit. G. Prior to building occupancy, the applicant must demonstrate that the day care has been licensed by the State of Minnesota Department of Human Services. H. Installation of Fire Lane signs and yellow striping, all traffic control signage and disability parking/signage be installed before occupancy of the building by Bright Start. I. Rear gate on Playground fence to be installed to allow access to north side. 3. Site plan corrections, per the City Engineer's recommendations, i.e., existing utilities to be shown on site plan, etc. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 13th day of April, 1998. Mayor Attest: City Clerk ItEgUEST ACT Originating Department Approved for Agenda _ A~enda Section Oeve'l'opment Community Development & Planning 4-13-98 Item No. By:. Kirk McDonald By:. PLANNING CASE 98-03, REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN AND VARIANCES TO THE SIGN CODE, 4301-4471 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH, WINNETKA MALL II/ROBERT RAPPAPORT PETITIONER The petitioner is requesting comprehensive sign plan approval and variances to the Sign Code, pursuant to Sections 3.467(3) and 3.467(4) - New Hope Sign Code. Winnetka Center Shopping Center, located at the southwest intersection of 45~ and Winnetka Avenues, was purchased last fall by Robert Rappaport, who currently owns and manages seven malls in the Twin Cities, including the renovated Four Seasons Mall in Plymouth. Rappaport's plans for the shopping center include improving the building front details (painting/accent sthpes), installing uniform signage and backlit awnings, installing some new landscaping, and leasing the remaining vacant spaces. The SuperValu space has been leased to two tenants: Unique Thrift Store and Jack & Jill Children's Clothing and School Uniforms. The City Manager has given administrative approval for the new building canopy, minor parking lot revisions, and for the installation of additional landscaping. The Building Official is currently working with the owner on building code issues related to the interior remodeling of the SuperValu space to accommodate the new tenants. The purpose of this request is for the proposed signage improvements. The petitioner is requesting approval of a comprehensive sign plan as part of the rehabilitation of Winnetka Center. The applicant is proposing to locate two pylon signs along Winnetka Avenue ~ with the new pylon being located within 13 feet of the property line. The New Hope Sign Code: allows for one ground sign per street frontage with a 20-foot property line setback requirement. Therefore, consideration of two variances is required. The shopping center parcel contains 10.48 acres and the building contains approximately 93,000 square feet. The City cooperated with the previous owners of the center to have Northwest Consultants conduct a Market Study for this center in 1995. Site locatiOn on Winnetka Avenue and ample parking availability were noted as strengths of the center, while the large setback, building configuration and limited visibility to northbound traffic on Winnetka Avenue or 42'~ Avenue were noted as weaknesses. Surrounding land uses include R-4 apartments and R-1 ponding area to the north across 45~ Avenue, R-1 single family homes to the east across Winnetka Avenue, B-4 Community Business District to the south (this site is MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 4-13-9, adjacent to City Center/New Hope Mall), and R-5 Senior/Disabled Residential (Winnetka West and VOA) and B-4 (Kmart) to the west. The site currently contains 577 parking spaces and there has been discussion with the new owner regarding reducing the shopping center parking requirements in the future for the development of a potential satellite business (restaurant) at the northeast comer of the parking lot. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN/VARIANCE REQUESTS The New Hope Sign states that "when a single principal building is devoted to two or more businesses, or industrial uses, a comprehensive sign plan for the entire building or shopping center shall be submitted. No permit shall be issued for an individual use except,upon a determination that it is consistent with a previously or concurrently approved comprehensive sign plan. The effect of said comprehensive sign plan is to allow and require the owner of multiple occupancy structures to determine the specific individual sign requirements for the tenants of his building. As sign locations and size, etc. may be of some significant importance in lease arrangements between owner and tenant, it is the City's intention to establish general requirements for the overall building only, thus providing a building owner with both the flexibility and responsibility to deal with his individual tenants on their specific sign needs." Wall Si.qns - Based upon the provisions of the Sign Code, the following comments apply to the proposed wall signage elements of the submitted comprehensive sign plan: · Area: The maximum area for wall signs for shopping centers is equal to 15 percent of the building facade area. The facade of the Winnetka Center measures approximately 13,008 square 'feet, allowing for 1.951.2 square feet of wall signage. The proposed comprehensive sign plan indicates a total of approximately t,072 square feet of wall signs for the Winnetka Center, which is within Code limits. The size of individual signs is also limited to a maximum of. 100 square feet. All of the wall signage illustrated on the proposed sign plan is. less than 100 square feet, in conformance with Sign Code provisions. · Number: The Sign Code allows for an individual wall sign for each tenant within a shopping center. Two individual signs are allowed for those tenants that have frontage to two public streets. The Winnetka Center will have 17 tenants, including a secondary tenant within the anchor space. The existing bank tenant, which has frontage to two public streets, is proposed to have two signs. As such, the '18 proposed wall signs that ara proposed conform with Sign Code provisions. · Description: The Unique Thrift Store sign will be 2' x 37' or 74 square feet and will consist of illuminated channel letters. The remaining tenant space signs include 4' signs with lengths varying from 16' to 36', all of which are illUminated sign cabinets. The signs will be accented with red awning canopies to blend with the new chocolate brown paint on the building. The existing Marquette Bank sign will remain unchanged, as it blends with the new proposed signage. Ground Si.qns - The applicant is proposing to install two 198 square foot pylon signs adjacent to Winnetka Avenue. (The existing pylon would be utilized and one new pylon installed.) The Sign Code regulates these signs for shopping centers with regard to the following issues: Area: Ground signs for shopping centers must be no more than 200 square feet in area. The ground signs proposed by the applicant are approXimately t98 square feet in area. Additionally, 15 percent of the sign must be attributed to shopping center identification. The submitted site plan indicates that this requirement is satisfied. Request for Action Page 3 4-13-98 · Height: Ground signs for shopping centers are limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. The proposed signs are 25.5 feet, in compliance with the Code-requirement. · Setbacks: Shopping center ground signs must be set back at least 20 feet from al~ property lines. This setback requirement includes the actual sign face and not only the mounting structure. The applicant has proposed that the new sign be positioned with the mounting pole 19 feet from the property line and the edge of the sign face 13 feet from the property line. This location requires consideration of a variance per the requirements of the Sign Code. It is the Planner's opinion that there is no special circumstance associated with views along Winnetka Avenue that would impair visibility of the proposed signs if located within required setbacks. However, City staff is in the process of preparing amendments to the Sign Code that will include establishing a uniform setback requirement for pylons in all zoning districts and a 10-foot setback is being recommended, If the City Council was to approve a vadance to allow the proposed sign location, the resulting setback would be considered by staff when developing new standards. · Number of Signs: Shopping centers are allowed one ground sign per street frontage. As the Winnetka Center has frontage on Winnetka Avenue and 4S~ Avenue, two ground signs are permitted. It is staff's interpretation that this provision allows a ground sign to be installed adjacent to each street frontage. However, the applicant is proposing to install both signs adjacent to Winnetka Avenue. This location of both signs adjacent to Winnetka Avenue requires approval of a variance based upon the considerations outlined in the Sign Code. In considering this vadance request, it must be emphasized that a sign could be located at the comer of Winnetka and 45=, within setbacks, which would conform to ordinance requirements. However, a sign in this location raises compatibility issues with adjacent residential uses along 45~ Avenue. Also, the usefulness of a sign at this location is questionable due to limited traffic volumes on 45~ Avenue and visibility from Winnetka Avenue. As such, it is staff's opinion that a vadance to allow the applicant two pylon signs adjacent to Winnetka Avenue is warranted to improve compatibility within adjacent properties and minimize impacts. · Description: The existing pylon sign at the main entrance to Winnetka Center would remain the same in its existing location and complies with the Sign Code as it contains 192 square feet. The new pylon would be located north of the existing pylon and consist of 198 square feet and be a double-faced illuminated pylon with white lexan pan faces and vinyl graphics. The 30" x 12' header panel comprises 15 percent of the sign area. The cabinet and pipe would be painted red. The petitioner has indicated that the variances should be granted for the following reasons: 1. The buildings at Winnetka Center are set back a considerable distance from Winnetka Avenue in comparison to other shopping centers along Winnetka Avenue. Consequently, visibility to Winnetka Center is limited. 2. Tenants at Winnetka Center who wish to remain have demanded a presence on a ground sign/ pylon. We are unable to accommodate the tenants unless we are granted a variance for the ground sign/pylon. 3. If a second ground sign/pylon were constructed on 45~, this sign would be obstructed, driving north to south along Winnetka Avenue, by the apartments and trees that currently exist. 4. Finally, a ground sign erected on 45= would be illuminated in the evening and the bdght light from the ground sign may cause a nuisance to the apartment and housing dwellers. Request for Action Page 4 4-13-9~ Staff are in agreement that some consideration needs to be given to the following issues: 1. Requested sign location for new pylon is very close to what would be permitted under the Code; see Exhibit B. 2. The center has been in a state of decline and the petitioner is attempting to revitalize the center. 3. The setback of the center from the street is significant. 4. The location of a lighted pylon on 45a Avenue would not be compatible with the multi-family apartments. 5. Staff is in the process of working with the Codes & Standards Committee on a completely new Sign Ordinance, but it will not be completed until the fall of 1998. The Planning Commission considered this request at its April 7 meeting and recommended approval of the Comprehensive Sign Plan and the variances, subject to the following condition: 1. Staff continue to work on the Sign Code update and establish a uniform pylon setback requirement for all Zoning Districts. