080598 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 1998
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:00 p.m.
Meeting to be held at School District #281 Administration Building
Third Floor Conference Room
4148 Winnetka Avenue North (southeast corner of 42ndNVinnetka Avenues)
New Hope, Minnesota
2.
3.
4.
4.1
4.2
5.1
5.2
5.3
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CONSENT ITEMS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case 98-06
Case 96-27
Request for Planned Unit Development/, Conditional Use Permit, Site/Building
Plan Review/Approval, and Preliminary Plat Approval, 9101 and 9301 Science
Center Ddve, Avtec Finishing Systems, Petitioner
Informal Review of the Comprehensive Plan Update, City of New Hope,
Petitioner
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: August 13 at 8 a.m.
Report of Codes & Standards Committee - Next Meeting: August 26 at 7 a.m.
Report of Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - Tentative September Meeting
6. OLD BUSINESS
6.1 Miscellaneous Issues
7. NEW BUSINESS
7.1
7.2
7.3
Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 7, 1998.
Review of City Council Minutes of June 22, 1998.
Review of EDA Minutes of June 22, 1998.
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
*Petitioners are required to be in attendance
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The
Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the
Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code
and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the
surrounding neighborhood.
The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn,
first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your
questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the
Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission
will utilize the following procedure:
1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal.
2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the
Planning Commission.
3. The petitioner is in, vited 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. VVhen 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:
Request:
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
98-06
Planned Unit Development, Conditional
Approval, and Preliminary Plat Approval
9101 and 9301 Science Center Drive
#07-118-21-21-0004 and #07-118-21-22-0010
I-1, Limited Industrial Zoning District
Artec Finishing Systems
July 31, 1998
August 5, 1998
BACKGROUND
Use Permit, Site/Building Plan Review/
1. The petitioner is requesting planned unit development, conditional use permit, site/building plan review/
approval, and preliminary plat approval, pursuant to Sections 4.19, 4.21, 4.039A, and 13.00 - New Hope
Code of Ordinances.
2. Per the Planners' report, Avtec Finishing Systems has submitted applications for a CUP/PUD and
preliminary plat review to allow the applicant to construct an addition between the two existing
structures, on separate lots. In an effort to preserve the existing two lots separately, the PUD would
allow for a zero-lot line setback between the existing structures which would both accommodate in-
place expansion and enhance overall site integration. The proposed expansion would not be allowed
under the I-1 Limited Industrial District designation because of setback requirements. Because the
applicant is unwilling to combine the two existing lots, the only viable alternative is a CUP/PUD. This
development must be platted because the applicant proposes changing the lot line. Changing the lot
line will allow a four-hour property line wall to be constructed on the proposed property line between one
of the existing buildings and the addition.
3. Avtec Finishing Systems, Inc. is the tenant of the entire building located at 9101 Science Center Drive
(owned by Avtec Properties) and the southerly portion of a building located at 9301 Science Center
Drive (owned by SCD Management, LLP). Avtec's business requires expansion of its operations and
Avtec prefers to retain its location on the two adjacent New Hope properties, however, no space is
currently available in either building on Science Center Drive for expansion of Avtec's business
operations. For this reason, Avtec desires to expand its business by constructing an addition (in two
phases) onto the SCD building and a separate addition (also in two phases) to the existing Avtec
Properties building, which additions will be mutually accessible through one three-hour coiling door and
two three-hour passage doors.
4. Per the petitioner's correspondence, the properties ar~ currently in separate ownership and are
separately mortgaged to unrelated entities. The cost of combining the parcels into one ownership
outweighs any benefit of Avtec's retaining its operations in the Science Center Drive properties.
However, construction of any meaningful amount of space by an addition onto either building at this
time involves construction across a property line, with separate ownership on either side of such
property line. Accordingly, Avtec is requesting that the City approve (1) a CUP/PUD, (2) a lot line
rearrangement (subdivision), which will result in the construction of a four-hour property line wall on the
(newly located) lot line between the two properties, and (3) site and plan review for the construction of
the addition. The City's approval for the above matters is required due to the separate ownership of the
two properties and to facilitate the location of the additions on the property other than across a property
line. Notwithstanding the fact that the separate owners are unwilling to revise their ownership interests
in the properties due to the cost of the same, the owners are willing to enter into a common PUD fo.r---~
purposes of facilitati~j Avtec's expanded operations upon both properties.
It should be noted that Avtec has planned for at least two stages (phases) of construction, each phase
of which will include an addition to the SCD building and an addition to the Avtec Properties building. It
should also be noted that Avtec intends to expand its leasing of the existing areas within the SCD
building as such additional space is vacated by existing tenants and becomes available for lease by
Avtec. With this opportunity, at some time in the future, Avtec could be the sole occupant of both
properties.
6. Site and property data for the parcels is as follows:
West Lot (Lot 1)
East Lot (Lot 2)
Existing West Building
Existing East Building
Phase I and II Expansions
Lot 1 Building Area
Green Area
Asphalt
Lot 2 Building Area
Green Area
Asphalt
173,097 square feet
240,852 square feet
57,278 square feet
35,847 square feet
19,800 square feet
42.5%
17.5%
40%
8.2%
75.8%
16%
7. Surrounding zoning includes I-1 Limited Industrial to the east/south/west/north. The existing land use is
office/warehouse/manufacturing, which is a permitted use in the I-1 District.
8. The property is located in Planning District #5 of the Comprehensive Plan, which anticipated routine
industrial uses in this 320 acre industrial park. The use is consistent with that plan.
9. The topography of the property is relatively flat, with the drainage falling towards the west and east
sides. An existing berm and trees exist in the front yard of the property abutting Science Center Drive.
10. The petitioners state in their correspondence that the requests should be approved for the following
reasons:
A. Avtec's use of both properties (and the remaining existing uses of the SCD Property) are in
compliance with the permitted uses of the I-1 Limited Industrial District within the City, which is the
current zoning for both properties. Both properties comply with (a) the frontage, yardage,
landscaping, screening and surfacing requirements of the New Hope City Code regarding Industrial
Planned Unit Development, CUP requirements and (b) the special requirements for all limited
industrial uses set forth in the New Hope City Code.
B. Approval of this request will (1) provide for integrated joint management and an integrated
coordinated grouping of the two properties on Science Center Drive, (2) provide Avtec the flexibility
for not only the continued use of the buildings in the same manner as the buildings have been used
for many years, but also the opportunity to continue growth of Avtec's business operations on the
two properties and (3) allow an overall design and architectural plan for use of the two properties by
Avtec, while still maintaining the rights of the remaining existing tenants of the SCD building. The
CUP/PUD request also should be granted because it creates an integrated, coordinated design
which (i) conserves land and open space through the additions between the buildings and at the
· rear of the site, (ii) provides for shared use of space, (iii) provides for joint parking and truck access,
and (iv) allows for planned future addition to the property. In this way, approval of this request
furthers the City's overall goals of retaining New Hope businesses through in-place expansion.
Planning Case 98-06 Page 2 July 31, 1998
~, ~ 11. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments
regarding this requests.
ANALYSIS
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
1. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development 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. The PUD 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 Zoning Code establishes special requirements for the granting of a conditional use permit to allow
commercial or industrial PUD projects which are in compliance with the permitted and conditional uses
allowed in a specific distdct in one or more buildings in relation to an overall design, an integrated physical
plan and in accordance with the provisions and procedures described in the Code, subject to the following
conditions:
A. Frontage. The tract of land for which a project is proposed and a permit requested shall not have less
than 200 feet of frontage on a public right-of-way.
B. Yard. No building shall be nearer than 50 feet to the side or rear property line when such line abuts
and R-l, R-2, R-3 or R-4 use districts.
C. Landscaping, Screening and Surfacing.
(a) Surfacing. The entire site other than that taken up by structures or landscaping shall be surfaced
with a material to control dust and drainage.
(b) Drainage. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed.
(c) Screening and Landscaping. Developments abutting an R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 distdct shall be
screened and landscaped in compliance with the Zoning Code.
3. 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 Stage 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.
4. 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 the proposal
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:
A. Overall Maximum PUD Density Range.
B. General Location of Major Streets and Pedestrian Ways.
C. General Location and Extent of Public and Common Open Space.
Planning Case 98-06 Page 3 July 31, 1998
D. General Location of Residential and Non-Residential Land Uses with Approximate Type an¢'-"~
Intensities of Development.
E. Staging and Time Schedule of Development
F. Other Special Criteria for Development.
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 Stage.
(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.
(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 Adjacent 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.
(t') Number of Units. A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling and/or other units
proposed for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use
Planning Case 98-06 Page 4 July 31, 1998
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
units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each such
stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space and dwelling units
to be provided or constructed during 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 during 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.
Per the Building Official, the building setback from a side yard will require a waiver as part of the PUD. The
required I-1 side yard setback is 20 feet, although the Avtec building was approved in 1981 with a 10-foot
setback. This PUD request is for a "zero" setback across the property line. The architect, Todd Mohagen,
has received approval from the Building Official for the Building Code "Alternate Equivalency" that pertains
to the "Property Line Wall" (with openings) on the property line. This applies in addition to all zoning and
planning considerations and conditions.
Per the Building Official, both PUD Concept and Development Stage approvals are requested. More
details are needed to amplify:
· Management and maintenance of common spaces, facilities
· Evidence of Title for both lots
· Liability for costs
· Declaration of covenants
· Utility connections Fire Department connection must be moved to an approved location for 9101 wing
and fire sprinklers in new building must be piped from 9301 building
· Detailed landscaping schedule and single sheet plan
· Correct blueprint page numbers; multiple "Al"s are confusing review
· Trash dumpster enclosures and pickup plan
· Drainage plan is not adequate to meet with the approval of the City Engineer or the Shingle Creek
Watershed Commission
· The names and addresses of all professional consultants
· Schedule for stage/phase developments
Planning Case 98-06 Page 5 July 31, 1998
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1. The purpose of a ~;0-n-clitional Use Permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible
degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public
health, and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the conditional use is to be allowed, the
City may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already
in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into
and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall
deem a requisite for consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public
health, and safety.
2. Other general criteria to be considered when determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use .
permit include:
A. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies
and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official Comprehensive Municipal Plan
of the City.
B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses.
C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards
contained in the Code.
D. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which
it is proposed.
E. Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteria
specified for the various zoning districts:
1. In Industrial Districts (I-1, I-2):
a. Nuisance. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon
existing or future development in adjacent areas.
b. Economic Return. The use will provide an economic return to the community and
commensurate with other industrial uses that the property could feasibly be used for. In
considering the economic return to the community, the Planning Commission and City Council may
give weight to the sociological impact of a proposed use, both positive and negative.
3. Staff finds that the proposal meets the general cdteda for a conditional use permit and the specific
requirements for industrial districts.
SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW
Appropriate city staff and the Design & Review Committee met with the applicants in July and the
issues discussed included: building materials, site drainage issues and storm sewer construction,
Watershed approval, parking, internal traffic circulation, curbing, rooftop equipment, trash enclosure,
landscaping, and Fire Department connection. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting.
The revised plans include the following details:
A. Parking. 134 parking spaces are shown and 132 are required, therefore, adequate parking is
provided for Phase 1. To meet the parking requirements for Phase 2, the applicant has proposed
adding six parallel parking stalls located along the west property line. Exhibit F demonstrates that
the six proposed parallel parking stalls interfere with the use of the west loading docks by not
allowing adequate turning space for trucks. Four other parking stalls must be proposed elsewhere
on the site to meet parking requirements for Phase 2. The parking spaces are acceptable if no
semis access the adjacent docks, but must be increased in size to 8' x 22' to meet Zoning Code
standards.
Planning Case 98-06 Page 6 July 31, 1998
Planning Case 98-06
Page 7
B. Internal Circulation. A note on the site plan indicates that a clear access width of 24 feet will be
maintained on_the_southern edge of the site; however, the site plan does not measure this way. The
widened bituminous drive must include curb and gutter replacement of concrete. Fire lane areas
must be signed and striped. Diverting truck traffic to the rear of the buildings prevents interference
by trucks with parking circulation in the front of the building. Access points onto the property must be
signed to indicate that trucks will use the outside two access points only. Provide traffic plan that
clarifies "One-Way" flow at south with signs, arrows and street driveway signs: e.g., "AV'I'EC
TRUCK ENTRY." South curb needs replacement with concrete.
C. Loadin,q. Loading areas are required to provide minimum maneuvering space exclusive of required
parking. Vehicles are currently parking along the west property line of the site, interfering with truck
access to loading docks on the west side of Building A. This area shall be signed and striped as a
fire lane with no parking allowed. The function and need of the new south "dock" has been clarified.
D. Buildin,q Materials. Elevations of the north side of the proposed addition during Phase 1 and Phase
2 have been submitted. Integration of the two existing structures with the proposed addition creates
some potential difficulties because the existing buildings have different colors and textures. Building
A is gray in color, while Building B is'a pinkish color. The existing buildings and addition should be
the same color, requiring the painting of at least one building. The elevations must show how this
will be done, as the color issue is not clarified on the plan.
E. Rooftop Units. There is rooftop equipment on the roof of Building B that is above the roof line. The
site plan notes that the rooftop units will be painted. The color should match the building.
F. Buildin.q SprinklinR. The site plan indicates that a spinkler system including smoke detection will be a
part of the addition. This spinkler system should be extended from the west building.
G. Lighting. The site plan notes that all new exterior lighting is to be wall mounted. All new wall lighting
must be covered and down lit.
H. Landscapin.q. Nine dwarf Alberta spruce trees will provide an interim landscape accent on the north
side of the addition during Phase 1. When Phase 2 takes place, these trees will be removed and
juniper shrubs will be planted in front of the Phase 2 addition. Other on-site screening is significant
and well screened from Science Center Drive. A landscaping schedule should be provided.
I. Utilities. Electric lines are proposed to be moved. The site plan indicates a new fire hydrant is to be
located southeast of the buildings.
J.' Refuse Stora.qe. Existing outdoor storage of refuse is unscreened. Rather than enclosing individual
refuse receptacles, the applicant has proposed screening the area from Science Center Drive.
Existing outdoor refuse storage areas are screened in the site plan by three proposed dwarf Alberta
spruce trees that are six feet in height. Staff recommends planting three additional dwarf Alberta
spruce trees down the west property line and adding a slatted fence six to eight feet in height on the
south side of the three proposed trees that are shown on the site plan. The additional trees and
fence provide a more complete screen of the refuse and loading area. As the trees grow, the fence
will become less visible from the road.
K. Ri.qht of Access and Shared Parkin.q. A document is required stating that parking is shared and an
access easement is designated across the two properties.
L. Fire Lanes/No Parkin.q - areas have been identified with the exception of the areas outlined above.
Fire lane at south must be widened to 20-foot minimum.
M. Staff considered the majority of corrections that are needed as minor, except for drainage.
3. The largest outstanding concerns are the drainage/watershed issues. The site plan notes that drainage
will be away from the building to the north and south. It appears the applicant is attempting to address
July 31, 1998
storm water drainage at the rear of the buildings by cleaning out existing ditches. The City Engineer ha~"-.
recommended a storm sewer pipe be constructed along the south property line to replace the ope~.
ditch. The applibant has not addressed water quality issues as was suggested by the City Engineer.
The drainage plan requires review and approval by the City Engineer. Repair of the south drive and
addition of the storm sewer and concrete curb is not shown on the plan. Preliminary comments from the
Watershed District indicate that the plan does not meet standards.
The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and made the following comments:
· Drainage along the south side of the property is conveyed through an open ditch which includes
steep side slopes along the railroad tracks and looped driveway. The site plan implies the ditch will
be cleaned, however, based on its condition it is recommended storm sewer pipe be constructed as
noted on the attached drawing.
· The building expansion between the two existing buildings will block drainage from north to south. A
storm sewer pipe may be required if drainage cannot be directed north based on the proposed
building elevations.
The discharge of storm water from this site and a portion of Brandell Third Addition (located to the
west) is directed through an existing CMP culvert below the railroad spur to the DNR protected
north/south open channel. Although the impervious surface for this project is not increasing the rate
of storm water runoff, water quality improvements are required in accordance with Shingle Creek
Watershed and the goals/objectives of New Hope's Surface Water Management Plan. A conceptual
layout for storm sewer pipe and ponding for water quality improvements is attached. The preliminary
plat includes approximately 9.5 acres. The ponding for water quality shall be designed in
accordance with NURP standards based on the 9.5 acre plat. The ponding shall be reviewed and
approved by Shingle Creek Watershed. The site plan as submitted does not provide for water
quality improvements.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW
1. As per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to city Department Heads, City Attorney, City
Engineer, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment.
2. The City Code states that copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for
their review and recommendation, unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Commission
during their review of the preliminary plat. The Planning Commission will need to make a
determination as to whether it wants to review the final plat or not. Due to the details that are missing on
the preliminary plat, staff is recommending that the Commission not waive review of the final plat.
3. The total area of the proposed plat is 19.4457 acres.
4. The plat proposes the rearrangement of the existing lot line to accommodate the building connection.
5. The lot area and width requirements for the I-1 Zoning District are compared to the plat as follows:
I-1 Requirement Preliminary Plat
Minimum Lot Area - 1 acre Lot 1 - 173,097 square feet
Minimum Lot Width - 150 feet 301.54 foot width
Lot 2 - 240,852 square feet 405.8 foot width
The preliminary plat meets the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for the I-1 Zoning District.
The Planning Consultant reviewed the plat and made the following comments:
A. Lot Size. Lots conform to minimum lot size requirements with the adjusted lot line.
Planning Case 98-06 Page 8 July 31, 1998
B. Setbacks. The development conforms to setback requirements at the periphery of the site.
C. Jo.q.qed Lot Lir{~.-The proposed rearrangement of the existing lot line will result in an irregular lot line
between the two properties. This jogged lot line is acceptable in this circumstance because the PUD
allows this flexibility. The irregular lot line is needed to allow a four-hour property line wall to be
constructed on the proposed property line between Building B and the proposed addition.
D. Drainage. The City Engineer should comment on the acceptability of the drainage and utility
easement proposed in the preliminary plat.
7. The City Engineer reviewed the plat and made the following comments, in addition to comments made
on the development:
A. A preliminary plat representing the two lots is required. The required drainage and utility easements
are not properly shown. Special attention shall be given to the area between the railroad spurs and
along the south lot line to Brandell Third Addition. Drainage from other properties west and south of
this site are conveyed through these areas where easements will be required.
8. The City Attorney reviewed the plat and made the following comments:
A. The plat lists Avtec Finishing as the owner. The owners in fact appear to be SCD Management for
the proposed Lot 1, and Avtec Properties, a Minnesota general partnership for the proposed Lot 2.
B. Significant parts of the legal descriptions of the land in question are not labeled on the plat. All
directions and distances in the legal descriptions must be labeled on the plat.
C. Part of the land included in the legal description labeled "Parcel 3" on the proposed plat has
apparently been deeded to SCD Management, LLP This land involves most of the proposed Lot 1 of
the new subdivision, and has a separate legal description and owner. That separate legal
description must be included in and illustrated on the plat.
D. The proposed plat states that the easement information was not verified by documents. That
information must be verified, and all existing easements of record must be shown on the plat. This is
particularly important here, where some easements may need to be vacated and replaced due to
the change in the lot lines and the construction of a building up to the new lot line.
E. The setback requirements are listed on the plat, but not illustrated. It appears the proposed addition
will encroach upon the rear setback, but without the setbacks being illustrated, I am not certain of
this.
F. I also note that because the building addition will be sharing a common wall, a party wall agreement
may be necessary.
G. As with previous plats, the plat cannot be filed without prepayment of all of the taxes due and
payable in the year of filing. If the owners plan to file the plat before October 15, 1998, they will have
to pay the second half taxes prior to the filing of the plat.
SUMMARY
Based upon the above comments, staff finds that the overall concept of the development is appropriate;
however, drainage and circulation issues and revised preliminary plat still need to be resolved. Therefore,
staff recommend approval of this project on a conceptual basis. Additional information will be needed for
formal approval of the preliminary plat and site plan.
Planning Case 98-06 Page 9 July 31, 1998
RECOMMENDATION
Preliminary Plat - Recommend approval subject to the following condition:
1. Revised preliminary plat be submitted that addresses all issues outlined by City Attorney and City
Engineer.
PUD/CUP - Recommend Concept Stage approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Revise plans to address all issues outlined by Building Official, City Engineer and Planning Consultant,
including:
A. Exhibit F demonstrates that the six proposed parallel parking stalls located along the west property
line interfere with the use of the west loading docks by not allowing adequate turning space for
trucks. Four other parking stalls must be located elsewhere on the site to meet parking requirements
for Phase 2.
B. A note on the site plan indicates that a clear access width of 24 feet will be maintained on the
southern edge of the site, however, the site plan does not measure this way. The widened
bituminous drive must include curb and gutter replacement of concrete. The site plan must be
correctly dimensioned to show the width of the drive.
C. Diverting truck traffic to the rear of the buildings prevents interference by trucks with parking
circulation in the front of the building. Access points should be signed to indicate that trucks may
use the outside two access points only.
D. Drives around the building must be signed and striped as fire lanes.
E. The Fire Department connections for both the A and B buildings must be relocated to the address
side of the building to a location approved by the Fire Department. The Fire Department
connections will be labeled for what building they supply.
F. The sprinkler system for the new additions must be designed for the storage height and
commodities being stored and should be extended from the west building.
G. Building elevations should indicate what steps will be taken to make the existing two buildings,
rooftop equipment, and the addition a uniform color.
H. Staff recommends planting three additional dwarf Alberta spruce trees down the west property line
and adding a slatted fence six to eight feet in height on the south side of the three proposed trees
that are shown on the site to provide a more complete screen of the refuse and loading area.
I. Address all drainage concerns raised by City Engineer; plan also to be approved by Watershed
District.
J. Submission of easement documents is required that outline the terms of shared parking and traffic
circulation across the two properties.
K. Site plan, grading and plat corrections to be submitted with Development Stage plans.
Attachments: Address/ZoningFFopo Maps
Petitioner Application Attachment
Revised Site Plan
Site Data
Engineering Site Plan
Revised Floor Plan
Revised North Elevations: Phase I and 2
Preliminary Plat
Tree Planting Detail
Planning Case 98-06 Page 10
Landscape General Notes
Photos of Site
7/30 Planner's Report
7/29 Engineer's Comments/Attachment
7/15 Fire Department Comments
7/14 Planner's Report
7/14 Engineer Comments
7/10 Architect Correspondence
July 31, 1998
ST RE:SEARCH CENTER ROAD
~(~oo
SCIENCE
CH CENTER RD
PUBLIC
GARAGE
IVE
NEW HOPE
ATHLETIC
I0
.5500
NOR,'H Ri, DGE
CARE
b-~c, CE NTER
· ~
54 TH.
' ~$oo
50TH AVE.
ZEALAND AVE.
FAIIfVIE~ AVE.
52ND
51 ST
lit1 x AV~:NL( Ill, s x
A~[NUE
N3.0
x
SO£NCE
~N~R
X
I
B97.2 DRIVE
x
9oo, 7
./
Attachm~ to Avvlication to New Ho~e Pla~,~ Commission a~ City Council
Submitted by Avt'_~Fin_i.~h5~ Systems, 1~ for__a CUPeUD. Subdivisio~ ~n_d Site &Pla~ R4~ew
Des_cfin~/q~ of R~que~-
Artec Finishing Systems, Inc. ("Av'~ec") i~ the tenant of(a) the entire building located at 9101
Science Center Drive (owned by Artec Properties, a IVfmnesota genera/pannership) a~d (b) the
southerly portion ora building located at 9301 Science Center Drive (owned by SCD
M-a~agement, L.L.P., a Minnesota limited l/ability partnership). Avtec's business requires
expansion of its operations and Artec prefers to retain its location on the two adjacent New Hope
properties, however, no space is currently available in either building on Sdencc Center Drive for
expansion of Aytec's business operations. For this reason, Artec desires to expand its business by
constructing an;addition (m two phases) onto thc SCD Building and a separate addkion (also in
two phases) to the,existing Artec Properties Building, which additions will be mutually accessible
through one 3-hour coiling door and two 3-hour passage doors.
The properties are currently in separate ownership and are separately mortgaged to unrelated
entities. The cost ogcombining the parcels into one ownership outwdghs any benefit of Avtec's
retaining its operations in t. be Science Center Drive properties. However, construct/on of any
meaningful amount 0f'spacd by an addition onto either building at this time involves construction
across a property line, with separate ownership on either side of such property line. Accordingly,
Artec is requesting that the City approve (1) a CUP-PUD, (2) a lot line rearrangement
(subdivision), which will result in the construction ora 4-hour properly line wall on the (newly
located) lot line bet'ween the two properties, and (3) site and plan review for the construction of
the addition. The City's approval for the above matters/s required due to the separate ownership
of the two properties and to facilitate the location of the additions on property other than across a
property line. Notwithstanding the fact that the sel:rarate owners are unwilling to revise their
ownership interests in the properties due to the cost of the same, the owners are willing to enter
inzo a common PUD for purposes of facilitating Avtec's expanded operations upon both
properties.
Following (or in conjunction with) approval by the City, the work and/or documents
contemplated at this ti'me and required prior to construction of the addition are (i) the termination
of an existing private ingress/egress easement (Doc No. 4661940); (ii) creation of a new cross
easement for ingreSs/egress, parldng truck traffu:, drainage, maintenance of the 4-hour property
line wall, and use of'the 3-hour e. oiling door and the two 3-hour passage doors connecting the
addition to the SCD Building to the Artec Properties Building (md th~ new addition to the
same); (iii) movement of exis~ng undersround electrical lines (no easement amendment required);
(iv) expansion of'the Artec lease of SCD Building to include the area of'the new addition; (v)
expansion of Av~ec lease of Artec Properties Building to include the area of'that new addition;
and (v0 amendments to mortgages of both properties, as may be required by the separate lenders.
These documents will result in (aa) Avtec's expanded tenancy ofthe SCD Building and the Artec
~ 102947~I
Properties Building and (bb) written control by both Artec Properties and SCD as to both interior
(the doors and wall) and exterior (ingress/egress, parking and drainage) portions of'both
properties.
It should be noted that Artec has planned for at least two stages (phases) of construction, each
phase of which will include (x) an addition to the SCD Building and (y) an additiotq to the Artec
Properties Building. It should also be noted that Artec intends to expand its leasing of the
existing areas within the SCD Buikliag, as such additional space is vacated by existing tenants and
becomes available for lease by Artec. With this opportunity, at some time in the future, Artec
could be the sole occupant of'both propc'rties.
Wllty Should P.~eqUest b,e Crr~nt,~'
Avtec's use of both, properties (and the remaining existing uses of the SCD Property) are in
compliance with the permitted uses of the I-1 limited industrial district within the City, which is
the current zoning for both properties. Both properties comply with (a) the frontage, yardage,
landscaping, screening and surfacing requirements of Section 4.194 of the New Hope City Code
regar, ding Indu~stri~ ,P. larmed Unit Development, CUP Requirements and (b) the special
r~qmrements tot au fimited industrial uses set forth in S~tion 4.145 of the New Hope City Code.