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. COUNCIL RE D'EST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda _ Agenda S~-tion ueveropmen! Community Development & Planning 4-13-98 Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By:. PLANNING CASE 98-04, REQUEST FOR SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR BUILDING ADDITION, VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN APFiROVAL, 8201 54TM AVENUE NORTH, CNH ARCHITECTS AND THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY The petitioner is requesting site/building plan review approval for a building addition, a vadance to the front yard setback requirement, and comprehensive sign plan approval, pursuant to *Sections 4.039A and 4.21 of the New Hope Zoning Code and pursuant to the Sign Code. The City has received a request from CNH Architects on behalf of Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, to enclose the existing loading area along the north side of the building at'8201 54~ Avenue. The new owner wants to rejuvenate the property by enclosing the entire front yard trucking docks and modernizing the front elevation of the building. The existing structure on the subject site was built in 1966 with docks on the north side of the building and adjacent to the residential district. This arrangement of the loading area has presented noise and aesthetic issues for the single family residential neighborhood to the north. The proposed dock enclosure will help improve this noise and aesthetic issue. The subject site is currently zoned I-1 Limited Industrial. The required front yard setback in this district and adjacent to a residential district is 75 feet. In order to enclose the existing loading dock, the applicant has requested a setback variance of 25 feet allowing the building within 50 feet of the north lot line. With the proposed addition, the applicant has identified site improvements in regard to parking, landscaping and building image. This proposal is intended to benefit the neighborhood, the City and the building owner. Along with the site plan and vadance request, the applicant has also submitted an overall comprehensive sign plan for review and comment. The existing structure is a multi-tenant building. The applicant has proposed two wall signs, one ground sign and directional signs as part of t. heir comprehensive sign plan. The existing parcel contains 13.2 acres and the existing office/warehouse building contains 342,000 square feet. Surrounding land uses and zoning are I-1 Limited Industrial to the east, railroad tracks and I-1 Limited Industrial to the west and R-1 single family homes and Begin Park on the north. The entire site is generally fiat, but was built with the front trucking lot depressed eight feet below the street, which results in a drainage problem around the front loading dock doors. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: ,a~mlnlstratton: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 4-13-~ SETBACK VARIANCE The site is in the I-1 Industrial Distdct and the minimum setback requirements are as foilows: (1) Front yard - 75 feet (property adjacent to Residential District); (2)Side Yard - 20 feet; and (3) Rear Yard - 35 feet. The proposed site currently meets the required front yard setback of 75 feet. However, the current arrangement of loading docks along the north side of the building has presented significant compatibility problems with regard to noise and aesthetics for the adjoining single family residential neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to totally enclose the site's loading docks within the new building addition. Through this effort, the applicant intends to reduce the noise and aesthetic problems currently inherent in the site. To enclose the loading area, the applicant has requested a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 75 feet to 50 feet. The following conditions exist in support of the requested variance: The site currently conforms with the required front yard setback and may operate without the variance, however, this would not resolve the existing compatibility concern. · The site size and building configuration prohibits relocating the loading of docks to any other side of the building. · The building addition solely encloses the loading docks and does not expand the usable floor area of. the building. · The proposed building expansion with the requested vadance will actually improve the building aesthetics, and noise issues related to this building. Considering the aforementioned conditions, staff would contend that the relationship of the building's loading dock~ in proximity to the adjoining residential neighborhood presents a hardship unique to this property that warrants the approval of this variance. SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW/APPROVAl. AND COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN The plans include the following details: · Lot Covera,qe Data: Building: 64.4% Existing Green Area: 14.4% New Green Area: 1.5% Asphalt: 19.7% · Site and Buildin,q Data: Site Area: 616,075 square feet Existing Building Area: Warehouse: 328,094 square feet gross Office: 14,823 square feet gross Covered Parking Area Addition: 52,943 square feet gross · Parkina Soaoes: Based on the City's off-street parking requirement, 240 spaces will be required of the proposed warehouse and office as calculated' below. The applicant has provided the required number of parldng stalls. Use Ratio Requirement Building A: (328,094x.9) Warehouse I space per 1,500 square feet 196 Building B: (14,823x.9) Office 1 space per 300 square feet 44 The applicant has eliminated two parking stalls along the northeast area of the parking lot and replaced it with trees and shrubs. The applicant has also provided seven truck parking areas within the enclosed loading area. '~ Page 3 4-13-98 ~ · Request for Action · Handicap Parkina: According to State law, for a total of 201 - 300 parking spaces the applicant would be required to provide seven accessible parking spaces and one van accessible space. The revised site plan shows nine handicap parking stalls and, therefore, meets the requirement. · Curbin.q: The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that all off-street parking areas must have perimeter curbing and the site plan does not show curbing along the western property line, although the building addition does not impact that portion of the property. City staff recommended increasing the curb cuts along the northern property line to 30 feet to create suitable turning/visibility space for trucking and the plans show this change. One existing curb cut will be removed in the center of the lot. The new one-waytrucking flow is 'a significant improvement to traffic safety on the street. · Surfacin.q: The site plan shows the surface to be bituminous paving and meets the Ordinance requirement. · Snow Stora,qe: The proposed plan identifies snow storage areas at the south portion of the property. · Green Area: According to the Zoning Ordinance, at least 20 percent of the subject property must be devoted to green area. The existing site has a green area coverage of 14.4 percent. The applicant has revised their site plan to increase the green area by doing the following: 1. Removing two parking stalls along the northwest corner of the property. 2. Eliminating a proposed driveway along the north side of the new loading dock area. 3. Reducing the width of the northeast driveway and parking bay. The applicant has reduced the nonconformity of the green area by proposing these design changes. · Landscapin,q Plan: The applicant has proposed removing the existing trees and bushes which are planted on the street side of the property line in order to improve sight lines for vehicles entering and exiting the site, per staff recommendations. The site plan indicates that these plantings will be replaced with boulevard style trees and bushes in an expanded bermed green space. The site plan also shows existing trees by the northeast parking area. The Design & Review Committee recommended expanding the variety of plantings and discussing the plans with the Contract Manager/City Forester and this was done. The landscape schedule is identified as follows: Quantity Size Description 18 2.5" BB Skyline Honeylocust - Gleditsia Tdacanthos 23 6' BB Austrian Pine - Pinus Nigra 30 24" Buffalo Juniper Hedge - Juniper Sabina "Buffalo" · Buildin.q Matedat: The building plan/elevations indicate that the building material will be precast concrete wall panels with a limestone aggregate finish and a decorative band near the top, possibly of brick, and insulated metal overhead doors. Three roof-top exhaust fans in the loading area will be painted to match the building. The noise levels of exhaust fans in the loading area must meet City. noise standards. A benefit of the addition is the aesthetic value of a new masonry 400-foot long wall replacing the existing 20 sagging, broken overhead doors. · Lighting: The lighting plan shows two down lights located at the entrance and exit of the enclosed loading'dock. The Planning Commission requested that several additional wail pack down lights be installed on the front of the addition over the sidewalk and this is included in the conditions for approval. The lighting plan does not include footcandle level and this must be specified on the final drawings. Request for Action Page 4 4-13-t~ · Trash: The revised site plan indicates two trash areas. One trash area is' located inside the p.roposed loading area addition and the other is shown outside near the east entrance of the loading area. An overhead door is proposed to screen the east trash area. The applicant should submit a detailed plan for this trash enclosure. · Siqnaoe: The applicant has submitted a comprehensive sign plan for approval. The structure is intended for multiple occupancy industrial uses. The applicant has proposed two wall tenant identification signs. Both of*theee signs are 100 square foot back lighted signs and are in compliance to the zoning ordinance requirement. The applicant has also indicated a new ground aluminum sign (40 square feet) with interior lighted acrylic face located 12 feet from the front property line. The proposed ground sign meets all the design standards as specified in the zoning ordinance. The applicant has also indicated directional signs along the northern entrance of the site. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and his comments are as follows: · The building expansion is proposed to be constructed to the north over an existing pdvate storm sewer. The existing catch basins are shown, however, an as built of the existing storm sewer pipe is not shown. It appears the existing storm sewer pipe may conflict with the proposed north wall and its footing. The upstream/downstream drainage areas must be defined to ensure the existing storm sewer pipe and downstream storm sewer pipe are of sufficient size and condition to properly convey storm water. In the event they aren't, surcharge in the storm sewer line or flooding may cause, damage. The pdvate storm sewer does collect storm water from a very small undeveloped area to the west, however, it is not recommended that a public easement be dedicated over the east/west storm sewer pipe in front of the building. Emergency overland drainage shall be reviewed in this area. · Storm water drainage from the southwest comer of the site is conveyed overland in an easterly direction along the railroad tracks/spur. The grades in this area are exceptionally flat such that water ponds in the southwest comer of the site. It is recomminded the storm water drainage along the south property line be reviewed and improved to properly convey storm water to the east. As builts of all existing storm sewer pipes in this area and others shall be clearly represented on the site plan. · The access to the site is from 54~' Avenue. The two westerly ddves are proposed to be widened to 30'. · The parking lot layout is properly shown and appears to comply with recommended standards. However, it is not clear to what extent the bituminous pavement will be reconstructed and concrete curbs are required around all parking lots. · Sanitary sewer and water service lines shall be properly shown on the site plan. Proper fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the fire department. The Planning Commission considered this request at its Apdi 13 meeting and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide ~as-built" storm sewer plans and identify sanitary sewer/water service lines on the site plan. 2. The noise levels of proposed exhaust fans must meet City noise standards. 3. The revised plans do not indicate footcandle level and this must be specified on the plan. 4. A detailed plan must be submitted for the east outdoor trash areas. 5. Petitioner to enter into a Development Agreement with the City and provide financial guarantee (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). 6. Wall p~ck down lights be added to the north elevation of the building addition over the sidewalk area. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. COUNCIL FOR & rlON Originating Departmeat Approved for Ageada _ ..~enda Sectton uev~opment Community Development & Planning 4-13-98 Item No. B'7: Kirk McDonald By:. PLANNING CASE 98-05, REQUEST FOR SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW· APPROVAL FOR BUILDING EXPANSION, 3940 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH, PADDOCK LABORATORIES/BRUCE PADDOCK AND SKD ARCHITECTS, PETITIONERS The petitioner is requesting site/building plan review approval for a building addition, pursuant to Sections 4.039A(1)(d) of the New Hope Zoning Code. Paddock Laboratories, Inc. constructed an 80,251 square foot pharmaceutical manufacturing facility at 3940 Quebec Avenue North in 1994, when they relocated their entire operation from their former site on Louisiana Avenue. Since that time they have experienced continued, substantial growth and are now proposing an expansion of the existing facility. SKD Architects, on behalf of Paddock* Labs, is petitioning for site/building plan review approval for two expansions onto the existing building: 1. 19,830 square foot expansion of the building's warehouse component on the east side of the existing building; and 2. 16,524 square foot one-story expansion of the production and laboratory facilities on the west side of the existing building. These two additions will bdng the total building size to 116,605 square feet. The plans also include planning for the accommodation of a future warehouse expansion on the southeast corner of the building of approximately 15,840 square feet, which would maximize the development of that site. (This approval does not include the future expansion.) · This is stdctly a request for site/building plan review approval. No additional requests for variances or exceptions to the Zoning Coda are tied to this application. The petitioner has indicated that it is their intention to comply with all setback, parking, landscaping and site coverage requirements. The property is· located in an I-1 Limited IndUstrial Zoning Distdct and the warehouse/production/ laboratory use is a permitted use within the I-1 Zoning District. Surrounding zoning and land uses include I-1 Limited Industrial to the north (Versa Die Cast), Residential-Office to the west (Holy Nativity Church), R-1 zoning east of the railroad to the east, and Beth El Cemetery (City of Crystal) to the south. MorION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 Request for Action Page 2 4-13-9~~''~ Special requirements for all Limited Industrial uses are addressed as follows: · Lot Covera.qe: The proposed additions and the existing strUcture together total 116,605 square feet of gross building coverage, this constitutes thirty-six percent (36%) of the 327,550 square foot lot. This forty percent (40%) lot coverage requirement for the !-1 Zoning Distdct was recently eliminated to encourage expansions. · Lot Area: The site area of 7.5 acres is well above the minimum requirement of one acrel · Green Area: Per the Zoning Ordinance, at least twenty percent (20%) of the lot shall remain as a grass plot, including shrubbery, plantings or fencing, and shall be landscaped. The proposed site plan indicates that 92,529 square feet include grass and landscape area, or twenty-eight percent (28%) of the total lot area. Therefore, the site plan meets the twenty percent green space requirement. The plans include the following details: · Structure Setbacks and Hei.qht: The building meets all I-1 setback requirements, and the twenty (20) foot rear yard setback was approved with the original building construction. The height of the addition matches the existing building height and meets the requirement of not exceeding three (3) stories. · Off-Street Parkin,q Spaces: Based on the City's off-street parking requirements, a total of 263 spaces will be required with 53 of those spaces being required for the expansion. The proposed plan Indicates 265 total off-street parking spaces, therefore, the City's off-street parking requirements are satisfied. · Disability Parkin,q: State Statutes state that for 201 to 300 total parking spaces, seven (7} accessible parking spaces are required with one of those spaces being van accessible. The site plan shows that nine (9) spaces are to be utilized for disability parking, therefore, the State's disability parking requirement is satisfied. · Parkin,q Area Dimensions: Per the off-street parking requirements, 90-degree parking stalls, as proposed, must measure at least 8'-9" in width and 19 feet in depth. In addition, ddve aisles must provide a width not less than 24 feet. All of the proposed parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet or exceed the cited stall dimension requirements. · Curbin,q/Surfacin,q: New Hope City Code requires that all off-street parking and ddveway areas must be paved and have perimeter curbing. The proposed site plan indicates that the designated parking, loading and drive aisles are to be paved and have perimeter curbing. · LandscaDina: The landscaping plan shows eight new plantings (Summit Ash and Marshall Seedless A~h) and the relocation of some existing plantings. The location and type of plantings comply with City Code standards. The plant schedule is attached. · Gradin,q & Draina,qe: The applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan, which is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the Shingle Creek Watershed. The condition of the existing NURP pond must be vedfied and, if necessary, sediment should be removed. · Liahtina: The applicant has submitted lighting plans. Lighting is standard-mounted light fixtures with light contours from 5.0 to 0.5 foot candles. The only new light pylons are on the eastern 1/3 of the lot, near the pond. They.are downlights similar to the existing lights. · Buildin,q Material: The building plans and elevations indicate that the proposed building material will be architectural precast panels, aluminum fascias, and glazing that match the existing building materials. The building plans are subject to review and approval of the City Building Request for Action Page 3 4-13-98 Official and must comply with all applicable Uniform Building Codes. Per the petitioner's correspondence, this expansion project will provide two seamless additions to the existing building. As is possible, detailing and finishes will be duplicated on all building facades. Utilities: All utilities and relocated utilities are identified on the plans. · Si~na~e: No additional signage is proposed. · Snow Stora,qe: Snow storage areas are identified on the plan on the east, west and north side of the property. · Refuse: Existing dumpster enclosure is shown on the plan at the rear of the Phase I building addition expansion. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and his comments are as follows: · Staff has previously recommended a sidewalk extension along Quebec Avenue between Winnetka Avenue and 42"~ Avenue and 42"~ Avenue to 49~ Avenue. Presently, a sidewalk exists on the south side of' Quebec Avenue abutting the church property to the east of the Paddock Laboratories site. It is felt a sidewalk to accommodate mixed uses along this alignment such as the church, YMCA, Sunnyside Park, and Ice Arena on 49~' Avenue is not unreasonable. In addition, sidewalks in industrial areas do accommodate employees who.may walk during lunch/breaks. It is recommended a sidewalk be constructed in the boulevard abutting this property. City staff wanted to raise the sidewalk issue for discussion purposes and this is a policy decision of the City Council. A sidewalk was not required with the odginal building construction and this plan requires no variances, as it complies with all standards. The petitioner does not feel a sidewalk is necessary in an industrial area. In some past situations, the City has cooperated in a cost-sharing arrangement for sidewalk installation (J.R. Jones). · The extension of the parking lot to the east is in an area where 5 feet of cut is required. In addition~ poor soils exist in this area which may have to be removed to accommodate parking lot construction. The grading effort and removal of excess material shall not impact the existing condition on · Quebec Avenue. The owner shall assume all responsibility for cleaning and repairing Quebec Avenue resulting from the building expansion. · The existing pond located along the east side of the site accommodates existing drainage for retention/water quality. It is anticipated the site grading/erosion will impact the pond. The owner shall assume responsibility for cleaning/reshaping the slope adjacent to the pond following the grading operation. · The overland drainage along the west and south wall of the proposed building shall be reviewed to minimize impacts. The drainage from adjacent properties, proposed slopes/grades next to the building expansion, and existing soil conditions may warrant storm sewer or drain tile extensions into these areas. The storm sewer extension along the south property line collecting drainage from the adjacent cemetery property in Crystal shall be included in a new dedicated easement since the storm sewer will convey drainage from other properties or be relocated within the existing easement along the south property line. · The truck access route to the loading dock areas shall be reviewed to ensure all required turning movements can be accommodated. Request for Action page 4 4-13-9b The Planning Commission considered this reqaest at its April 7 meeting and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: · ' 1, Shingle Creek Watershed written approval is required because the lot is over five acres in size. 2. The condition of the existing NURP pond must be verified and, if necessary, sediment should be removed. 3. Plant sizes should comply with the minimum plant sizes specified in City Code. 4. Discuss potential construction of public sidewalk along front property line of this site. 5. Compliance with City Engineer recommendetions. 6. Development Agreement to be executed and performance bond provided (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). Staff recommends approval of the resolution. · I I. II II I COUN,,.,u., ~ Ongtnatm~ Departmem Approved for A~enda A~enda Section Public VVorks 4/13/98 Petitions & Request Oi.R Item IVo. By:. Jeennine Clancy By:,' 9.1 DI$CU$,~ION RECaARDING TRAFFIC CO EQUEST AT THE INTERsEcTIoN OF 36' AVENUE AND NEVADA AVENUE/ Mr. Karl H. A. [:)avid, representing V'~co, Inc., located at 3531 Nevada Avenue North, has submitted a petition requesting that an all way stol) sign pe installed at the intersection of 36e and Nevada Avenues. Currentty, a two way stop exists ~ traffic on Nevada Avenue sto~ing for 36' Avenue traffic. Mr. David, in his attached petition, states tt~t the all way stop is necessary clue to 'excessive trafr~ and proceeding east and wast on 36' Avenue North at the Nevada Avenue inter~ection.' Mr. David also cites the incre~ee in commercial and industrial developments in the vicinity which have adcled to the traffic volume~. Sheldon Johnson, Trefl~ Planner with Bonastroo, Rceerm, Anderlik and Associates, has o{0served the intersection and collected accident clata. After reviewing the inter~ec'tlon, Mr. Johnson is recomrnencling that there be no change to the traffic control for the followi.ng reasons: 4. The intersection dOes not meet the accident warrant as set ~orth by the Minnesota Manual on Traffic Control Oevices. 