Approval of this request will (1) provide for integrated joint management and an integrated
coordinated grouping of the two properties on Science Center Drive, (2) provide Artec the
flexibility for not only the continued use of the buildings in the same manner as the buildings have
been used for marly years, but also the opportunity to continue growth of Av~ec's business
operations on the two bropenies and (3) allow an overall design and architectural plan for use of
the two properties by Artec, while still maintaining the rights of the remaining existing tenants of
the SCD Building. The CUP-PUD request also should be granted because it creates an
integrated, coordi:nated design which (i) conserves land and open space through the additions
between ~he buildings and at the re, ar of the site, (ii) provides for shared use of'space, (iii)
provides for joint parking and :tuck access, and (iv) allows for planned future addition to the
property. In this way, approval of this request furthers the City's overall goals of retaining New
Hope businesses through in-place expansion.
~ 1029479~!
HERE
OR ~'~F
SUPER%
.*,RCHFr~
i
DRAWIN
PROJ£C
DRAWN
CHECKE[
DATE':
COMPUT~
i
SNEEr
SIT
/ / ;
/
/
; S'CIENCE CEAtTER' &~4~l V~-
S 89'02'00" E ~,~.=~ ,¢ 672.84 ~
AND-
-E~ Ir AS~MENT
PER DOC NO.
1 ~ STORY
CONCRETE BdlLDING
NO. 9301-B~3
BEGIN REMOVAL OF CURB
,~. - 10 F'T DRAINAG~
AND UTILITY
INSTALL CURB C
IdlNOU~-
REMOV~ AND REPLACE EXIS~NG '
BITUMINOUS AND CURB
1 STORY
CONCRETE BUILDING
NO, glOt
t
z
I
iii
S 89"02'00" E
301.54 --!
P~OPOSED LOT 1
LOT = !73,397 SO rT.
PARCEL
,..-lo ~r. I~AINAGI~
'N,~O UllUTY EAS~'NT
- E:G~£~ E:ASEM~r'NT
PER DOC. NO.' 4.6~1
23.46
'NSg'02'51"W
3
AREA OF" PROPOSEDi
LOT'= 240,852 SQ. rT ,~/.~
· "-r ............
NO. 9101
-10 FT. N~ EASEMLrNT
PER DOC. NO. g8518g__
OWNER: AVTEC FINISHING
ADOPESS; 9~01 SCIENCE CENTER DRfVE
NEW HOPE, MN. 55428
TELE. (612) 533-4822
SURVEYOR: EGAN FIELD & NOWAK
ADDRESS: SUITE 200, 7415 WAYZATA BLVD.
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN. 55426
TELE. (612) 546-68..57
AVTEC
AVTEC ADDITION
SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
TREE PLANTING DETAIL
- 501L41LL'
BALLED & BURLAPPED
SfOCK
1. SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE.
2. PROCEED WITH CORRECTIVE PRUNING AS NECESSARY.
3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL, OR
THOROUGHLY COMPACTED BACKFILL SOIL AT THE SAME
DEPTH (IF PROPER) AS IT WAS GROWN IN THE NURSERY.
4. PLANT SHALL BE PLACED IN PLANTING HOLE WHT BURLAP
AND WIRE' BASKET, IF USED, INTACT.
5. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH BACKFILL SOIL SPECIFIED
6. APPLY WATER TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS, THEN
CONSTRUCT 3" DEPTH WATERING BASIN.
7. WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS.
8. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND
WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE.
9. BIODEGRADABLE TWINE MAY BE LEFT ON AS SUPPORT
BETWEEN THE ROOT BALL AND ROOT COLLAR. USE OF
NONBIODEGRADABLE TWINE SHALL NOT BE PERMI'I-I'ED.
AVTEC
AVTEC ADDITION
SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
LANDSCAPE GENERAL NOTES
1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT SITE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID TO
BECOME COMPLETELY FAMILIAR WITH SITE CONDITIONS.
2. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO IDENTIFY
ALL UNDERGROUND CABLES, CONDUITS, WIRES, ETC. ON THE PROPERTY.
.3. NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION
HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN iMMEDIATE AREA.
PROVIDE 6" OF TOPSOIL FOR ALL LAWN AREAS.
THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
FINAL GRADING PRIOR TO SEEDING OR SODDING OPERATIONS.
5. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE OF SPECIMENT QUALITY, AND APPROVED BY
LANDSGAPE ARCHITECT AND OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. PLANTS
SHALL HAVE NORMAL, WELL-DEVELOPED BRANGH SYSTEMS, A VIGOROUS
F.IBROUS ROOT SYSTEM; THEY SHALL BE SOUND, HEALTHY, VIGOROUS
PLANTS FREE FROM DEFECTS, DISFIGURING KNOTS, SUNSCALD INJURIES,
ABRASIONS OF THE BARK, PLANT DISEASES, INSECT EGGS, BORERS, AND
ALL FORMS OF INFESTATIONS. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN.
6. REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY FROM PLANTING OPERATIONS.
7. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE AT NO CHARGE, ANY TREE,
SHRUB, EVERGREEN, OR CROUNDCOVER WHICH FAILS TO LIVE THROUGH
THE FIRST CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE TIME OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND THE OWNER. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE
ALIVE AND IN NORMAL SATISFACTORY GROWING CONDITIONS AT THE
END OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD.
8. THREE INCH DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH WILL BE
INSTALLED UNDER ALL TREES AND SHRUBS THAT ARE ISOLATED
FROM GROUND COVER AREAS AND GENERAL SHRUB MASSES.
9. WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE FIRST QUALITY, HEAVY, WATERPROOF
CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE. TREES SHALL
BE WRAPPED PRIOR TO 12/1 AND REMOVED AFTER 5/1.
10. TREE GUYING IN ALL AREAS SHALL BE OPTIONAL. THE LANDSCAPE
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING TREES tN A
STRAIGHT UPRIGHT CONDITION .FOR A PERIOD OF TWELVE MONTHS
11. ALL SHRUB BEDS TO BE MULCHED WITH 1.5" WASHED RIVER ROCK
PLACED TO A THREE INCH DEPTH OVER WEED CONTROL FABRIC.
12. ALL MAINTENANCE EDGER SHALL BE COBRA VINYL EDGING.
13. ALL SOD SUPPLIED SHALL BE OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY CULTURED SOD AVAILABLE. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING
THE FIRST WATERING OF ALL FRESHLY SODDED LAWN AREAS. AFTER
THE FIRST WATERING THE OWNER TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOD.
14. ALL SODDED AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC
UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM. IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING A DESIGN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO
NI C-
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY PLANNING
DESIGN MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Cynthia Putz-Yang / Alan Brixius
July 30, 1998
New Hope - Avtec Building Expansion
131.01 - 98.08
BACKGROUND
The applicant met with the Design and Review Board on July 9m. The following report
reviews new submissions of the Avtek proposal.
avtek Finishing Systems has submitted applications for a CUP / PUD and preliminary
plat review to allow the applicant to construct an addition between the two existing
structures, on separate lots. In an effort to preserve the existing two lots separately,
the PUD would allow for a zero-lot line setback between the existing structures which
would both accommodate in-place expansion and enhance overall site integration. The
proposed expansion would not be allowed under the I-1, Limited Industry, district
designation because of setback requirements. Because the applicant is unwilling to
combine the two existing lots, the only viable alternative is a CUP / PUD. For further
explanation of the reasons for maintaining separate ownership, please refer to the
letter attached as Exhibit A.
This development must be platted because the applicant proposes changing the lot
line. Changing the lot line will allow a 4-hour property line wall to be constructed on the
proposed property line between one of the existing buildings and the addition.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A - Application Letter
Exhibit B - Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C - Floor Plan
Exhibit D - Site Plan
Exhibit E - Elevations
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 St. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6
PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET.COM
Exhibit F - Truck Turning Radius
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the following review, our office finds that the overall concept of the
development is appropriate; however, drainage and circulation issues still need to be
resolved. Therefore, we recommend approval of this project on a conceptual basis.
Additional information will be needed for formal approval of the preliminary plat and site
plan. Based on the information provided, we offer the following recommendations.
Exhibit F demonstrates that the six proposed parallel parking stalls located along
the west property line interfere with the use of the west loading docks by not
allowing adequate turning space for trucks. Four other parking stalls must be
located elsewhere on the site to meet parking requirements for Phase 2.
A note on the site plan indicates that a clear access width of twenty-four feet will
be maintained on the southern edge of the site; however, the site plan does not
measure this way. The widened bituminous drive must include curb and gutter
replacement of concrete. The site plan must be correctly dimensioned to show
the width of the drive.
Diverting truck traffic to the rear of the buildings prevents interference by trucks
with parking circulation in the front of the building. Access points should be
signed to indicated that trucks may use the outside two access points only.
4. Drives around the building must be signed and striped at fire lanes.
o
The fire department connections for both the A and B buildings must be
relocated to the address side of the building to a location approved by the fire
department. The fire department connections will be labeled for what building
they supply.
The sprinkler system for the new additions must be designed for the storage
height and commodities being stored and should be extended from the west
building.
Building elevations should indicate what steps will be taken to make the existing
two buildings, rooftop equipment, and the addition a uniform color.
Staff recommends planting three additional dwarf Alberta spruce trees down the
west property line and adding a slatted fence six to eight feet in height on the
south side of the three proposed trees that are shown on the site to provide a
Page 2
more complete screen of the refuse and loading area.
The City Engineer should comment on the acceptability of the drainage and
utility easement proposed in the preliminary plat. The drainage plan requires
review and approval by the City Engineer.
10.
Submission of easement documents is required that outline the terms of shared
parking and traffic circulation across the two properties.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
PLAT
Lot Size. Lots conform to minimum lot size requirements with the adjusted lot
line.
Setbacks. The development conforms to setback requirements at the periphery
of the site.
Jo.q.qed Lot Line. The proposed rearrangement of the existing lot line will result
in an irregular lot line between the two properties. This jogged lot line is
acceptable in this circumstance because the PUD allows this flexibility. The
irregular lot line is needed to allow a 4-hour property line wall to be constructed
on the proposed property line between Building B and the proposed addition.
Drainage. The City Engineer should comment on the acceptability of the
drainage and utility easement proposed in the preliminary plat. Provisions for
easements for utilities and drainage are found in the City code Section 13.054.
CUP I PUD
Land Use. Both subject lots are zoned I-1, Limited Industry. The
comprehensive plan encourages in-fill development of industrial sites for the
retention of existing in-place businesses.
Adjacent Land Uses:
North: I-1, Limited Industry
South: I-1, Limited Industry
West: I-1, Limited Industry
East: I-1, Limited Industry
Page 3
Parking. Adequate parking is provided for Phase 1. To meet the parking
requir.etn~c~ts for Phase 2, the applicant has proposed adding six parallel parking
stalls located along the west property line. Exhibit F demonstrates that the six
proposed parallel parking stalls interfere with the use of the west loading docks
by not allowing adequate turning .space for trucks. Four other parking-stalls
must be proposed elsewhere on the site to meet parking requirements for Phase
2.
Internal Circulation. A note on the site plan indicates that a clear access width
of twenty-four feet will be maintained on the southern edge of the site; however,
the site plan does not measure this way. The widened bituminous drive must
include curb and gutter replacement of concrete. Fire lane areas must be
signed and striped.
Diverting truck traffic to the rear of the buildings prevents interference by trucks
with parking circulation in the front of the building. Access points onto the
property must be signed to indicate that trucks will use the outside two access
points only.
Loading, Loading areas are required to provide minimum maneuvering space
exclusive of required parking. Vehicles are currently parking along the west
property line of the site, interfering with truck access to loading docks on the
west side of Building A. This area shall be signed and striped as a fire lane with
no parking allowed.
Buildin,q Materials. Elevations of the north side of the proposed addition during
Phase 1 and Phase 2 have been submitted. Integration of the two existing
structures with the proposed addition creates some potential difficulties because
the existing buildings have different colors and textures. Building ^ is grey in
color, while Building B is a pinkish color. The existing buildings and addition
should be the same color, requiring the painting of at least one building. The
elevations must show how this will be done.
There is rooftop equipment on the roof of Building B that is above the roof line.
The site plan notes that the rooftop units will be painted. The color should
match the building.
Building SDrinklin.~, The site plan indicates that a sprinkler system including
smoke detection will be a part of the addition. This sprinkler system should be
extended from the west building.
LightinQ. The site plan notes that all new exterior lighting is to be wall mounted.
All new wall lighting must be covered and down lit.
Page 4
10.
11.
12.
LandsCai~ing. Nine dwarf Alberta spruce trees will provide an interim landscape
accent on the north side of the addition during Phase 1. When Phase 2 takes
place, these trees will be removed and juniper shrubs will be planted in front of
the Phase 2 addition. Other on-site screening is significant and well-screened
from Science Center Drive.
Refuse Storage. Existing outdoor storage of refuse is unscreened. Rather than
enclosing individual refuse receptacles, the applicant has proposed screening
the area from Science Center Drive. Existing outdoor refuse storage areas are
screened in the site plan by three proposed dwarf Alberta spruce trees that are
six feet in height. Staff recommends planting three additional dwarf Alberta
spruce trees down the west property line and adding a slatted fence six to eight
feet in height on the south side of the three proposed trees that are shown on
the site plan. The additional trees and fence provide a more complete screen of
the refuse and loading area. As the trees grow, the fence will become less
visible from the road.
Drainage. The site plan notes that drainage will be away from the building to the
north and south. It appears the :applicant is attempting to address storm water
drainage at the rear of the buildings by cleaning out existing ditches. The City
Engineer has recommended a storm sewer pipe be constructed along the south
property line to replace the open ditch. The applicant has not addressed water
quality issues as was suggested by the City Engineer. The drainage plan
requires review and approval by the City Engineer.
Utilities. Electric lines are proposed to be moved. The site plan indicates a new
fire hydrant is to be located southeast of the buildings.