2. The intersection cloas not appear to meet the trafl~ count warrant The City has collected traffic counts on 36' Avenue mid Nevada Avenue in 1997 and trefl~ has increased since 1995. MnDOT has not adjustecl ttm counts to reflect average clay conditions for these streets, it is the opinion of the Traffic Engineer that even when the new counts are released, the intersection will not meet this warrant. 3. There ia & four way stop at the intersection of Louisiana and 36' Avenues, just.one I~lock east of Nevad~ Avenue. The aciditlon of a stop sign on 36~' Avenue at Nevada Avenue woulcl clecrease the service level of 36e Avenue. MOTION BY SECOND BY ,, TO: II RFA-iiK) I ~ 4. The difficult tmfllc mov~ il vehk:des traveling nm'lttbound on Nev~d~ Avenue and desiring to turn westl~ound on 36"' Avenue. ~ vehicles could avoid this turning movement by using 35th Avenue to travel o~e block e~mt t~ Louisi~n= Avenue, ~ north on Louisi~n~ Avenue to the four way stop ~t 36~ Avenue. Truc~ could u~e 32~ Avenue e~ to tl~e sign~ized int~n at V~nnetJ<a Avenue, Itten north on Wlnne~ to the signalized intem~=tion at 36"' ~nd V~mnetka Avenues. Mr. Johnson's full report i~ Staff hl,~ reviewecl ~lil rlglU~lt w'~ tt~ Crystal City El~gineer. Thl Cry~ll/New Hope I:x3rder is centedine of Nevad~ Avenue. -1:he Crystal City. Engineer concurs with ttm recommendation of Mr. Johnson. Staff recommencl~ l~t the request for an all way stop at the intemection of 36~ and Nevada Avenues be denied. G:lRl<lUlltl~3~Nevl~llTrlff~C~m~ REVUES? FORACTION Or~r~unf ~t ~p~ for ~ ~ ~on Pa~s & Re~eafion O~dt nances & Resol u~ions ~ ~/ ~0.Z ' RESOL~ON AW~DING CON~CT~O TSP~O8 FOR ~CHI~C~L SERVICES FOR CI~ ~ IN~R NR QU~I~ ~D REM~ELI~ PR~ECT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT f ~) ~is ~l~n ~s a ~ to TSP~OS fm ar~ml ~ ~i~d~ ~S for the C~ Hall i~ air q~l~ and mm~ling proj~. the C~ ~11 ~y a~ai houm, ~ ov~e~ a~ ~ up to ~,~. If ~ ~t g~ over $~,~, ~ is e~ to ha~ on~ ~ ~effiing un~ ~v~ dud~ ~ ~u~ of the pm~, ~ C~ ~u~ ~ ~y onN for a~al h~m w~ n~ ~ ~ a~ve ~Js am~ E&V a~ ~ ~11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ar~R~s to k~p ~ u~ ~ ~h mo~ m~ ~ houm s~ ~ ~ ~ 608. M~ON ~ S~O~ ~A~Z COUNCIL RF UEST FOR ACTION Or/glna~ Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 8 Public Hearing Susan Henry Rem No. ~ Community Development Specialist ~ ~ / 7.1 PUBLIC HEARIN. G.: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE SALE OF 5212 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH TO MAHMOOD KALIM AND PERWEEN AKHTAR. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 573) At the April 13, 1998, City Council meeting, the City Council authorized publication of notice and holding of a public hearing regarding the sale of 5212 Winnetka Avenue North. This is the public headng to authorize and approve the sale. A Purchase Agreement has been signed by Mahmood Kalim and Perween Akhtar and is contingent upon approval by the City Council. The Purchase Agreement states that the City will sell the home to Mahmood Kalim and Perween Akhtar for $98,000. The buyers are in the process of qualifying for a first mortgage and have already been approved for a second mortgage in the amount of $9,000 using CHI:X:) Home Investment Partnership funds. The mortgage banker for the buyers is confident that the first mortgage will be approved. If Mahmood and Perween do not qualify for the first mortgage, the Purchase Agreement will be null and void. Mahmood Kalim and Perween Akhtar will be attending the Public Headng and staff will introduce the buyers to the Council. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Authorizing and Approving the Sale of 5212 Winnetka Avenue North to Mahmood Kalim and Perween Akhtar. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: , COUNCIL I (~ting Dep~ t~nt [ Approved for Agellda Oev/~p~dae~S~on Community ~velopment { 8 & Planning ~ Ki~ McDonald ~ ~/.~ . ~. t P~NNING CASE '9~3. REQUES~ FOR ~MPREHEN$1~ SIGN P~N AND VARIANCES TO THE SIGN coDE, 4301~71 ~NNE~ AVENUE NORTH, ~NN~ ~L II~OBERT ~PPAPORT PETITIONER The petitioner is requesting comprehensive sign plan approval and variances to the Sign Code, pursuant to Sections 3.467(3) and 3.467(4) - New Hope Sign Code. Winnetka Center Shopping Center, located at the southwest intersection of 46~ and Winnetka Avenues, was purchased last fall by Robert Rappaport. Rappaport's plans for the shopping center include imlsroving the building front details (painting/accent stripes), installing uniform signege and becldit awnings, installing some new landscaping, and leasing the remaining vacant spaces. The SuperValu space has been leased to two tenants: Unique Thrift Store and Jack & Jill Children's Clothing and School Uniforms. Thla request was considered at the APril 13 Council meeting and tabled until this Council meeting, While the wall signs proposed were found to meet all of the Sign Code requirernent~, the petitioner was advised to conaider alternate options for the shopping center ground cigna. The Sign Code states that 'shopping centers containing more than four separate and distinct occupancies may erect only one ground sign per street frontage (single or double faced) to be used as an identification sign for the shopping center. Said ground signs may not exceed 200 square feet in area, nor 30 feet in height and must be set back a minimum of 20 feet from all property lines. Individual businesses within the shopping center may be allowed tenant identification in a directory contained within the identification sign, subject to the following conditions: 1. The shopping center must use 15% or more of the sign area for the center's name identification. 2. Advertising or reader boards are allowed, provided the inclusion of said boards in combination with the tenant directory and center identification does not exceed the 200 square foot maximum sign area." (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: l~-vlew: A~lmm/stration: Finance: RFA-O01 Request for Action Page 2 '..~ Ori.qinal Plan Because Winnetka Center has frontage on both Winnetka and 45~ Avenues, two 200 square foot ground signs are permitted (one sign adjacent to each street frontage). Rappaport does not desire to install a ground sign on 45~' A~enue because visibility of the sign would be limited and it may not be compatible with the apartments north of 45~' Avenue. In the odginal plan, the petitioner was proposing to install two 198 square foot pylon signs adjacent to Winnetka Avenue, with the existing pylon being utilized and one new pylon installed. The new pylon was proposed to have the edge of the sign face 13 feet from the property line instead of the required 20-foot setback. Therefore, the odginal plans required two variances: (1) a vadance for two ground signs on one street frontage and (2) a 7-foot setback vadance to locate the new pylon 13 feet from the property line. The Council indicated it could not support two ground signs on one street frontage and advised the petitioner to-consider alternatives that would include one ground sign where all tenants could be identified. Revised Plan Rappaport has submitted the enclosed revised plan for a single ground sign that would be located in the place of the existing pylon. The sign area is 12' x 22' or 264 square feet and contains space for all tenants in the center to be identified. The sign contains a small 2' x 6' or 12 square foot area for center identification at the bottom of the sign. The height of the sign is 31 feet and the ground clearance for the sign is nine feet. The following variances would be required for the revised ground sign plan: 1. Area - City Code allows two 200 square foot signs and the proposal is for one 26~ square foot sign, so a 64 square foot sign area vadance is required. 2. Shoppin,q Center Identification - City Code required 15 pe~'cent of the sign to be devoted to shopping center identification: 264 square feet x 15% = 40 square feet. The proposed sign contains 12 square feet for shopping center identification, therefore, a 2_8 square foot vadance to the shopping center identification requirement is required. 3. Hei,qht - City Code allows ground signs to be 30 feet in height. The proposed sign is 31 feet, therefore, a one-foot vadance to the 30-foot height requirement is required. The Codes & Standards Committee of the Planning Commission is in the process of updating the Sign Code and whatever exceptions are made for this sign should probably be incorporated into the revised Sign Code. Staff does not view these variance requests as extremely significant because there has been some discussion regarding eliminating the requirement for center identification and increasing the ground sign area for a shopping center that only utilizes signage on one of its street frc~ntages. Staff recommends approval of the resolution approving the variances and the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Winnetka Center. 12'-0" C~CIRCU8 PIZM;Az~ Frattallona'$ A~E Hardwara I Garbo's et, OPTICAL 11~E SPECTACL[ MA[ERS WINNETKA CENTER (~) SOUTH ELEVATION - PYLON SIGN L--- SPECIFICATION5 DOUBLE 511)ED ILLUMINATED 51GN WITH FLAT WHITE LEXAN INSERT5 WITH TRANSLUCENT VINYl. GRAPHIC5 ALUMINUM 51GN CADINET & POLE COVER TO DE PAINTED RED F, EYlSED 04/22_J9~ NO R~UCTION IHAU. BE IJADE EX~CB'T IY WIIITTEN AaI~iMrtNT REQUEST FOR ACTION ' Depa~t Approved for Agenda Agenda Sec~on ueveTopment Community Development & Planning. Item No. ]~. Kirk McDonald By:. ., 8.2 RESOLUTION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE AND ROCKFORD OWNERS ASSOCIATION (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 600) The attached Development Agreement Between the City of New Hope and the. Rockford Owners~ Association (Improvement Project No. 600) has been prepared by the City Attomey and is.the next step in the process for improving the Sandpiper Cove Tow.nhomes at 8701. 8953 42"~ Avenue North. The City is authorized by state statute to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which housing improvements are made and the costs are paid by housing improvement special assessment fees imposed against benefiting properties within the area. On January 12 the City Council adopted an enabling ordinance establishing a Housing Improvement Area for the Sandpiper Cove Townhome Development in order to facilitate certain improvements to 36 individual townhome units. On March 23 the Council adopted an ordinance imposing a housing improvement special assessment fee on the housing units within the Housing Improvement Area in order to finance certain housing improvements. A condition of that resolution was that the Rockford Owners Association be required to enter into a Development Agreement which sets forth the terms and responsibilities of the Association relative to this project and the disbursement of funds by the City to finance the improvements. Per the City Attorney's correspondence, the City previously agreed to several financing conditions for= the proposed housing improvements at Sandpiper Cove which will necessitate an amendment to the March 23 Fee Resolution No. 98-50. Those conditions are outlined in the City Attorney's April 17 letter to the attorney for the Rockford Owners Association and are inc.o, rporated in the Development Agreement for consideration at the Apdl 27, 1998, Council meeting. They are summarized as follows: 1. The building permit fee (approximate amount of $8,000.00) will be included as part of the 15% administrative, legal and financing costs. However, the State surcharge will be paid separately by the Association. MO'~ON BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 4-27-9% 2. The prepayment date for the housing improvement fee will be.extended until November 20, '1998. This will give the City approximately one week to certify the unpaid fees to the county for collection with real estate taxes beginning in 1999. Said costs must be certified by November 29, 1998. 3. The initiation date for the accrual of interest on the unpaid fees will be extended until January 1, 1999. Basically, the City is waiving capitalized interest. The funds earmarked to finance construction before the sale of bonds are in the Temporary Financing Construction Fund. Bonds will be sold to reimburse this fund sometime in March 1999, per the Finance Director. This concession was made in consideration of the fact we are charging 8% interest on the fees in accordance with our special assessment policy rather than our actual interest rate charge on the bonds. This agreement has been reviewed by the New Hope Director of Finance and by the Rockford Owners Association. The City Attorney will be available at the Council meeting to. respond to questions the Council may have on the Development Agreement. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. ,~(.~ COUNCIL ~ FOR ACTION ~~ D~t ~p~ for ~ ~ ~on Pa~s a~ R~m~on ~ Unfinished // It~ No. Shad Fren~ ~ 11.1 RESOLUTION AW~DINO CO . C .TO ~VO SYS~MS FOR mE CiW ~LL MICROBIAL A~ME~ PROJECT - $24,138 (P~T OF IMPRO~MENT PROJECT NO. 608) Bids were ~~ as foll~ on ~dl 16, 1998 for ~e C~ Hall mi~biai a~tement ~o~, pa~ of proj~ ~8: Con~ Bid: Mayo Systems $24,1~ Metro Envimnmen~l S~e Sewi~, Inc. ~7,~ National Su~ Cleaning ~7,~ EnviroB~e Me~o ~9,~ H~ Co~on ~,6~ ~e Iow bidder on ~is pro~ is li~n~ to do ~is ~ of wo~ Staff ~mmends ~ ~ ~ ~ award~ to Mayo Systems. ~ odginal e~imate for this wo~ was ~7,~7. ~ ~ is to ~ ~mplet~ in ~nju~on ~ ~e ind~r air quali~ and rem~eling ~on of ~ ~8. It is ~ ~mme~ ~ su~lus CIP as well as insuran~ m~e ~ ~ ~ to find ~e pro~. ~is ~ of ~ ~ ~11 ~ mon~ored by Tama~ En~mnme~l to ~sum ~at ~e a~teme~ pr~ d~ n~ a~ air qual~ in the buildi~. It ~ a~ ~ ~mme~ th~ Tamam~ so ~me foll~ up mon~odng of the building ~ ~ ~ is ~mp~t~. Sam~i~ is r~mmend~ to ~r ne~ Janua~ and June for ~ ~ ~ ea~ fl~r of ~e building. M~ON ~ S~O~ ~ ~A~I ~ COUNCIL ~ REQUEST FOR ACTION ~ttr~ Del:~rtm~t Approv~ for ~ Agenda Section Parks and Recreation f4~7/98 Unfinished Item No. ~. Shari French Dy:. ~ 1.2 CONTRAC~ TO LUND-MARTIN CONSTRUCTION FOR THE CITY RESOLUTION AWARDING HALL INDOOR AIR QUALITY &' REMOOELING PROJECT $586,987 (PART OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 608) Bids were received as on attached on Apdl 16, 1998 for the City Hall indoor air quality and remodeling project, part of project ~608. ' ' Staff and architects recommend that the contract be awarded to Lund-Martin Construction, Iow bidder, and include all the alternates. The three altemates included in the bid of $586,987 are: · remodeling the toilets (main upstairs bathrooms as well as hallway bathroom in the lower level), at a price of $28,888, and · tiling the stairs at the main entryway, at a pdce of $2;099, and · remodeling the employee kitchen/lunchroom at a pdce of $14,000. The odginal estimate for this construction bid was $590,859, including the three alternates. The work is to be completed by September 1998. It is further recommended that surplus ClP as well as insurance reserve funds be used to fund the project. MOTION By, SECOND BY TO: RFA-O01 4401 Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 612-531.5100 City Hall Fax: 612-53;' i'6 New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Police: 612-531.5170 Police Fax: 612-531-5-174 Public Works: 612-533-4823 Public Works Fax: 612-533.7650 TDD: 612-531-5109 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531-5175 April 13, 1998 Dear Civic Center Park Neighl:x~. . · Civic Center Park is one of the most popular parks in New Hope. The tennis courts, ballfields, . play area, and skating dnks are heavily used. The summer playground programs and performances at the outdoor theater attract many more park users. In addition, the New Hope Swimming Pool is a popular destination for people and families of all ages. Unfortunately, some of the park features in Civic Center Park are starting to show their age. The roof of the shelter building, the grade and the playablity of the northeast ball field, and the tennis court surface are all in .need of improvements. In addition, there has been interest in replacing the basketball court removed from the park in 1990, and investigating the opportunity to develop an in-line skating facility, possibly in conjunction with a hockey dnk improvement. The City is now in the process of developing a master plan for the perk and staff would like to include your input as we discuss the needs and desires of perk users. Now seems an especially appropriate time to consider these issues, since the old fire station site will be restored eady this summer and may provide additional space to accommodate park facilities. At the same time that the City is looking into improvements at Civic Center Park, we are also considering upgrades to the filtration system, gutter system, and concession area of the swimming Pool. On Thursday, April 30, at 7:00 p.m. there will be a meeting at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in the Park and Recreation conference room. In attendance will be a park planner, a representative from the City's Engineering firm, representatives from the Citizen Advisory Commission, representatives from the New Hope Parks, Public Works, and Police Departments, and Civic Center Park neighbors. While the discussion will focus on the needs of the park and its users, we will also bdefty discuss the proposed improvements at the swimming pool. The meeting is expected to last about two hours. I sincerely hope that you will consider attending this meeting and shadng your concerns and vision of the park with us. If you have questions, or cannot attend the meeting but wish to offer comments, please call me at 531-5152. This letter is being mailed to residents Whose homes are in near proximity to the park. If you know of anyone who may wish to attend but didn't receive this letter, please invite them to come along. Sincerely, Shari French Director of Parks and Recreation cc: Citizen Advisory Commission Members Family Styled City ,i,,;i,,~,, l,^i,~,'~. For Family Living . ~ 4401 Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 612.531-5100 City Hall Fax: 612-531-5136 New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Police: 612-531.5170 Police Fax: 612.531-5174 Public Works: 612-533.4823 Public Works Fax: 612-533-7650 TDD: 612-531-5109 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531-5175 April 9, 1998 -' Subject: Dorothy Mary Park Neighborhood Meeting Dear Dorothy Mary Park Neighbor: On Thursday, March 19, a neighborhood meeting was held at the New Hope City Hall to discuss Dorothy Mary Park. Shem Buss, a landscape architect / ecologist from the City's engineering firm, gave a presentation about the park and showed slides which illustrated existing conditions at the park. Among the issues discussed at the first meeting were the history of the park, its current condition, accessibility, vegetation management, and the community's vision for the park. In .- attendance were neighbors of Dorothy Mary Park, Sherd Buss and other engineering staff, a representative from the Citizen's Advisory Commission, and representatives from the New Hope Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and Police Departments. Notes from the meeting are provided for your review. The meeting notes include comments and questions about the park and the presentation, and a suggested vision for Dorothy Mary Park. A follow up meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, April 22, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of New Hope City Hall at 4401 Xylon Avenue North. Based upon the discussion at the first meeting, Sherd Buss has developed some concept plans for the park. At the meeting on April 22, we will review tw° or three of these concept plans. In addition, we will discuss management goals for the park and identify the next steps in planning the park improvements, including the pursuit of available funds through grant programs. The meeting is expected to last 1% -2 hours. If you have questions, or cannot attend the meeting but wish to offer comments, please call me at 533-4823 ext. 13. This letter is being mailed to residents whose homes are in near proximity to the park. If you know of anyone who may wish to attend but didn't receive this letter, please invite them to come along. " Sincerely, Tom Schuster Contract Manager cc: Citizen Advisory Commission Members ~-~'~ ~2~- For Family Living Family Styled City ,,~ Community Meeting Notes - Dorothy Mary Park New Hope City Hall March 19, 1998 Comments and Questions on the Presentation Pond Residents remember the pond as 4-6 feet deep 30 years ago They suggest that sand from streets is carried to the pond with storm water, and is visible in the pond The pond is probably only 2-3 feet deep now, and freezes every winter Waterfowl are less common in the pond now than they once were. Trails There may be too many trails. There are more'trails now than there used to be. Many trails have been created informally Most trails should be narrow. · ' The large number of trails makes it hard for bike cops to patrol the park Neighbors discussed possibilities for eliminating the staircase and closing the south entrance, but there was no consensus on this. Without the stairway in the past informal trails caused much ewsion on the " slopes, and neighbors to the south had no entry to the park. Signs should direct those needing an accessible trail and parking to the east entry. When an accessible trail is developed, this should be indicated on the signs. Children from Meadow Lake School use the park, including one child who uses a wheelchair. Park facilities design should accommodate these users. Vegetation Buckthorn has really taken over in last 10 years, and has led to a noticeable reduction in ferns and wildflowers Concerns expressed about potential oak wilt (not a problem at present). While heavy soils will help to prevent the spread of oak wilt here, use of heavy equipment in the park could cause problems. Park neighbors could spread oak wilt by bringing in firewood from diseased trees. The cottonwood trees that have replaced the elms. are messy. Consider replacing them with other native floodplain species, such as basswood, ash, silver maple, etc. Neighbors would like a list of vegetation native to the park and its area, to help to make choices for yard plantings. Kids have cut down some sizable trees on the east side of the park. This area should be replanted with oaks or other species native to the park. Poison ivy is common in the park, but is native in this type of oak woodland. Safety Not in favor of street lights - would probably create more problems and change the nature of the park The entry from Xylon is a problem. Should be nan'owed to discourage problems. The park is patrolled approximately once per shift by New Hope police. If residents see problems, they shou. ld call police (911) and the problem will be investigated. .. Park Maintenance Many neighbors would like to volunteer to help to maintain the park and participate in planting activities. The neighbors built the steps, furniture, etc., in the 1970's. The City employees club has adopted the park, and