Right of Access and Shared Parking. A document is required stating that
parking is shared and an access easement is designated across the two
properties.
pc:
Doug Sandstad
Steve Sondrall
Page 5
A~L~a-e~nt to Application to New Hope Planning Com~ssi0n and CiW Council
Sub. rnirted by A .vt_ e¢~'Lnishjn~ Systems, Inc, for aCUP/PUD, Su~.divis.ion,.and Site &.P~ R~,'/ev.,
Description of Kequeg:
Avtec Fh'tishJng Systems, Inc. ("Artec") iz the tenant of(a) the entire building located at 9101
Science Center Drive (owned by Artec Properties, a 1W. mnesota general partnership) and (b) the
southerly portion ora building located at 9301 Science Center Drive (owned by SCD
Management, L.L.P.. a Minnesota limited liability partnership). Avtec's business requires
expansion of/ts operations and Avtec pre,'ers to retain its location on the two adjazent New Hope
properties, however, no space is currently available in either building on Science Center Drive for
expansion of Aytec's bus, ness operations. For this reason, Artec desires to expand its business by
constructing an addition (in two phases) onto the SCD Building and a separate addition (also in
two ph~es) to the:e~sting Artec Properties Building, which additions will be mutually accessible
through one 3-hour coiling door and two 3-hour passage doors.
The properties ate currently in separate ownership and are separately mortgaged to unrelated
entities. The cost of' combining the parcels into one ownership outweighs any benefit of Avtec's
retaining its operations in the Science Center Drive properties. However, construction ofa~y
mearfingf-ul amount ofspac~ by an addition onto either building at this time involves construction
across a property line, with separate ownership on either side of such property line. Accordingly,
Artec is requesting that the City approve (1) a CUP-PUD, (2) a lot line rearrangement
(subdivision), which will result in the construction ora 4-hour property line wall on the (newly
located) lot line between the two prope~es, and (3) site and plan review for the construction of
the addition. The City's approval for the above ma~ers is required clue to the separate ownership
of the two properties and to facilitate the location of the atld~tions on property other than across a
property line. Notwitl~tanding the fact that the separate owners are unwilling to revise their
9wnersb. ip interests in the properties due to the cost of the same, the owners are will~ng to enter
Lard a common PUD for purposes of facilitating Avtec's expanded operat}.ons upon both
properties.
Following (or in con~nction w~th) approval by the City, the work and/or documents
contemplated at this time and required prior to construction of the addition are (i) the termination
of an ex/sting private ingress/egress easement (Doc No. 4661940); (ii) creation of a new cross
ea.~ement for ingreSs/egress, parking, truck traffaz, drainage, maintenance of the 4-hour property
Ii. ne wall, and use of the 3-hour c. oiling door and the two 3-hour passage doors connecting the
addition to the SCD Building to the Artec Properties Building (and the new addition to the
same); (iii) movement of existing underground electrical lines (no easement amendment required);
(iv) expansion of the Avte~ lease of SCD Building to ~clude the area of the new addition; (v)
expansion of Avtec lease of Ay'tee Properties Building to include the area ofthat new addition;
and (vi) amendments to mortgages of both properties, as may be required by the separate lenders.
These documents will resuIt in (aa) Avtec's expanded tenancy of'the SCD Building and the Artec
Exhibit A - Application Letter
Properties Buil~t~ and (~b) written control by both Artec Properties and SCD as to both interior
(the doors m'~d wall) and exterior (ingress/¢gres.s, paxI<ing and dra.mage) pordon.s of both
propenics.
It should be noted that Artec has planned for at least two stages (phases) of'construction, each
phase of which will include (x) an addition to the SCD Building and (y) an addition to the Artec
Properties Building. It should also be noted that Av'tec intends to expand its leasing ofti,.e
existing areas with,in the SCD Bui!ding, as such additional spa~e is vacated by existing tenants and
becomes available t'or lea~e by Av'tec. With this opportunity, at some time in the future, Artec
could be the sole occupant of both properties.
.W'b.V Should R,eq,~ Granted:
Avtec's use of both. properties (and the remaining existing uses of the SCD Property) are in
compliance with the permitted uses of the I-l limited industhal district within the City, which is
the current zoning for both properties. Both properties comply with (a) the frontage, yaxdage,
landscaping, screening and surfacing requi~ments of Section 4.194 of the New Hope City Code
regaxding Industrial Planned Unit Development, CUP Requirements and Co) the special
requirements for all limited industrial uses set forth in Section 4.145 ofthe New Hope City Code.
Approval of this request will (1) provide for integrated joint management and an integrated
coordinated grouping of the two properties on Science Center Drive, (2) provide Avtec the
£e',dbihty for not only the continued use of the buildings in the same masmer as the buildings have
been used for ma.fly ye.ars, but also the opportunity to continue growth of Avte¢'s business
operations on the two properties and (3) sJlow an overfll design and m'chit~ctur~l plan roi- use of
the two properties by Artec, while still maintaining the fights of the remaining existing tenants of
the SCD Building. The CUP-PUD request also should be granted because it creates
integrated, coordihated design which (i) ¢omserves land and open space through the additions
between the buildings and at the ~ of the site, (ii) provid~ for shared use of space, (iii)
provides for joint parking md truck access, and (iv) allows for planned future addition to the
pr~perzy. In this way, approval of this request furthers the City's overall goals of retainir~g New
Hope businesses throug~ in-place expansion.
..d
Z
-;!
I
I
Il,
//
Exhibit
i
Exhibit C - Floor Plan
Exhibit D - Site Plan
'
.i.N3t,930¥~-v';~WOI$:D(7'NOIJ O['Rdl SNO0
- 'o~ 'SagO'Ii/iq
Exhibit E - Elevations
w~
I I
Single Unit Truck~l
~o ~ ~ Minimum Turning
=;=z ~J Radius ~W /
Exhibit F - Truck Turning Radius
BONESTRO0 ROSENE ANDERLIK
Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
AsSOCiates
Engineers & Architects
~'6516361311
07/30/98 11:02 1~:02/03 N0:906
fflthard W. FOMer, ~E. · David 0 Loskota. Pk · RObert t. I~u~Sek. A I A. · Mark A. Hanson. Pt ·
M~h~l T Rautm~n, ME. · Teo K.Flekt Pk · Kem~em ~ An~r~nn. PE · M,~k R ROif~, RF. ·
$i~ R ~llll~i~ RE., L.S. * R~I F. Ko[smKh · agnes M R~ · M~gh~ P Rau, ~. ·
AJI~ R~k Sg~,
MEMO
TO: Kirk McDonald, Doug Sandatad
FROM: Mark Hanson
Avtec Addition Preliminary Plat (9101/9301 Science Center Drive)
File 34-Gert (E98-26)
July 29, 1998
DATE: July 29, 1998
We have reviewed thc preliminaxy plat/site plan nnd recommend thc following:
A preliminary plat representing the two lots is required. The requirexi drainage and utility
easements are not properly shown. Special attmtion shall be given to the area between tho
railroad spurs and along the south lot ~ to Brandell Third Addition. Drainage from other
properties west and south of this site are conveyed through these areas where easements will
be required.
Drainage along the south side of 1he pmpmy is conveyed through an open ditoh which
includes steep side slopes along tbe rsilm~ tracks and looped driveway. The site plan
implies the ditch will be cleaned. However, ba~d on its condition it is recommended storm
sewer pipe be constructed u noted on the attached drawing.
The building expansion between the two existiug buildings will block drainage from north to
south. A Morm sewer pipe may be required if drainage can not be directed north baaed on the
proposed building elevations.
The disch~.~S.e of storm water fi'om this s. ite
to the west) IS direoted through an existing C~ portion of Brandell Third Addition (located
culvert below thc railroad spur to tl~ DNR
.protect?d north-south open channel. Although tho impervious surface for this project is not
· , .... .~.,.,, w,., o .m,~ll.. ~ ~...r~ wnmrshea and the goals/objectives of New Hope's Surfnce
;u~ty~nan~oge2ff~'~s,at~d,n~ layom for storm sewer pipe and ponding for water
Tho preliminary plat includes approximately 9.$ acres.
Xhe..poe_di?s for water _uel_ shah be d,i ned i .accordaacc with ,rVRP standard bezed
wm~an~a. ~ ne she pmn as suomitt~ doce not prowde for water quality improvements.
2335 ~IV~t HiehWa¥ 36- :St. Pa~i; MN 55113 ,, &IZ-63&-4&O0 · Fax: 612-636-131i ....
BONESTRO0 ROSENE ANDERLZK
6516361311
07/30/98 11'02 ~ :03/03' N0:906
Sr. Ii#r.~
x
1411.4
X
18:~1 ID:NL~ HOPE FIRE DEPT. ~AX:
2
July 15, 1998
To: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Developmc~nt
From: Randy Kurtz, Fir~ Inspector West Metro Fire District
Subject: Proposed plans for AVTEC 9101 Science Center Drive
The following are concerns the Fire District has for this project
l) Fire Lanes will b~ established around thc building.
2)
The fire department cormoctions for both the A and B building will need to be relocated to the
addre~ side of the building. To a location approved by the fire department. The fire department
connections will bc labeled for what building they supply.
3) The sprinkler system for the new additions sludi be designed for the storage height and commodities
being storext.
4)
lfthe sprinkler system for the new additions are ~upplied by building B, it would cross the property
line. This could be a problem in the future il'the building wa~ sold. Should the new additions have
it own sparkler system ?
5) A neW fire hydrant will need to be added to the south side of the building.
Kcvin McOinty
Fire Chief West Metro Fire Rescue
rely,
Randy Kurtz
Fire lnspemtor West Mm~o Fire Rescue
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY PLANNING
DESIGN MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Jeffrey Schaumann / Alan Brixius
14 July 1998
New Hope - Avtec CUP-PUD
131.01 - 98.08
We offer the .following preliminary comments pertaining to the submitted site plan and
CUP-PUD request for Avtec Finishing Systems, Inc.:
Purpose· APUD is being requested to allow the applicant to construct an addition
between the two existing structures, now on separate lots. In an effort to preserve
the existing two lots separately, the PUD would allow for a zero-lot line setback
between the existing structures which would both accommodate in-place expansion
and enhance overall site integration. The proposed expansion would not be
allowed under the I-1, Limited Industry, district designation because of setback
requirements. Because the applicant is unwilling to combine the two existing lots,
the only viable alternative is a CUP for a PUD.
Adjacent Land Uses..
North: I-1, Limited Industry
South: I-1, Limited Industry
West: Highway 169
East: I-1, Limited Industry
Comprehensive Plan. Encourages in-fill development of industrial sites for the
retention of existing in-place businesses.
4. Lot Zoning· Both subject lots are zoned I-1, Limited Industry.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6
PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@WINTERNET.COM
11.
12.
13.
Lot Line Reconfiguration. The applicant is proposing to rearrange the existing lot
line which-will result in the construction of a 4-hour property line wall on the
proposed lot line between the two properties. The rearrangement also would result
in an irregular lot line.
Parking. All parking spaces must meet the dimensions set forth in Section 4.036
(4, h (v)).
Width: 8 feet 9 inches
Length: 19 inches
Aisle: 24 inches
The site plan shows 60 foot curb-to-curb widths and 62 feet is required by
ordinance. Also, the s;luare footage for the new addition, as noted in the architects
calculations for parking spaces, is incorrect. Phase I will be approximately 11,300
square feet and Phase II is 8,500 square feet, making the total square feet within
the addition 19,800. After applying the parking requirements for office and
warehouse space, the required parking stalls for the entire site is 130, compared
to the 128 provided within the site plan.
Internal Circulation. Curbs must be made with concrete, not bituminous. On the
southern edge of the subject site, the proposed curb cut should be widened.
Currently, the curb is being over-run.
Building Materials. Integration of the two existing structures with the proposed
addition creates some potential difficulties. The existing structures are of different
texture and color. A time frame for phasing should be given for Phase II. Without
Phase II, there will be no building front treatment to integrate the existing structures.
Lighting. All new wall lighting should be covered and down lit.
Drainage. In the southwest corner of the subject site, significant settling has
occurred which has created some pooling. Possible fill-in should occur at the
pooling area.
Utilities. Electric lines are proposed to be moved. Review and approval by the City
Engineer regarding the acceptability of existing utility capacity to serve the addition
will be necessary.
Refuse Storage. All outdoor refuse storage areas should be designated on the site
plan.
Right of Access. Right of access easements should be given and designated on
the site plan.
Sent By: BonestPoo & Associates; 6126474179; Ju1-15-98 3:08Piti; Page 2/3
Bonestroo
Rosene
Associates
Engineers & Architects
Pn~]pM~ Otta G. a~troo, P~.
RIC~ E. t~ner,
R~en
~5~la~
~chord W. Fo~t~. F~ · David O. LO~. P.~. * Rabett ~ Russet, A.l.fl. - Merk A. Heaven, EE..
Mich~ T. Eau[mann, ~E.
Sidney
Allan Rl~k
i~/~$1r~: WWW. C~onestnm.cQm
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Mark Hanson
SUBJECT: Autee Finishing Systems Inc. (910119301 Science Center Drive)
File 34-Gen (B98-26)
DATE: Sul~' 14~, 1998
We have briefly reviewed thc above planning case and recommend the following:
· A preliminary plat representing the two lots is required. Thc required drainage and utility
easements shall be properly ahown. Special attention shall be given.to thc area between the
railroad spurs and along the south lot line to Brande! Third Addition. Drainage from other
properties west and south of this site are conveyed through these areas.
, Drainage along thc south side of thc property is conveyed throush an open ditch which
it~cludes steep side slopes along the 'railroad ~racks and looped driveway. The previous
building expansion in thc early 1990's requested a storm sewer pipe be constructed along 'the
south property which would eliminate the open ditch. The storm sewer, pipe was not
constructed and it is recommended at this time storm sewer pipe bc constructed through this
.area as shown on the attached drawing.
· The btfilding expansion between the two existing buildinl~s will block dralnal~e from north to
south. A storm sewer pipe may bo required if drainase can not be directed north based on the
proposed building elevations.
· Tho discharge of storm water from this site and a portion of Brandel! Third Addition (located
to the we,st) is directed through an existing CMP culvert below thc railroad spur to the DN'R
protected north-south open channel. Although the impervious surface for this project is not
increasing the rate of storm water runoff, water quality improvements should be considered
in accordance with the requirements of the Shinglc Creek Watershed and the goals/objectives
of New Hope's Surface Water Management Plan. A conceptual layout for storm sewer pipe
and pending for water quality improvements is .attached.
2335 V/est Hi'g~way 36 .'~t.'Paul, MN 5~i3 · &lZ-636-4600 .' Fax: 612:636'i311
Sent,By: BonestPoo & Assoc±ates;
8126474179;
Ju[-15-98 3:09PM;
Page 3/3
SC [ E#¢E
DRIVE
x
X
AVENLI~
MOHAGEN
architects, ItcL
3uly 10, 1998
Mr. Doug Sandstad
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Avtec Finishing Systems
Dear Doug:
Avtec Finishing Systems, Inc. located at 9101 Science Center Drive (Building B) wishes to expand its
business by constructing an addition, in two phases, between its current location and the southerly portion
of the adjacent property located at 9301 Science Center Drive (Building A). The properties are currently
under separate ownership. Construction of any meaningful mount of space involves construction across a
property line.
The ownership of Building A has offered to construct the additiom required by the ownership of Building
B. To accommodate this, the current property line is proposed to be moved to the face of Building B.
Building A is a 57,278 sq. ft. of B/S1 occupancy. Allowable area for this site is 61,200 sq. ft. of B/SI/H6
occupancy. Allowable area for this site with separation on three sides is 55,800 sq. ft. The proposed
construction adds 16,300 sq. ft. in two phases to Building A. The additional area will require a 2 hour area
separation wall (Section 504.6.2 UBC) between Building A and the proposed additions.
At the proposed new property line under table 5A for type II-N construction openings from Building B and
the proposed additions would not be permitted less than 5' for H6 and SUB occupancies. The addition
proposes an alternate design method as stated in Section 104.2.8 in the UBC as follows:
a) Four-hour property line wall at the proposed property line between the additions and Building
B.
b) Two three-hour coil doors and two three-hour passage doors at the proposed property line
wall.
c) The addition wall will terminate at a point no less than 30 inches above the lower roof level.
d) Building B and the additions will install a smoke detection system.
Further protection measures that are existing on site or being proposed are as follows:
a) 20' access road around the entire property.
b) A new fire hydrant at the southeast comer of the site.
c) South, east and north of the property are bounded by a public street and railroad easement.
If you have any further questions or comments, please give me a call and thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
MOHAGEN ARCHITECTS, LTD.
o~dd~ohagen, AIA President
F:w.doc/avteednewhope2
PHONE: (612) 473-1985 FAX: (612) 473-1340
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case:
96-27
Request:
Location:
PID No.:
Informal Review of Comprehensive Plan Update
City-Wide
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
All Zoning Districts
City of New Hope
July 31, 1998
August 5, 1998
OVERVIEW
Staff is requesting review/approval of the Comprehensive Plan Update from the Planning Commission.
If the Commission approves the plan, a public hearing will be held on August 24 by the City Council to
take public comments and consider adoption of the plan.
In July 1997, in response to local needs and State Statutes, the City of New Hope began the process of
updating the Comprehensive Plan. The City first established a Comprehensive Plan in 1960, and
revised it sixteen years later in 1976. Now, after twenty-two years, the City is nearing the completion of
another, updated Comprehensive Plan. As a general guideline for City Planning and Development, the
revision of the Comprehensive Plan is a good governing, process, providing goals and plans for the
future, not to mention that the Plan is mandated by the State of Minnesota. The updated plan will
provide a detailed vision for the City of New Hope that will assist planning, development, housing,
transportation and land use through the year 2020.
The process began with a Tactical Study. Through a series of interviews with elected and appointed
officials, local business people, and city staff, local concerns and needs were identified by the Planning
Consultant.
4. Following the Tactical Study, the next step required a City-wide technical inventory of all social,
environmental, and physical facts and trends of the community. With the interviews and a City tour, this
part of the process was related to the research acquired from the Tactical Study.
5. With the research compiled from the prior steps, the Policy Plan and the formulation of the
Development and Framework were then created. These phases account for the bulk of the written
Comprehensive Plan. The Policy Plan outlines the desired community planning goals that the City
wishes to accomplish by 2020. The Development and Framework outlines specific plans for improving
housing, land use, transportation, infrastructure, and the natural environment.
6. With these steps complete, the Committee initiated the final step, which was analyzing the City's
implementation tools. The City's methods of governing, its developmental regulations, capital
improvement plans, housing programs, to mention a few, were evaluated to see if they were compatible
with carrying out the goals and visions of the Comprehensive Plan.
7. With each phase of the Update, the Comprehensive Plan Committee has met to review the
developments and make comments as to the direction of the Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
Committee is comprised of Planning Commission members, Citizen Advisory Committee members, City
Staff, and the Planning Consultant. The Committee has met eight times since the beginning of the
process, and has been hard at work developing an acceptable Comprehensive Plan Update for the City.
8. At this point, the Comprehensive Plan Update is almost (~omplete. Following informal review/approv.a~-',,
by the Planning Commission at this meeting, an official review of the Comprehensive Plan Update w~,.
be held by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on September 2, 1998. The Comprehensive
Plan Update will be forwarded on to the City Council for consideration on September 14. The
Comprehensive Plan will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council in late September.
9. Pending approval, this Comprehensive Plan will serve as an advising entity in all decisions made by the
City. It is a guide for programs and actions that will be taken to assure the accomplishment of the
outlined goals and visions. It serves as a model for the elected officials, appointed officials, and City
Staff in their continuing process of the City of New Hope a better place to work and live.
10. Three-ring binders of the Comprehensive Plan Update are enclosed for your review. The
Planning Consultant will be present at the Planning Commission meeting to make a
presentation of the Comprehensive Plan Update.
11. Roger Landy, Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission chaired the Comprehensive Plan Update
Committee and staff extends its thanks to all the Planning Commission, Citizen Advisory
Commission members and city staff/consultants that served on the Committee.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the 1998 New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update, pending review and
comments by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Planning Case 96-27
Page 2 July 31, 1998
II
Memorandum
To:
Front:
Date:
Subject:
Planning Commission Members
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
July 31, 1998
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.
July 27 CouncillEDA Meetings - At the July 27 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action
on the following planning/development/housing issues:
A. Planning Case 96-17, Resolution Authorizing Release of Financial Guarantee for
Ambassador Good Samaritan Center: Approved, see attached Council request.
B. Planning Case 98-02, Resolution Authorizing Reduction of Financial Guarantee for Post
Haste Shopping Center/Bright Start Day Care Improvements: Approved, see attached Council
request.
C. Project #594, Acceptance of Corner Park Playground Equipment and Authorize Final
Payment: AcCepted, see attached Council request.
D. Resolution Authorizing Application for the Livable Communities Demonstration Program:
Approved, see attached Council request.
E. Project ~629, Resolution Rejecting Bid for Construction of Phase One of the Civic Center
Park Master Plan - Court Improvements: Approved, see attached Council request.
F. Project #618, Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Bidding for
Dorothy Mary Park Project Approved, see attached Council request and specifications.
G. Project #612, Motion Approving Demolition Specifications to Demolish 5629 Wisconsin
Avenue North and Authorizing Staff to Seek Bids: Approved, see attached Council request.
H. Resolution Reciting a Proposal for an Industrial Development Project Giving Preliminary
Approval to the Project Pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act
and Authorizing the Submission of an Application for Approval of the Project to the
Minnesota Commissioner of Trade and Economic Development and Preparation of
Necessary Documents (Paddock Laboratories, Inc. Project): Approved, see attached Council
request.
I. Resolution Approving 1998 Amendment to Master Modification to Redevelopment Plans and
Tax Increment Financing Plans and Making Findings with Respect Thereto: PPL project
approved; Cooper gyms project denied on a 2-2 vote. '
J. Planning Case 98-12, Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Extended Church
Campus at 4741 Zealand Avenue North, Crystal Free Church: Approved.
K. ~_.Planning Case 98-10, Request for a Variance to. Allow an Accessory Building (G;~=,eb~
Shelter) in the Front Yard of an Existing Principal Building, 7601 42"~ Avenue North, YMCA:
Approved, see attached Council request and revised plans/information.
L. Planning Case 98-13, Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Building
Addition, 4500 Quebec Avenue North, Conductive Containers, Inc.: Approved, see attached
Council request and revised plans.
M. Planning Case 98-14, Request for a Variance to Allow an Increase in Curb Cut Width to 38
Feet, 2720 Nevada Avenue North, Pipe Fabricators, Inc.: Approved, see attached Council
request and letter.
N. Ordinance No. 98.031Planning Case 97-25, An Ordinance Amending the, New Hope Sign
Code: Adopted, see attached Council request and ordinance. Council commended the Planning
Commission and staff for their work on this ordinance.
O. Approval of Summary Ordinance No. 98-03, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Si.qn
Code: Approved, see attached Council request.
P. Discussion Regarding Potential Multi-Family Rehabilitation Project at Regent Apartments,
7136 60"' Avenue, 6017 Louisiana Avenue, and 7124 Lombardy Lane: EDA directed staff to
advise of loan opportunity. See attached EDA request and map.
Q. Project #597, Discussion Regarding Development Options for City-Owned Property at 9200
49m Avenue North: EDA directed staff to develop guidelines for use of property. See attached EDA
request.
R. Project #614, Resolution Approving Initial Agreement Between the Minneapolis Public
Housing Authority and the New Hope Economic Development Authority for the PPUBass
Lake Road Townhomss Proiect at 7300-7332 Bass Lake Road: Approved.
Codes & Standards Committee - The Committee did not meet in July. The Committee will meet in
August to discuss bus benches, R-2 zoning standards, curb cuts definition, and home occupations.
Design & Review Committee - Design & Review met in July with Avtec to review their plans.
Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - The Committee met in mid-July to discuss the
development framework section of the Comprehensive Plan. The plan has been completed and a final
copy will be distributed to the Committee for review. The plan will be presented to the Planning
Commission in August.
Project Bulletins - Enclosed are project bulletins for 1998 Street Sign Replacement project,
60~'/Rhode Island Avenue Watermain project status, and 7621 62"~ Avenue update.
Attachments:
Ambassador Nursing Home Bond Release
Post Haste Shopping Center/Bright Start Day Care
Comer Park Playground Equipment
Livable Communities Demonstration Program
Civic Center Park Master Plan - Phase One
Dorothy Mary Park Plans & Specifications
5629 Wisconsin Avenue Demo Specifications
Paddock Laboratories IDRB
1998 Amendment to Master Modification Plans
Crystal Evangelical Free Church Planning Case
Northwest YMCA Planning Case
Conductive Containers Planning Case
Pipe Fabricators Planning Case
Summary of Sign Ordinance
Multi-Family Rehab Project
9200 49~ Avenue
REQUEST FOR ACTION
OrtctnatJ..-~ Depa~t~ent
Community
Development
Approved for ACenda
July 27, 1998
Kirk McDonald ~
Director ~
Agenda Section
Consent
Item No.
6.4
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEE FOR AMBASSADOR
GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER, PLANNING CASE 96-17
The City has held a financial guarantee in the amount of $30,000 on the Aml0essedor Good
Samantan Center expansion at 8100 Medicine Lake Road for the installation of public
improvements and on-site exterior amenities; including landscaping, water main hydrant and
water main connection/restoration. The City Engineer and Building Official have inspected the
property for completion of the improvements and are recommending that the financial guarantee
be released, as all improvements have been completed.
This matter was placed on the February 23"~ Council agenda and the issue was tabled because a
Councilmember expressed concern regarding incoml~late landscaping improvements and wanted
staff to confirm that all work had been complatad. The Building Official and City Engineer recently
reinspected the propert~ and confirmed that all work, including landscaping, has been completed,
The City recently took photo~ of the pmpe~y that am available for review, if the Council so
desires.
The enclosed resolution authorizes ralaase of the financial guarantee and staff recommends
approval of the resoluUon.
MOTION
TO:
S~COND BY
RFA-O0 !
COUNCIl,
RF. UEST FOR ACTION
Or~ma~ Depa~L~ent
Community Development
Kirk McDonald
Director
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REDUCTIO~ OF
SHOPPING CENTER/BRIGHT START DAYCARE
(PLANNING CASE 98-02)
Approved for A~enda A~enda Section
July 27, 1998 Consent
/~ Iten~ No.
6.5
FINANCIAL GUARANTEE FOR POST HASTE
IMPROVEMENTS, 9440 36TM AVENUE NORTH
The City has held a financial guarantee in the amount of $112,500 for the Post Haste Shopping
Center/Bright Start Daycare improvements at 9440 36"~ Avenue North for the installation of public
improvements and on-site amenities including parking lot, sidewalk and landscaping improvements and for
the grading and installation of playground equipment The shopping center owners and Bright Start
Daycare have requested a release or reduction of the financial guarantee.
The City Engineer and Building Offiaal have inspected the property for completion of the improvements
and report that approximately 92% of the parking lot improvements are comelstad, and 80% of the
landscaping screening improvements are completed. They are recommending that the financial
guarantee be reduced to $6,000.
Staff has continued to receive calls from property owners adjacent to I~ site requesting that additional
landscaping and screening be provided. Staff met with the rWghbors several weeks ago, viewed the
center/playground from the neighbors' backyards, and generally agreed that additional ..
landscaping/screening would be de,raiSe. The majority of neighbom wanted additional plantings and
requested that slats be inserted in the chain link fence to screen their view. Subsequent to meeting with
the neighbor~, staff met with N ~ of the cant~' ~ ~ Bdght St~t and reitamted the neighbom'
concerns. The shopping cant~' ~ agreed to install adclitionM ~ ~KI ~ in the fence. Staff is
recommending that additional fund~ be held until the additional ~ i~ completed.