can also participate in clean up and maintenance activities. Tables could be removedmno One uses them. Neighbors like having an observation spot on the pond. The dock has served that purpose. Other Neighbors are interested in the history of the park. The history of previous land uses and structures should be written, along with a history of how the park was donated to the City. Neighbors would like to have this information. Vision for Dorothy Mary Park What is "natural"? .. -' The idea of "natural" for this park includes the people who live around the park and use it. They are part of the ecology of the park. It cannot be returned to presettlement conditions. Neighbors favor using native vegetation in the park~ and trying to increase the health of the woodland by removing invasive exotic species, but also want keep the pond as a focal point for the park, and maintain a wet pond using storm water flows to the pond. Pond Residents would like to maintain permanent water in the pond " Plant native wetland materials aroUnd pond to improve habitat, water quality, aesthetics Eliminate south trail to provide "refuge" area for wildlife Maintain observation points - rehabilitate dock, consider vantage points at east and Maybe west end if can create a view; use benches. Get rid of picnic tables, they are not really used. Woodland/Plant Communities Should carry out buckthorn management activities- use Sentence to Serve crews, and residents are willing to volunteer time as well Plant trees that are native to the plant communities in .tho park Wetland areas - basswood, ash, maybe silver maple Replant oaks in east area where some were cut down Develop a reed canary grass control plan for other wetla.n, ds Structures - Stairs, etc. Stairs - Narrower stairs would be less visible, fit in better Less steep - more gradual descent Need slip resistant surface Materials should have a natural look Could add bird houses, such as wood duck houses Add bat houses to help control mosquitos Trails Develop one main trail with a hard surface for bikes and handicap access. Best location is from east to west across the middle part of the park, with access to pond Make other trails narrower, decrease number of trails if possible. use wood chips or existing lime rock Eliminate south trail along pond - create a "refuge" for ducks and animals, an undisturbed area on part of the pond Garbage cans should be placed at park entries, and removed from area near the pond. Signs are also appropriate at the entries, describing park rules and information. . Nan'ow the trail from the west, and make a more defined entry to the park. Use footbridges to cross wet areas. Project No.567 Bulletin ~3 997 Infrastructure Improvement Project Area 2 Project Status The 1997 Street Improvement project will be completed this spring. Thank you for your patience and cooperation during last year's construction effort. While the majority of the project was completed last fall, remaining work items include miscellaneous curb and sidewalk repair, restoratiOn of sod, adjustment of structures such as manholes and catch basins, placement of the final layer of bituminous pavement, and project clean up. The contractor is scheduled to place the final layer of bituminous pavement in late May. After the contractor has placed the final layer of bituminous pavement, he will saw and seat new control joints in the pavement on 56th Avenue and Xylon Avenue (north of 56a Avenue). This sawing and sealing effort has been successful in controlling the formation of cracks in the asphalt by allowing the cracks to occur at joints. This construction technique is commonly practiced by cities throughout the metropolitan area. .' Project Schedule Work will begin on April 29 and will be completed by mid-June. All work should be completed without disturbing access to properties for lengthy periods of time. Contact Persons If you have questions or concerns during the final portion of the construction, please direct your calls to any of the following engineering representatives: Vince Vander Top, Project Inspector 604-4790 Glenn Gustafson, Project Inspector 604-4888 Mark Hanson, City Engineer 604-4838 If you wish to speak with someone with the City of New Hope, please contact Tom Schuster, Contract Manager at 533-4823 ext. 13. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North' New Hope, MN 55428 4/27/98 To: Kirk McDonald From: Doug Sandstad Date: April 21, 1998 Re: Complaint about new business- '~Ed's Expresso" 8711 Bass Lake Road I visited the complaint-subject Property late yesterday and confirmed several problems: · New coffee & packaged pastry sales business opened recently, without any g~vernmental approvals. · Plumbing work was done without required permit. Electrical work may be required. No plans have been submitted for this business that is inside of the "Insty-Prints" space at the front entry. · Coffee shop operator is Edward Walls, who is the Insty- Prints general manager. [535-0012 fax; 535-9164] · Illegal signs were posted on the building wall and boulevard. · Operator had gotten my verbal message through Fire Inspector Kurtz, last week, to contact Hennepin County Health Dept. for all necessary approvals. He had spoken with Steven bray, {County] and was in the process of obtaining their approvals. Since the land use is Permitted in industrial zones, like restaurants, I told Ed Walls to provide evidence of county license approval and take care of the city plumbing and sign permits and inspections, promptly. I noted another illegal sign posted on the front wall by an employment agency for "Temporary Employees"; tenant and property owner to be notified. I assured him that we-would purchase a cup to sample, as soon as it was a legal business. Cc: Fire Inspector file Page 2--..April 10, 1998 Z.B. ( Z.B. April 10, 1998 -- Page 3 7 First Amendment -- Adult bookstore challenges state law regulating adult businesses on erotic literature that had "literary, artistic or political value" and might be a read to regulate such places as lingerie shops, a Richland Bookmart Inc. d/b/a/Town and Country v. Nichols, 6th U.S. The district attorney general appealed. ~g Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 96-6472 (1998) DECISION: Order vacated; returned to the district court. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michi- The court should not have found the Statute invalid. gan, Ohio, and Tennessee. The bookstore was right -- the statute wasn't content neutral. It regulated te The Tennessee Legislature passed the Tennessee Adult-Oriented Estab- only sexually explicit speech, which was no more content neutral than a statute [e lishment Act, which limited the hours and days during which adult entertain- that regulated only political campaign advertising, This didn't mean, however, 'g · meat establishments could be open and banned booths in which patrons watched that it was invalid. The question was one of reasonableness-- whether the law sexually explicit videos or entertainment, was designed to serve a substantial government interest and allowed for alter- The statute's preamble discussed the need to outlaw closed video booths native avenues of communication. 't The government had a substantial interest in reducing crime and prostitu- b~cause patrons often used them to stimulate themselves sexually, creating a public health problem. It also listed detrimental health, safety, and welfare prob- tion and preserving the aesthetic character of the areas around adult busi- d lems ("secondary effects") caused by shops selling graphic sexual material, nesses. Restricting the hours of shops selling sexual literature could deter ~e citing studies done by other jurisdictions. The secondary effects included prostitution or the creation of drag comers. By deterring such behavior, the !, increased crime, reduced property values, and the spread of sexually transmit- areas might be able to ward o~f high vacancy rates, a blighted appearance, and II ted and communicable diseases, reduced property values. Moreover, access to adult businesses wasn't unduly t, The statute defined adult-oriented establishment as "any commerci'al es- restricted -- they could still be open many hours each week. g tablishment ... or portion thereof" that sold as its"predominant stock or trade ... The court was also wrong in finding the statute overly vague. There was no sexually oriented material." It defined "sexually oriented material" as any pub- need to consider vagueness when an otherwise valid law indisputably applied. lication that depicted "sexual activity ... or which exhibits uncovered human Richland's bookstore was clearly an "adult-oriented establishment" as defined genitals ... in a lewd or lascivious manner." The statute prohibited adult bust- by the statute, so any vagueness in the statute didn't apply to Richland. Re- d nesses from opening before 8:00 a.m. or after midnight Monday through Satur- gardless, the law wasn't as vague as the bookstore claimed. To be regulated, 's day and from opening at all on Sundays or state-recognized holidays. A first the business must have as its "principal or predominant stock or trade" sexu- offense was punishable by a $500 fine. Further violations meant fines up to ally oriented materials or paraphernalia and must restrict admission to adults e 112,500 and/or imprisonment for up to 11 months and 29 days. The statute only. These were common terms that most people would understand. ~t exempted live stage shows, adult cabarets, and dinner theatres, see also: Young v. American Mini Theatres Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 49 L.Ed.2d 310, d Richland Bookanart Inc., an adult bookstore that sold sexually explicit books, 96 S. Ct. 2440 (1976). magazines, and videos in Knox County, sued the county's district attorney general. It sought a court order prohibiting the district attorney from enforcing Zoning Violation -- Town cites owner for running kennel in residential the statute and asked the court to deClare the statute unconstitutional, neighborhood The bookstore claimed the law violated its First Amendment rights through Township of Penn v. Seymour, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. the closing-hours requirement and its equal protection rights by exempting 2196 C.D. 1997 (1998) certain other establishments that sold or traded in adult-oriented goods. Seymour Owned a house in a residential neighborhood in the Township of According to the bookstore, the statute was a content-based regulation and Penn, Pa. He owned four Rottweiler dogs, which he kept in a fenced area in his y therefore invalid. It also claimed the statute was unconstitutionally vague, backyard. He bred two of the dogs once a year and sold the puppies when they The district attorney general argued the statute was content-neutral and were eight weeks old. the closing requirements were proper "time, place and manner" regulations. Neighbors complained to the township that Seymour had too many dogs The court issued an order prohibiting the statute's enforcement, finding and was breeding dogs on his property. The zoning officer issued Seymour a that the hours restrictions violated the First Amendment. The court found the violation notice for operating a kennel in a residential zone. The township's statute was overly vague and exceeded what was necessary to further the zoning ordinance defined "kennel" as a building or land used to board or breed s state ~gitimate interest in regulating the secondary effects described in the four or more dogs. s statuF~.. The court said the statute's vagueness might have a "chilling effect" Seymour ,~ ~hip's Zoning Hearing Board for a variance MARCH 1998 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION "Nobody Told Me They'T' ''''' ""'" Changed the Zoning!' Ihe most effective hearings happen when residents are By ~:ay Dol,,ick informed well in advance of the As communities grow, zoning ordinances should remain hearing's date, time, and flexible enough to mee~ changing land-usc needs. As location. The identification of the stated in the Standard State Enabling Act of 1926, "provision must be made for changing the regulations as conditions change affected property and the or new conditions arise, othenvise zoning would be a 'strait- proposed land-use change are jacket' and a detriment to a community instead of an'asset." Neighborhood rezoning and other land-use changes can have a important and relevant facts to significant, even adverse, impact on the fives and properties of area report to the public, residents. To lessen the probability of such impacts, public hearings on proposed zoning changes.are normally required by state statute. · · · · · · · · · · · Although state statutes typically require public hearing notices, ~ they leave the details to the municipal ordinance. ~ Municipalities invariably use one or more of the following ~ ;{ methods to noti~ the public of a proposed land use change: ..... ~5~ ,~ .... 7~ · advertisements in a general circulation newspaper; jl !~ ' mailings to property owners most likely affected by the change; · posting a sign on the property site with the proposed change. Charles Reed, editor and publisher of The Zoning Report, has pointed out that based on the number of people who appear and testify at hearings, newspaper notices are the least effective method of notification. The time allowed for notification of a forthcoming hearing can range from seven to 30 days before the hearing takes place. However, most notifications occur 10 to 15 days.before the hearing. The specified radius of an affected property, about Shoreline, Washington, uses bold lettering tb catch the attention of which a property owner must be notified, ranges from 100 feet passersby and explicit details for those who take a closer look at a to 700 feet, with a median of 300 feet. proposed land-use action. Mailings of a notification are usually sent via post using either first class or certified mail. Administrative costs associated with mailing lists and postage are assumed either by the The' purpose of these hearings is to obtain additional information municipality or by the applicant for the' rezoning. regarding the proposed change for the decision makers and to When the number of Persons to be notified becomes enable citizens to express concern or ask questions, excessive, communities employ more practical and cost-effective The most effective hearings happen when residents are methods of public notification. For example, Santa Cruz, informed well in advance of the hearing's date, time, and California, opts for a newspaper advertisement rather than a location. The identification of the affected property and the mass mailing when notification numbers exceed 1,000. proposed land-use change are important and relevant facts to Regulations for the onsite sign can range from a simple report to the public, instruction that it be placed prominently on the affected site to This issue of ZoningNews discusses the various methods . very detailed requirements on the size, lettering style, textual communities can employ to communicate news of an information, and placement of the sign in relation to the street impending zoning change to the public and examines a variety and the adjoining properties. Some ordinances provide detailed of procedures used in ordinances, drawings of sign requirements. Although the municipal planning and development department Overview may provide the sign, the applicant usually bears the responsibility The Standard State Enabling Act recommends a 15-day advance and costs for placing it. Some municipalities ask the applicant to notice of a public hearing through a general circulation supply a signed affidavit stating that the sign has been posted and newspaper, but also notes that this can vary to suit local needs, that it conforms to the municipal standards. Ordlnanc® Sampler - friendly nature and simplicity of the zoning text as well. The following are examples of provisions for public notification Complicated language is largely avoided in the Scottsdale code. of proposed rezonings. Zoning News chose them for their Mesa, Ar/zona. Mesa requires the applicant to post the concise language and simple form. Despite this simplicity, the notification of a land-use change at his or her own cost, 14 days ability to provide sufficient information is not compromised, before the planning and zoning board meeting. Local standards Scottsdale, Arizona. Arizona's state statute requires that require that the .sign measure four feet by four feet when the municipalities notify the public ora land-use change through land-use change involves parcels of 10 acres or more. The color "standard" channels, which typically include a notice in the scheme must be white with one to four-inch black letters and local newspaper, an onsite sign posting, and a first dass mailing prominent enough to be visible to passing motorists. to all property owners within 300 feet of the site. Although providing the sign is voluntary for the developer, To ensure that nodce of the proposed land-use change is widely Mesa planner Gordon Sheffield says that cooperation is never a circulated, Scottsdale's standards exceed what is often found in local problem. The developer is also responsible for rem6ving the ordinances. Two legal nodces are published in the local newspaper sign seven days after the city council meeting. To discourage 30 and 15 days prior to the hearing. Property owners within 300 wastefulness, the planning department recommends that the feet of the proposed rezoning site are notified at least 30 days prior Signs be recycled to other applicants whenever possible. to the hearing, and agendas for the hearings are posted in four Mesa applicants are responsible for drafting a letter to all public locations prior to its commencement, property owners within 300 square feet of the site. The first- To guarantee public awareness.of these changes, Scottsdale dass mailing should include an 8-by.- 11 inch photograph of the made effective in February 1997 the requirement that an site plan. The planning and community development application sign be a four-foot-by-four-foot "cardinal" red department provides a sample letter and sign placement map as plywood sign containing all pertinent information in language well as detailed design guidelines for the sign. These understandable to the public. The laminated sign will be erected requirements are not established by ordinance but are a matter at least 15 days prior to the hearing. Scottsdale applicants are of policy set by the local legislative body, and to deviate from these requirements is grounds for continuation of the case until they are met. ~a~. ~,~ROPOSI::D .I-~ND USE A0'I10~ Seattle, Washingtom Seattle's notification procedures differ ' A ~t slighdy from usual practices. Notice of a proposed land-use action is issued in the city's Land-Use Information Bulletin. ~, ~~"'~h'"~ ~'~.~ ~~ [ Although the publication is not in generalcirculation, it is widely distributed to community groups and to land-use lawyers i. , in,o m on awe site visited by businesses, activist groups, and individuals ~,.a~.,.~ ~ It' interested in Seattle's land-use issues. To contain costs, a random mailing of notices is conducted ~'. o~. G~A~.~,~ ~ , ~. ~ {~'~ '.__L~ for property owners within 300 feet of the site. Each notice is ,~u~ ~,,~n~,-~,'~"",~,-m~'~'~ "~" ........ sent out-by the planning department, but the applicant pays for the cost of postage through application fees. Applicants are also responsible for the costs of the onsite sign, which must be eight feet by four feet in size, made of white plastic, and inscribed Notification is thwarted if the sign is not properly maintained, axwith with black vinyl lettering. The sign contains a drawing of the this notice ora proposed land-use action in Seattle. site map, the site's address, the name and phone number of the applicant, and a description and project number of the pro- provided with specifications as to its design, including the six- posed development. A municipal telephone number is also inch size of the lettering, textual requirements such as the date, provided for interested persons to call with questions. place, and time of the hearing, and the name and phone Seattle requires that the signs draw the attention of both number of the applicant, local motorists and individuals from outside the neighborhood The applicant is responsible for the cost of the s!gn and for who may not be familiar with the area. The city contracts with a arrangements to have it installed. He or she is also obliged to local sign company to produce the signs and charges the sign an affidavit verifybxg that the sign has been posted. The applicant a nominal fee of $295. affidavit is returned to the community development department Bellevue, Washington. Bellevue's notification is posted in a with a photograph of the sign and a copy of the signed contract general circulation newspaper 14 days before a hearing. Property. with a sign vendor approved by the city. bwners within 200 feet of project sites are sent the notification, Scottsdale's larger red signs replaced those that were which contains a complete description of the project and its considerably smaller and less weather-resistant. Improved visibility location. Neighborhood groups, community clubs, or other to passing motorists is instrumental in reaching a wider public, a citizen groups with a stake in local land-use actions also receive standard that appears to be paying dividends. The signs have notice of the impending change. resulted in increased attendance at Scottsdale's public hearings. Onsite signs are the responsibility of the developer and must Scottsdale's community development department goes one step also be in place 14 days before a hearing. Subsequent removal of further to keep the public abreast of local issues by offering a "site the signs is required within seven days after a decision is reached posting hot line." The objective of this telephone service is to keep over the land-use change. Bellevue's regulations speci~ a fbur- residents informed about zoning changes. The success of foot-by-four-foot sign that is double-sided and visible from the Scottsdale's hotline and other methods of effectively reporting land- street. The applicant must also file a "certificate of installation'' use changes lies not only in service creativity, but in the user- with the ciD· as proof that the sign has been correctly installed. The only information required on Bellevue's signs is a description of the proposed new land use, and the telephone five- or six-word description of the proposal, the date of the number of the city department where additional information application, and a municipal phone number to call for can be obtained. The planning department supplies the signs, ~,. further information. Letters and numbers must be two to which the applicants may install themselves or have the four inch~s in height. The city provides a detailed drawing of maintenance department do for a fee of $50. the required sign. Notices are mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of Redraona~ Washingto~ Lil~ Seattle, Redmond requires the property and to citizen groups upon request. Shoreline's onsite signs for land-me actions to be relatively large (usually local newspaper publishes the notices; on Mercer Island, they eight feet by four feet), a requirement of the statute in'the King appear in a weekly bulletin with a smaller circulation. County land-use code. The signs must provide a site map or written description of the site boundaries, the type of pending Conclusion land-use application, the date of the public hearing, and the Community residents have a right to hear the information about a pending land-use change accurately and in a clear, timely, and