In addition, there i~ al:l~;~oximatMY~2,$60 in consulting expen~ that have not yM been billed or paid.
Taking all of the above into account, staff is recommending that $10,0~ be held until all of the
improvementa am
The attached re~dul]~ redu¢~ the financial guarantee to $10,000, and staff recommends aPl;~'oval of the
resolution.
MOTION BY
RFA-O0!
BOt TROO ROSENE ANDERLZK
Ande11~( &
q~ Associates
Engineers & Architects
'i 61~.63~1311 07/~.2/98 13:/-.8 I~ :03/03 NO:5~
~,~Md ~ ru, w. ~C. · (M~ ~. COM. P~ · ~d?~ ~ S~m P.t. · J~,ry ~ ~,. ~C ·
~,~d ~ roster M~, O,~v,d o ~n(i~,d P~. I ~ C. eu~M, ~ · ~ffl ~ ~ p~ .
M MO
FROM:
SUBJE~:
DA~
We I~ve r~v~wed the hood reduction with City Stiff rot ~hc Ibove lXOjcct md recommet~ the
foLlowin$:
92.~m Compk~ ($40.00(Mump .mm)
Lm~~S
SCm Comptm (SS,~,am)
TMd
TMli
__
233S West Highway' 36' SL Paul, MAI ssn3 · 6~-636'46°O ' Fax: 612-636-13fl
PLAT BOND REVlEU
?LA~NING
TO:
F~OM:
DATE:
ClOy Manager
Doug Sandetad
7-20-98
SUBJECT:
Paste Haste /Brishc Start Day Care
~OND AMOUNT:
$ ~12,500
TOTAL ~Jl~ OF LOTS:
FACILITIES/~.aNDSQ~.PINO ~QUII~D:
Curbing YES
Sod YES
Trees YES
Driveway YES
Sidewalks n/a
Gradin
Scruccuree
Ocher
D~ecrEbe:
have, on r. hLe d~y 7-29-98 ., lnsi~occed ehe plac Eec
completion of all ~ork covered by ~ha bond verer, aLn. lc is appropriate co
ILELEASE 106.500 HOLD ~x ~hLs ~unc: $ 6,000 .
! have cordulCed rich ~ha CLcy Ensinoer on ~hts. NS
CC:
Cloy Clerk
OO5 8/91.
Quantity
Lump' Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Item
Parking Lot and Drainage
Improvements
Sidewalk
Play Equipment/Grading
Landscaping
Total
50% Increase
Total Amount of Financial Guarantee
$40,000.00
5,000.00
25,000.00
5,000.00
75,000.00
37,500.00
$112,500.00
The Caribou unconditionally' guarantees to the City ali of the Secured Work for a
period of one year subsequent to the Completion Date of the Secured Work. This
guarantee shall include failure of the Secured Work due to poor material, faulty
workmanship, or any other cause. This guarantee shall continue whether or not all of
the financial guarantee shall have been released by the City.
3. COMPLETION. The Developer agrees that the Work shall be completed
in its entirety on or before the dates specified above, and for the Work for which no
date is specified above, the 30~ day of April, 1999 (the Completion Date), except as
this period of time is extended by resolution of the Council, or by the City taking no
action to require completion hereunder on a timely basis. It is understood and agreed
that failure of the City to promptly take action to draw upon the bond or other
security to enforce this Agreement after the expiration of the time in which the Work
is to be completed hereunder will not waive, eatop or release any rights of the City
and the City can take action at any time thereafter to require completion of the Work,
and payment for same. Furthermore, the term of this Agreement shall be deemed to
be automatically extended until such time as the City Council declares the Developer
in default thereunder, and the statute of limitations shall not be deemed to commence
running until the City Council has been notified in writing by the Developer that the
Developer has either complied with this Agreement, or that it refuses to for any
reason. These provisions shall be applicable to any person who shall give a financial
guarantee to the City as required below.
4. COST OF WORK. The Developer shall pay for all costs of persons doing
N
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
lO.E:
FILE NO:
Cyrl~ie Putz-Yeng i AJen B,-ixiu,
July 1~, lg~e
Ne~ Ho~ - Br~ht ~n Oey ~
131.01 - g~.01
BACK--ND
AI'rA~HMEKT'8
Upon inspection, pte¢~ of fill, Irmludlng c~"~r~o, ~ visible to Ihe north of ~
playground.
In re#)or~e t~ the ~ of tl"le neigl"Ix~l, w~ m.~ ~ following ~on~ I~
11
GJ.2 ~ ~
EXI-IBIT A: I~D {.A~PE PLAN
EXI-IBIT B: k 5O..,API~ PLAN
0T 23.,~8 1.4:26 FAX 81.2
703 5035
JG)[ HIfT$CHI.ER
July ~, [998
Kirk McDonald
Ci[y or' New Hope
-~-;0 [ Xylon Ave. N'.
New Hope, ,.'yin 55425
Dear Mr..McDonald:
Please fund r_he enclosed !%'out needed to sa~isr~ nei/hbors and adequately screen :he
ptayg'round area with a shrub and r. ree plantings and grin strips in the fence that was desi~rted
after talking with the Halls and Normans. Tom Prokask'y and I talked to the Halls on Sunday,
.ruly 19,1998. They ~re directly North of [he playground. We mutually agreed that .l.~' lineal' i'eet
of plastic strips should be installed in the t'ence on the North side to block their view of the
playground and cwo Blue Spruce (at least $' high) should be instaLed as shown on the print. The
new plantings would nicely complement the Blue Spruce they currently have in their backyard
and fill in screening gaps. The Halls have the most exposed view of the playground and after
'viewing the site it was mutually decided that this was the beat alternative.
We also talked to the Nommns who live at 3619 lordan Ave. North and they vehemently
opposed strips in the fence and requested one 30' Arborvitae (Olobus TeChi) between [he cwo
Sunburst Locus~ trees. They only warn, ed one Arborvitae planted by us and did not seem to mind
the playground view.
The men at 3623 were not home so we did not get a chance to talk to them nor did we
calk to the Loobeeks. Neither of these people are much effected by the playground because we
added a berm on the northeast comer to help block their view r. hat is as high as the ori~nal berm
and the woods and storaBe sheds block all views to the playground. To ~rr. her block their view
we are proposing 30 lineal feet d.f plastic strips.
As can be seen I am nm pl, opo~g ~ strips in areas th~ are screened by bushes,
storage sheds, ~ bem~s, ew.. The aress whm~ we ate not putting the Sml~ in ar~ either
aonacceasible because of bushes, solid vines ~ighfly ~ the fence or are not u~eded because
of berms, smrase sheds, ~ ca=. scree~ the area.
Please give me your thou~ts on this layout and I will h~ve it installed with/n a month of
approval. On Friday .ruly 24th I will have any concrete debris removed from the area.
I do want to make it clear that we are in no way giving up our rig~m to the approximately
25' strip of land on the other side of the fence that the neighbors ~re using. I have no plans ar this
lime to change the current use of thi_s sUip or move the fence but this rosy change in the funn'e,
especially if ! am forced to because of neighbors actions. I w~t to wozk with the neighbors as
much u possible and be considered a "good neighbor" but I do expect sim~r courtesy. Ifthis
0T 23,95
FAX
JG~I
tn,your does not meet the nei~bors approval ~' will be glad To install at :his time a 6' laigk ?r, vac.:,
5enc~ on ~he prope~ ~i~ which wou~d ass~e complete ~creenmg.
[ hope ~s tayout mee~s ~he C~es ~d Co.els approve. ~ f~t [ have met ail obt~at~o~
reg~ding B~t St~ ~d therefore :here should not be my f~her problems m having ,ac bond
reie~ed o~ ~en some minor ko[d-backs :eg~d~g the p~ng lot ~s~ng touches. Taa~
you for ag yo~ time md ~ffo~ [n :esokving ~ssues ~ proble~ ~hat have come up w~th :k:
B~t St~ bmldou~.
S~ceretT.
j. jay.
BU~lciing Manager
ACTION
Approved rot Agenda Agenda Secuon
Consent
/ /98 Item No.
On~tnat~r~ Depa~t~ent
Parks and Recreation
By:. Shad French
ACCEPTANCE OF CORNER PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. 594) AND AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT
Staff recommend that the Comer Park Playground Equipment Improvement project (Improvement
Project 594) be accepted and final payment be made to the contractor, Ardgoni Brothers
Company.
The IC-134 forms have been submitted to the City. Staff and engineers recommend approval.
MOTION BY
TO:
COONCm
RF b'E T FOR ACTION
Otlgmat. mg Depm-tment
Community Development
By. Susan Henry
Community Development Specie
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
Approved for A&eada .~eada Sect. ton
Consent
/'7/27/98 Item No.
st~F: 6.1I
APP,Izl/CATION FOR THE LIVABLE
COMMUNITIES
attached resolution is for an application for the Livable Communities Demonstration Program.
Specifically, the application is for funding from me Met Council for the Northwest Housing Resource
Center, which is sponsored in part by the City of New Hope, as well as the Cities of Brooklyn Center,
Crystal, and Robbinsdale.
In Apdl 1996, Hennepin County staff asked the four cities and the Greater Minneapolis Housing
Corporation (GMMHC) to consider establishing a resource center that would serve residents of
suburban Hennepin communities. This resource center would be a free, one-stop shop approach to
assist homeowners with housing concerns. After several meetings with county and City officials, the
Northwest Housing Resource Center was opened at 2140 44~ Avenue North in February 1998, on a
part-time basis. In July, the Center started a five day schedule due to demand. Services offered at the
Center include information on all available loan programs (rehabilitation and purchase); technical
assistance to homeowners needing to make improvements; and assistance to homeowners having
financial difficulties.
Late last year, the City Council agreed to participate and approved $5,000 towards the project. There
are many other private partnem be~idea the four cltieel and GMMHC. The application for the
demonstration account funds will enhance the newly established mult~judsdictional home ownership
resource center. With the new funds, the Center would like to create new programs. The new programs
are:
· revolving purchase/reheb housing loan program;
· a targeted demonstration purchese/rehabilitation program;
· a demonstration reinvestmen~rahabilitaflon investment program; and
· rehabilitation design a~iatance through the Design Center and the Planbook currently
underway by a consortium of inner-ring communitie~ (including New Hope).
The City of Crystal ha~ agreed to sponsor the application. Attached is a draft application.
Staff recommends ratifying the re~dt~on authorizing the application for the Livable Communities
Demonstration project.
RF. UE T FOR ACTION
Ortctnatm¢ Depm'cmem
Parks and Recreation
Shad French
Approv~ for A~enda A~enda Sec~on
Consent
27/98 Item No.
6. 5
RESOLUTION REJECTING BID FOR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
629, PHASE ONE OF THE CIVIC CENTER PARK MASTER PLAN - COURT IMPROVEMENTS
On July 21= the bid opening took place for Phase One of the Civic Center Park Master Plan
(improvement project #629) - court improvements. Phase One includes rebuilding the four
existing tennis courts, adding a lighted basketball court (which had been removed, in 1990 to
enlarge the parking lot), adding a lighted volleyball court, adding new trails, a realignment of the
ddveway off Zealand Avenue, as well as additional landscaping for the park. Three bids were
submitted and all exceeded the enginesr's estimate. Staff would like the opportunity to rebid the
project early next year. The engineer speculates that the time of year now has brought the higher
than expected bids because companies are too busy. ·
Staff recommends adopting the re~31ution to reject the bid.
Bids received were as follows:
Contractor Ba~e Bid Alternate Bid
Barber Construction $:311,415.75 $5,628
KA Wltt Con~** $33~,601.40 $17,~K}0
Lan Dar Inc. $348,780.73 $5,320
Lakeland Nurserle~ $349,8(X}.00 $4,900
MOTION BY'
TO~
RFA-O01
m
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
7-27-98 Consent
6. 8
Or~lnaUng Department
Public Works
Jeannine Clancy
/'
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING BIDDING
FOR DOROTHY MARY PARK PROJECT (PROJECT 618)
The 1998 Capital Improvement Program includes $140,000 for improvements to Dorothy Mary Park.
Some of the improvements being considered are replacement of the dock, reconstruction of the steps
which provide an entrance off of 60½ Avenue North, and drainage improvements.
Back~lround
As directed by Council, Parks/Recreation and Public Works staff, along with representatives of the City
Engineers office have been conducting neighborhood meetings to discuss issues related to the park.
These meeting have been well attended and the neighborhood has been very involved in the process.
The issues facing the park are summarized as follows:
· The pond in the park is shallow and serves a small drainage area. Residents have expressed
concerns that the pond is slowly filling in with sediment.
The storm sewer inlet on the south end of the park freezes in the winter due to a Iow invert at the
flared end of the pipe. This has caused damage to the 12' reinforced concrete pipe which
conveys storm water from ~0½ Avenue to the poed. In a~liticn, the rnanhole on this pipe has
been blown off due to water backup.
· The storm sewer inle~ from Xylon Avenue is mi~ing a flared end. Improvements am needed to
control emeic~ below this-inlet.
· The deck on the ne~th ~le of the pond and the bench on the west side of the pond am in po°r
· The tmlis am eroding a~l have flooded in some areas.
MOTION BY
TO:
Request for Action
Approving Plans for Project 618
July 27, 1998
Page 2
· The stairway on the south side of the park has deteriorated and is in need of replacement.
· The woodland and wetland communities in the park are being threatened by the invasion of exotic
species such as buckthom and reed canary grass.
Three neighborhood meetings were held to discuss this project. Staff and the City Engineer's office talked
with residents about the history of the park, its current condition, vegetation management, and the
community's vision for the park. The City Engineer's office developed three options for addressing the
storm sewer improvements at 60½ Avenue. Once the preliminary plans were developed, they were
shared with the Citizen's Advisory Commission.