informative fashion. Inaccurate information; Getting Notified vagueness of time, date, and place of the public hearing; or · · · · · · · · · · · · · · inadequate identification of the affected property can lead to costly court ~e~. · Hillsborough County, Florida, maintains a registry of . User-friendly regulations should be written in ordinary neighborhood organizatidns with an interest in land-use language rather than legal jargon, and requirements are most changes, all ofwahich are notified when such changes occur, effective when listed consecutively rather than burying them in ]'he cotm~, requires the applicant to mail these notices 20 days before the hearing to all property,- owners within one mile different sections of the ordinance. Including neighborhood of the site. In cases where more than 200 owners require associations, local businesses, condominium and apartment notification, an alternative method may be employed to building managers, and local property owners on the list of relieve staff of administrative burdens, notification recipients is the most comprehensive way to disseminate information. · Santa Cruz, California, also offers an alternative plan to notify the public of an impending land-use change. Onsite signs should be weatherproof and large enough for Procedures in that community change when more than the information to be visible to passing motorists. They are 1.000 persons are in need of notification. The alternate most effective when able to convey all the details regarding the plan typically includes a newspaper advertisment of one- location of the site and the proposed rezoning. The municipal eighth page minimum, regulations should state the precise location of the sign to avoid · Ann Arbor, Michigan, notifies registered businesses and confusion. Vague instructions, such as requiring that the sign be neighborhood groups with a stake in land-use actions, placed "prominently" on the site, are not adequate information. These groups, and 'all property, owners within 300 feet of To ensure that requirements and standards have been met, the site. are notified of such changes even though some communities ask the applicant to provide proof of Michigan state law requires only that udlity and railroad compliance. Others require that the applicant be responsible for companies adjacent to the property be notified. Ann Arbor the ongoing maintenance of the sign. planners say that a wider distribution of information is the The ordinances chosen by Zoning News represent the qualities most appropriate and fairest protocol, that make public nodce regulations e~s-y m comprehend and effective in application. Ordinances were consulted from communities around the county, but Arizona and Washington name and telephone number of Redmond's department of municipalities appeared m have a disproportionately high planning and community development, concentration of good examples. Such a pattern supports the theory Like other communities in the sample, the applicant is that ideas are often borrowed from neighbors. responsible for the cost and administration of the sign (including installation) at least 10 days prior to the hearing and for its removal immediately pending a decision. The city of Redmond provides detailed instructions and a drawing of the Ch[¢a~o Wins informati'on required on the sign. The planning department Landmarks Case notifies all property owners within 300 feet of the site of the hearing by first-class mail and then charges the developer an In what may seem like a reversal of typical roles, the city of application fee. A local newspaper also carries a notice of the Chicago has won a case before the U.S. Supreme Court by land-use change at least 10 days before the hearing, arguing in favor of federal judicial intervention in a local Shoreline and Mercer Islana~ Washington. Shoreline and administrative decision concerning historic properties. The case, Mercer Island have foregone the eight-foot-by-four-foot sign City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, No. 96-910 seen in other King County municipalities in favor of signs with (U.S., Dec. 15, 1997), involves two buildings owned by the better aesthetics and lower costs. Neither community feels that International College of Surgeons (ICS). visibility or availability of information have been compromised In 1988, acting under the city's landmarks ordinance, the in the process. Chicago Landmarks Commission designated a landmark district Shoreline's and Mercer Island's weather-resistant signs are of seven lakefront properties, including two buildings owned by two feet by four feet in dimension, made of white plasticized ICS. Before the city council passed an ordinance approving the material, and inscribed with blue lettering. An 8½-by-11-inch designation, ICS contracted to sell its property to a developer plastic pocket placed on the sign contains flyers that identify the that intended m demolish the structures, saving only their location of the property, the name of the applicant, a facades, and build a high-rise condominium building. The commission denied ICS's request for a demolition permit foundations in federal law. This is reinforced by a statute (28 and its reapplication based on an economic hardship exception in U.S,C. §1367) which provides that if a case has federal and state the landmarks ordinance. ICS sought judicial review in Cook claims, and the stare daims a~e %o related to claims in the County circuit court under the Illinois Administrative Review La,v, action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of daiming the landmarl~ ordinance and the landmark district the same case or controversy," then the federal trial court can ordinance effected a taking without just compensation, and that the hear the entire case. commission's proceedings violated due process under both the As to ICS's contention that a deferential, on-the-record Illinois and U.S. constitutions, review is not a civil action at all and is thus outside the district The city then removed the case m federal court on the grounds court's jurisdiction, O'Connor stated that that court's that ICS's challenges are based at least partly on the federal jurisdiction stems from the federal claims under the constitution, giving the federal courts jurisdiction. When the Constitution, not the deferential state review claims. According district court granted summary judgment for the city on grounds to the opinion, the fact that the federal constitutional claims are that the ordinances and the landmark commission proceedings did not bound by the record of the administrative proceeding makes not violate the federal or state constitutions, ICS appealed, them civil actions. The state law claims are supplementary to The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the the federal claims, and, because "the whole point of state court on grounds that the federal courts had no supplementary jurisdiction is to allow the district courts to jurisdiction. Looking to previous Supreme Court and federal exercise pendent jurisdiction over claims as to which original appeals court cases, it found that when a party m an action to jurisdiction is lacking,~ whether state claims are civil actions is review a local administrative decision moves to remove the case irrelevant as long as the federal claims have proper jurisdiction. to federal court, if the standard of review is de novo, the The dissent by Jusdce Ginsburg, .with Justice Stevens removal is proper. But if the standard is deferential, the joining, admits that the literal words of the federal law proceeding is not an original civil case but an appeal and thus jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction statutes (28 U.S.C. outside a U.S. District Court's original jurisdiction to hear civil 9§1331 and 1367) tend to support the majority interpretation. actions. It found the standard in the Illinois law deferential But they oppose federal court jurisdiction Over on-the-record because the court must accept the findings from the reviews of local and state administrative decisions,' arguing that administrative proceeding and cannot hear new evidence, there is no statutory language explicidy authorizing it, and that The city then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for it will open the federal courts to frequent reviews of certiorari, which was granted on the question of whether a administrative decisions. complaint for review of a state or local administrative The dissent also cited a series of federal appeals cases finding proceeding on the basis of both federal and state claims, in that district courts either did not have jurisdiction, or should which the review must be based on the record, is within the not exercise it, over on-the-record reviews of state and local jurisdiction of the U.S. district courts. The Supreme Court's administrative actions. Most of these regard such a cause of 7-2 opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, pointed action as an appeal rather than an original civil action, and thus out that the Court had faced the issue of when cases arising in beyond what federal district courts should be handling. state court can be removed to a federal court. The clear rule is John Bredin this: If the federal court had jurisdiction so that the case could have been filed there originally, the case may be removed to the federal court from the state court. O'Connor reiterated that the ICS complaint induded challenges to the city ordinances and ~ll~l~ports commission proceedings on the basis of the U.S. Constitution, even i£ those challenges were made in a proceeding under stare law, and that if the share law issues in the case require resolution Fo~'~88 Amoricn~ of the federal issues, the existence of state law issues does not Gated Communities negate the federal issues. Jn I~o UnJ~d S~l~s The Court found that because the state and federal' challenges raised the same issues of takings and due process, the EdwardJ. Blakely and Mary Gail Snyder. Brookings state claims did not supersede the fact that the case had Institute Press, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. 1997. 209pp. Gated communities are not exclusive to the super rich anymore. Middle and upper-middle dass Zoning News i ..... thly newfletme published by the American Planning Association. individuals represent the majority of today's gated Subscriptions are available for $50 (1J.S.) ~ $65 (foreign). Frank S. So, Executive Director; William fL Klein. Di ....... fRes~ms~, population. Although these enclaves are most popular in Zoning News ~ produced at APA. Jim Schwab and Mike Davidaon, Eclitor~; Chris Burke, ray ' Los Angeles, Phoenix, Chicago, Houston, New York, Dolnick, Gina Jackson, Sanjay Jeer, Megan Lewis, Marya Morris. Becki Retzlaff. Martin Roupe, Jaaon Wittenberg, Rep ...... Cynthia Cbeski, Asmramt Editor; Lisa B .... Design and and Miami, the trend is growing in smaller cities and ?rodu,tioo. suburbs around the country. Copyright © 1998 by American Planning Association, 122 S, Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The American Planning Association has beadq ...... ffl ..... 1776 Authors Blakely and Snyder study the three main Massachusetts Ave.. N.W., Washington, DC 200:36. types of gated communities: lifestyle for the retirees, All rights .... ed. No part of this publicati .... y be reproduced or utilized in any fo .... by prestige for the wealthy, and security zones for those any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information .... age and retrieval sy .... 'without permission in writing from tone American Planning fearful of crime. They examine the social, political, and Association. governance implications associated with this type of Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% p ............... ~ residential living and consider whether these developments actually meet their intended purpose.