Cost Estimate
The following is a preliminary cost estimate as prepared by the City Engineer's office:
Ao
Structures Improvements
Stairway $15,000
Dock 15,000
Boardwalks 13,000
West ent~/ 7.000
Total Part A 50,000
Indirect cost (20 %) 10.000
Total $60,000
Storm Sewer Improvements
Option 1: Manhole re~xt~m.,~on at 60~ Avenue and
erosion control at Xylon Avenue
Option 2: Manhole recon~:tlon and extending
Xyk=n Storm to
Option 3: Reroute 60~ sierra se~er and extending
rand.
(Add Indirect to Ol xt)
$ 8,000
25,000
45,000
$15,000
O. Buckthom Removal $4,000
Depending on the ~ selected for the storm ~eer, tl~ ~ c¢~ of con~-"tion ranges between
$86,000 and $106,000. The Citizen Advisor/Comrni~ion and neighbomocd ~es
recommen~l<l OpUon 2 for a estimated project cost of $1M,000~ Staff concum with this recommendation.
Request for Action
Approving Plans for Project 618
July 27, 1998
Page 3
Funding Sources
The City's Capital Improvement Program includes $40,000 for park improvements such as the dock, steps
and other related improvements. Staff recommends that the remaining project costs be obtained from the
Storm Water Utility Fund. It is anticipated that the Fund could support the project through revenues
received from the sale of the Brandell property. Until that property is sold, the project could be supported
by internal financing.
Staff submitted a grant application to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources through the 1998
Conservation Partners program for buckthom removal and woodland plant community enhancement.
Staff recently was notified that the City's grant application was approved in the amount of $3,389.00.
Staff also wishes to note that the Hennepin ReCycling Group will be funding the placement of recycling
and trash containers at each entrance to the park.
Prolect Schedule
The suggested project schedule is as follows:
Approval of plans and specs
Accept bids
Award contract
Begin installation
Completion of plantings
July 27, 1998
August 18, 1998
August 24,1998
Late September, 1998
S~ng 1999
Due to the current construction climate, staff is recommending that the pmjact include a bid alternate that
would delay construction of thi~ projact until late Wtnter and Early Spring, 1999.
Staff recommends approval of ~e m~fution.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
SITE IMPROVEMENTS
DOROTHY MARY
PARK
DANIEL d. DONAHI~ ........... MANA~
gTEVE gONDRALL ............ Al'r~
!
-e
00000
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
OOROTHY MARY PARK
I
lii~l
:,~ ,? r,' ,_-', i,I ~: lil ~" m~
~ ,~Jili ', 't "' ::i+,
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
ti
I
ill>.
I I
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA J Ifil..*'-"'" I~'.-.',,-?.~3'.-.'¥.'T,-'"~,,.--'--,...-~-',-. J-.._' _ "J. '"' I
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
0OROI'HY MN~Y PARK
,~TE ~N~ - DOCK 0[/M.
!
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
DOROTHY MARY PARK IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO. 618
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
A. Structures Improvements
Stairway
Dock
Boardwalk (3-80', 5', 8')
West entry
Total Part A
Indirect Cost (20%)
Total
Storm Sewer Improvements
Option 1: Manhole reconstruction at
60-1/2 and erosion control at Xylon
Option 2: Manhole reconstruction at
60-1/2 and Xylon storm' sewer to pond
Option 3: 60-1/2 storm sewer realign
and Xylon storm sewer to pond
(Totals Add 20% Indirect to
Each Option for Indirect Costs)
Ct
Landscape Plantings
East and west entries, pond, woodland
and path restoration (DNR Grant)
D. Buckthorn Removal (DNR Grant)
$15,000
15,000
12,000
5,000
47,000
10,000
$57,000
$8,000
$25,000
$45,000
$15,000
$4,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL COSTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS:
Option 1 (A, C, D and Storm Sewer Option 1)
Option 2 (A, C, D and Storm Sewer Option 2)
Option 3 (A, C, D and Storm Sewer Option 3)
$ 86,000
$106,000
$130,000
COUNCIL
RE b'I T FOR ACTION
Or~tnaU.-'~ Depax1333eat
Community Development
Sue Henry
By. Community Development Specialist
Approve! for Agenda Agenda SecUon
July 27, 1998 Consent
Item No.
MOTION APPROVING DEMOLITION SPECIFICATIONS TO DEMOLISH 5629 VVISCONSIN AVENUE
NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ~612) AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SEEK BIDS
At the December 22, 1997, Council Meeting, the City Council approved the purchase of the property
located at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue North, due to a long history of zoning and housing code violations. It
has been determined the house is not worth rehabilitating due to its deteriorated condition. Staff is
recommending the house be tom down and a new house be constructed on the site.
At this point, staff has conducted an asbestos analysis (no removal necessary), sealing of the well, and
disconnected sewer and water, as well as other utility lines to the house. At this lime, staff is requesting to
demolish the structures (both the house and detached garage) located on the site at 5629 Wisconsin
Avenue North. Demolition will be paid for by CDBG or EDA funds.
Staff recommends approval of the attached demolition specifications. Once approved, staff will request
bids from demolition contractors. The bids will be presented to the City Council at the August 24, 1998,
meeting. Demolition would take place in September.
MOTION BY
TO:
RFA-O01
Ongmau,ng Department Approved tot A~eada Agenda Sect. ton
Public
Community Development Headncd
7-~ Item No.
BY'Kirk McDonald ~. 7.1
PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION REClTINC~ PROPOSAL FOR AN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE MINNESOTA
MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT TO THE MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF
TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
(PADDOCK LABORATORIES, INC. PROJECT)
Paddock Laboratories, Inc. has requested that the City approve its proposal to finance a 35,000 square
foot building expansion project through the issuance of tax exempt industrial development revenue
bonds in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000. At the June 22 Council meeting, the City Council
approved a resolution stating that the City desires to facilitate said development because it will result in
the employment of approximately 50 additional persons to work within the facilities. The resolution also
established July 27 as the public hearing date on the financing proposal and this is the public heanng.
Paddock Laboratories has completed the City's application for IDRB financing and has submitted the
appropriate application and deposit fees. Enclosed is an executed copy of the Memorandum of
Understanding between the City and Paddock Laboratories and a copy of the application to the
Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Devalopmant. As you are aware, in April the Planning
Commission and City Council approved two exparmiorm onto the existing building located at 3940
Quebec Avenue North including 1 19,830 squm'e foot expermion of the building's warehouse component
on the east side of the existing building and a 16,524 squere foot, one-story expansion of the production
and laboratory facilitie~ on the ~ aide of the existing building. ~ two additions will bdng the total
building size to 116,605 square feet. The plans al~o included planning for the accommodation of a future
warehouse expansion on the ~ comer of the building of approximately 16,000 square feet,
which would maximize the development of that site. A Site Improvement Agreement has been executed
between Paddock Labs and the City, the financial guarantee has been posted, and grading for the
expansion is cur~ Izlderwly.
(cont'd.)
MOTION BY' ~ND ~ ,
TO:
Request for Action
Page 2 7-27-98
The resolution states that the City Council of the City of New Hope has received from Bruce Paddock
and Paddock Laboratories, Inc., a proposal that the City undertake to finance a Project through the
issuance of revenue bonds and that the City desires to facilitate the selective development of the
community, retain and improve the tax base and help to provide the range of services and employment
opportunities required by the population; and the Project will assist the City in achieving those objectives.
The Project will help to increase assessed valuation of the City and help maintain a positive relationship
between assessed valuation and debt and enhance the image and reputation of the community. The
Project to be financed by the Bonds is the construction and equipping of an approximately 35,000
square foot addition to the Company's existing manufacturing facility located at 3940 Quebec Avenue
North in the City. The Company currently employs approximately 130 people at its existing facility in the
City and the Project will result in the creation of approximately 50 more jobs. The City has been advised
by representatives of the Company that conventional, commercial financing to pay the capital cost of the
Project is available only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the economic
feasibility of operating the Project would be significantly reduced.
The City Attorney and Bond Counsel have reviewed the enclosed documents an find everything to be in
order.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
COUNCIL
FOR ACTION
Approv~-d for A~enda A~enda SecUon
July 27, 1998 Public Hearing
Item No.
Ort¢~ Depa~ Lucent
Community Development
Kirk McDonald
Director
/
RESOLUTION APPROVING 1998 AMENDMENT TO MASTER MOOIFICATION TO REDEVELOPMENT
PLANS AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS AND MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT
THERETO
At the June 22, 1998, Council Meeting, the City Council established a public hearing date of July 27, 1998,
for the Council and EDA to consider amendments to redevelopment plane, reclevelopmant projects and
tax increment financing plans regarding several properties included in the PPL Bass Lake Townhomes
Project on Bass Lake Road and as related to Cooper Senior High school. This is the public hearing for
the amendments. Two resolutions are involved in the amendment prorass.
The EDA Reaolution Approving 1998 Amendment to Ililm~r Mod#lration to Redevelopment
Plane and Tax increment Financing Plane end Requeating Approval of the City Council sl~ouid
be approved prior to the public hearing before the City Council and before the adoption of the City
Council resolution. The EDA is recommending the 'Mestar Modification' to the City Council, therefore,
it is appropriate that the EDA act first on its resolution recommending changes to the City Council.
After the EDA action, the City Council should conduct the public hearing and, pursuant to the
recommendation of the EDA, adopt the City Council Reaolution after the public hearing is closed
Approving 198~ Amendment to Meator MocliflraOon to Redevalopnmnt Plane and Tax
Increment Finencing PI&ne and Making Findingm with Reape~ Tbem~.
Since the EDA la rmqueating City Council approval for theme amendmento, the City Council
meeting ehould be etmpended ~ to the I~blle hearing mt thim matter. The EDA meeting ehould
be railed to order and the EDA I~molutlon rmqueatlng approval for the amendment by the City
Council ehould be ~ bMiore oo.~dmmUon of the amendffmnt at the public hearing rallecl
before the City Council The Council meating ran then be rmconveaed, the publk: hearing can be
conducted end ¢lom4d, and the City Council Res41utlon approving the amendment ehould then be
pes ,d.
MOTION BY'
TO:
RFA-O0!
R~uest For Act~n
Page 2
The proposed amendments will add the following properties to the areas where tax increment funds can
be expended:
1. 7300 Bass Lake Road (Spur Gas Station)
2. 7332 Bass Lake Roacl (Office Building)
3. South 100 feat of District 281 Thorsen Family Resource Center Property (located in New Hope)
4. Cooper High School Property, 8230 47~ Avenue North
The first three properties are included in the PPL Bass Lake Townhomes Project and were not included in
previous amendments and they must now be included if the City intends to usa TIF funds for acquisition
purposes. The Council has previously authorized funding for the PPL Project.
The City has also received a concept proposal from District 281 for the eddifions of two gyms on the north
side of cooper High School, which could be utilized by the pul:)lic. The ~chool District is requesting City
assistance in financing the project through the use of TIF funde. Although this is only a preliminary
concept and needs to be discussed in detail by the Council at a later date, the City Manager is
recommending that Cooper High School also be included in this amendment process so another
amendment is not necessary in the future. No funding commitment has been made or is being made on
the Cooper gyms project.
The purpose of the public hearing ia to consider the approval of the amendments, which would authorize
the use of tax increments derived from the tax increment financing districts of the EDA for these projects.
The Statement of Need and Objectives states that It~ development of ~ PPL I-Iou~ng Project will aid in
the redevelopment of the property in the ama in a rnenn~ beneficial to the rasidents of the City and
consistent with the objectives of the EDA and will aid in the constnJctton of rental housing facilities in the
City for families of low and moderate income, all of which will meet the ~ specified in the
Redevelopment Plane. The construction of recxlatk~al facilitlas will provide needed recreational facilities
for residents of the City. The additional expendituras of IIX increment authorized by this Amendment
includes costs associated with the site development and con~'ucllo~ of recmalional facilities and the
acquisition 13y the EDA of all or a ~ of the property on whicl~ the PPL Project will be located and the
demolition or rehabilitation of existing buildings located thereon and site development and other public
redevelopment coats as,~x=iated wittt the redlveto~"~l~t ~ related to the PPL Housing Project.
The estimetacl tolal cost of tt~e Recreational FacllllMI is $2,300,000, and the ~ states that the usa of tax
increment derived from the T1F ~ to pay all or a ~ of the coats of the Recreational Facilities is
hereby authorized.
Request For Action
Page 3
The estimated additional expenditure of the tax increment related to the acquisition and development of
the PPL Housing Project is not to exceed $1,400,000, and the plan states that the use of up to $1,400,000
of tax increment derived from the Disthcts to pay public redevelopment costs related to the PPL Housing
Project is hereby authorized. Costs of the PPL Housing Project to i~e paid with tax increment will consist
of land acquisition costs and site development. The estimated costs of the PPL Housing Project are as
follows:
Land Acquisition and Relocation
Site Work
Construction
Development and Professional Fees
Financial Costs and Reserves
$1,702,000
454,658
2,527,019
603,284
142,904
$S,484,864
In additional to the foregoing costs, the plan states that the use of tax increment to pay administrative
costs of the EDA related to the Redevelopment Plans, Redevelopment Projects and Financing Plans in
the amount of up to $500,000 is hereby authorized.
The plan also describes the fiscal and economic implications of the additional expenditures on the local
governmental units other than the City, whicl~ are authorized by law to levy ad valorem property taxes in
the area where the Districts are located including Independent School District No. 281, Hennepin County,
the HRA, the EDA, and various metropolitan area authorities, including the Metropolitan council, the
Metropolitan Transit Commission, the Metropolitan Airpo~s Commiss~ofl and the Metropolitan Mosquito
Control District. The City has been contacted by Hennepin County in regards to this amendment.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
I
I
·
·
/ \
CO~
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Onginatm~ Depart. merit Approved for A~enda A~enda Sect. ton
Development
Community Development & Plannin~
7-27-98 Item No.
BYkirk McDonald By:.
PLANNING CASE 98-10, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY BUILDING
(GAZEBO SHELTER) IN THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTING PRINCIPAL BUILDING, 7601 42N°
AVENUE NORTH, NORTHWEST BRANCH YMCA
The petitioner is requesting a vadance to allow an accessory building (gazebo shelter) in the front yard
of an existing principal building, pursuant to Sections 4.22 and 4.032(3)(a)(b) of the New Hope Code of
Ordinances. Northwest YMCA, located at 7601 42m Avenue North, is requesting a vadance to place an
accessory building in the front yard of the existingpdncipal building. The existing land use is commercial
recreation, which is a conditionally permitted use in the B-4 Community Business District.. The proposed
building is accessory in nature, as it is subordinate to the principal building and does not exceed 30
percent of the principal building's floor area. Under the existing ordinance, accessory buildings cannot be
placed in a front yard without a variance.
The multi-purpose/function gazebo would be permanent and replace the temporary plastic shelter used
in the winter for Christmas tree sales. Warm weather uses will vary with gatherings/programming for
families and children. The 45-foot hexagonal gazebo would be located at the northeast comer of the
property and would take up 25 percent of the 180-foot front yard lot depth. The long narrow parcel
contains 8.8 acres, the 'Y" building contains 62,000 square feet, and the proposed gazebo is 1,080
square feet.
VARIANCE
In order to receive a variance, an undue hardship must exist which is unique to the parcel. It is the opinion
of staff and Planning Commission that the configuration of the lot creates hardship for the property owner.
The rear yard is currently in use as a recreation area, and therefore, the front yard is the only viable place
for the proposed accessory structure. The accessory structure is open, and therefore, does not significantly
alter the appearance of the principal structure.
(cont'd.)
MOTION BY ~OND ~¥
TO:
Request for Action Page 2 7-27-98
The proposed 1,08C~ square foot gazebo will be 70 feet from the front property line, which exceeds the 50-
foot setback minimum. The main issue is the front yard placement. The past temporary shelter for tree
sales has raised some safety i;oncems for City staff, with extension cords being utilized from the wy,
building for holiday lights and basic illumination. This proposal would provide for a safer, more attractive
permanent enclosure for tree sales and other uses and an electrical power box is provided. Staff also feel
that the visual impact will be minimal, as no walls are proposed. Staff feel that the gazebo will improve the
aesthetics of the property dudng the winter months, in particular.
Staff also feel that the additional investment will enhance the vadety of recreational offerings and enhance
pedestrian access to the 'Y" with the use brought closer to 42"0 Avenue.
Since the existing building is 180 feet from the front property line and the City has begun to encourage
more pedestrian-friendly uses, such as outdoor dining across the street, the gazebo concept seems
reasonable. No reduction in green area will occur, since the existing oversized plaza will be replaced with a
conventional sidewalk.
For the above stated reasons, staff is supportive of approving the vadance request.
SITE PLAN
The plans include the following details:
1. Buildin.q Location - The gazebo has been shifted 10 feet from the "future pool expansion," as
recommended. It has also been shifted 20 feet east to improve sight lines from the 'Y's' north
windowed wall for security purposes.
2. Buildin.q Materials - Color copies of several typical gazebo 'kits' have been submitted, along with
detailed specifications. There has been a lot of discussion at the staff level about the building materials.
Several staff have no problem with a wood structure, as it would be similar to the outdoor dining deck at
the Sunshine Factory. Several other staff feel strongly that the materials should be of a durable quality
and match in color and design with the principal structure and 42'" Avenue streetscape materials. It is
staffs opinion that the proposed structure offers potential for the enhancement of the streetscape along
42'" Avenue and for the pdncipel structure itself. According to the New Hope City Center Streetscape
Master Plan, integration of the YMCA Plaza into the overall community streetecape is encouraged. To
accomplish this end, architectural review by the Planning Commission and City Council is appropriate.
Architectural and color integration with the principal structure and stmetscapa is strongly
recommended, if possible. The pelitioner indicatas that they will use the RCP or Litchfield plan, based
on cost.
3. Liahting - The gazebo lighting will be interior with four 150 watt double flood lights. The petitioner states
that the lights will be mounted so that light is cast within the structure.
4. Landscaping - The petitioner has submitted a diagram of the landscape plan and indicated in their
correspondence that they plan to implement the landsca~ng by summer 1999. The proposed
landscaping plan is insufficient due to its lack of-detail. Some additional screening will need to be
provided in addition to the expansion of the existing berm. The site plan did not identify the contours or
elevations of the berm, and should be noted in the landscape plan. A landscape plan should be
submitted prior to or as a condition of approval of this application. The applicant has proposed
completing the landscaping in 1999. The Planning Commission is agreeable to this option, however,
the posting of financial security is strongly encouraged to assure that the work is completed.
5. Plaza/Sidewalk - Most of the 25-foot wide concrete plaza will be removed and be replaced with sod. A
conventional five-foot wide sidewalk will be built adjacent to the parking lot for pedestrians moving from
42"0 Avenue to the "Y.'
Request for Action
Page 3 7-27-98
6. Electric - The petitioner has confirmed that the only utility connection will be electrical, to an approved
service panel for intedor lights and basic electric needs.
7. Draina.qe - Per the City Engineer, a grading/drainage plan has not been submitted in~:luding building
elevations and contours. However, it is implied drainage will be conveyed east to west around the
shelter over the proposed sidewalk to the existing parking lot. The petitioner has indicated that
McCrossan Company is developing the drainage flow and apparently will do the work. The reshaping of
the northerly berm and construction of new sidewalk must be carefully done not to impact drainage.
8. Parkin.q - Currently 216 parking spaces exist on the site and no additional parking is proposed. Since
the sale of Christmas trees is an existing site activity, there will be no additional traffic created by the
development of this accessory structure. No additional parking is required on the site.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request at its July 7 meeting and recommended approval,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Before Council review, submit a written narrative that details the spectrum of likely, anticipated uses,
hours of operation and public access.
2. Before Council review, submit a detailed landscaping plan showing the following:
A. Number, species and size of trees to be denoted on the plan
B. Elevation and configuration of berm to be specified on the plan
C. Cross section elevation that illustrates how the accessory building and berm relate to the 42"~
Avenue views.
3. Accessory building must be compatible in color and design to the principal building and 42'~ Avenue
streetscape, as approved by the Planning Commission.
4. Approval of a grading and drainage plan, subject to City Engineer review and comment.
5. Before applying for a building permit, submit a bond to ensure the installation of the erosion control,
berm, sidewalk, and landscaping before May 15, 1999.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
7~01 4~'NO AV~NUIr NOIq?l.I
NEW 1.40P~. MINNE~O?A 5~4~?
July 23, 1998
Mr. Kirk McOonald
Director of Community Development
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428-4898
Dear Kirk:
In response to tt~ Planning Commission recom~ions:
1. This building will be available the seine houm the building is of)eft -
6:00 a.m.- 10:00 p.m. Monday thur Friday arid 6:00 ~rn - 8:00 p.m. weekends.
2. See enclosed diagram
3. ,See enclosed diagrln
COUNCIL
RF b'E T FOR ACTION
Approved for Agenda Age~da Secuon
Development
& Plannin~q
7-27~'-~ Item No.
~tr. auz~ Dep~u~,,,em
Community Development
BY'Kirk McDonald
/
PLANNING CASE 98-13, REQUEST FOR sITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW/APPROVAL TO ALLOW
BUILDING ADDITION, 4500 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH, CONDUCTIVE CONTAINERS, INC.
The petitioner is requesting site/building plan mviewlapproval to allow a 9,470 square foot addition to the
east/southeast sides of the existing' building, pursuant to Section 4.039A of the New Hope Code of
Ordinances (no variances are necessary). In 1995 Conductive Containem, Inc. purchased the vacant
industrial building at 4500 Quebec Avenue North. The City acquired the vacant property at 4400 Quebec
Avenue North, south of the site, for the construction of a storm water retention pond. The City sold the
vacant parcel to CCI at a reduced price in exchange for an easement over the pond, and the additional
property allowed for futura expansion needs. In July 1995, the Final Plat of CCI Addition was approved,
which combined both lots under a single ownership.
The property is located in an I-2, C~nerai Industrial Zoning District, and mJn'oundng properfie~ include I-
2 General Industrial ~ on the north, south, and acro~ Quebec Avenue to the weat, and R-4 high
density residential (apartment) and R-1 ~ngle family home~ to the east acro~ the railroad trackt CCI
is a single tenant office-warahou~e [me, which i~ a permitted u~e in the I-2 Zone. CCI is requesting
approval to build a 9,500 square feet werehou~e addition at the raar of the existing building and
construct a small parking lot expw~m. The existing ~ and property data is a~ foilow~:
Percent
Total Lot Area 139,185 ~,,~m__ra feet or 3.1 aor~
Building Area 25,000 square feet (existing) 24.8%
g.500 square feet (expansion)
34,500 squera feet
Parkin~ L~ Ama 25,L=~__ ~,q,,mra feet 18.4%
Green Area 79,029 squera feet 58.8~
r -.-"end) 4Mt
MOTION BY ~ ~F
TO:.
RFA-O01
Request for Action
Page 2 7-27-g8
Staff consider this a routine request because it meets all basic site development standards and zoning
criteria, including building setbacks, parking standards and building height. The plans, include the
following, details.
A. Setbacks - The setbacks for the I-2 District are: Front Yard 50 feet
Side Yard 10 feet
Rear Yard 35 feet
The Zoning Code also states that in Industrial Districts adjacent to railroads, the minimum side or
rear yard setback from the lot line of the side or rear yard of the parcel adjacent to a railroad right-of-
way shall be 10 feet.
The existing building is located 10 feet from the north side yard property line and the building
addition will have a similar setback on the north. The proposed building addition will be set back 15
feet from the east rear property line adjacent to the railroad. The proposed addition meets the
setback requirements for the I-2 Zoning District.
B. Trash Enclosure/Outside Storaf:le - The plans state that 'CCI does not use outside trash dumpsters
nor stores pallets or materials outside.'
C. Snow Storaae - is shown on the south side of the perking lot expansion.
D, Buildina Matedal~) - The addition will have an extedor 8' x 8' scored block pattern to match the
existing building. No windows are located on the north or east walls of the new addition. The west
elevation will have an overhead door and the south elevation will have a steel stair and railing up to a
service door.
E. Parkina Lot Expansion - There are 29 existing off-street parking spaces on the site located south of
the existing building and 11 additional spaces are being provided east of the existing parking lot
between the building expansion and the pond. These spaces exceed the number required by the
Zoning Code. New concrete curb and gutter to match the existing will be installed around the new
bituminous lot. The parking lot expansion will be graded to drain towards the northwest into an
existing catch basin.
F. ADA oarldno - Two ADA parking spaces are required. One is located at the front of the building on
the west. The plar~ Ntow a ~:=ond ADA ~paoe angled against the south wall of the building. This is
not acceptable because it blo¢~ the 24-foot wide drive aisle and this space needs to be eliminated
and identified, signed, and striped elsewhere.
(3. Utilities - Existing utilities including storm and sanitary sewers have been identified on the plar~ near
the addition.
H. ~ - The plan~ Ntow that an existing 16' Box Elder and 12" willows will be removed with
the parking lot expansion. Other existing healthy landscaping on the site has been identified,
including oak~ north of the pond and ash trees in front of the building on the west. Area~ disturbed
during construction will be ,~Kled in the rear of the building and be sodded south of the addition.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommended that the petitioner provide replacement
landscaping for any trees removed and that the new plantings be placed south of the perking lot
expansion.
I. U~hfino - A wall pack light is shown on the south elevation of the building near the steel
stairway/sarvioe door.
J. Sorinklin, - The plan notes indicate that the building addition will be sprinkled. The Fire Deperl~ent
recommends that the storage height in the new addition be limited to 12 feet, similar to the existing
building, if the sprinkler density in the addition is the same as the existing building.
Request for Action
Page 3 7-27-98
The
Co
City Engineer reviewed the plans and made the following comments:
The parking lot expansion to the south and east directs a drainage internally to a catch basin as
previously recommended (overland drainage to the pond has been eliminated).
The existing sanitary sewer is shown on the site plan as previously recommended. However, it is
recommended the recorded utility easements be shown on the as-built site plan once the project is
completed.
Adjustment of existing utility structures (manhole dms, etc.) shall comply with the final grades and be
coordinated with Public Works.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request at its July 7 meeting and recommended approval,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Pdor to building permit application, a revised site plan be submitted with the noted ADA parking
correction.
2. Compliance with City Engineer's recommendations (6B and 6C).
(6B) The existing sanitary sewer is shown on the site plan as previously recommended. However, it
is recommended the recorded utility easements be shown on the as-built site plan once the project is
completed.
(6C) Adjustment of existing utility structures (manhole dms, etc.) shall comply with the final grades
and be coordinated with Public Works.
3. Submit revised site plan showing replacement landscaping.
4. Compliance with Fire Department recommendations.
5. Site Improvement Agreement to be executed between petitioner and City with performance bond to
be submitted for site improvement (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official).
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
COUNCIL
Ongtnatmg Department Approved for Agenda Agenda SecUon
Development
Community Development & Plannin~
7-27-98 Item No.
BY'Kirk McDonald !~.
PLANNING CASE 98-14, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN CURB CUT
WIDTH TO 38 FEET, 2720 NEVADA AVENUE NORTH, PIPE FABRICATORS, INC.
The petitioner is requesting approval of a vadance to allow an increase in curb cut width to 38 feet,
pursuant to Section 4.22 and 4.036(4)(h)(vi) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The parking lot at
Pipe Fabricators has recently been dug up for replacement and the tenant wants to widen the truck entry
point to better accommodate semi-trucks/tractor-trailers. Trucks have been constantly damaging the
yard next to the existing ddveway upon entedng and exiting the lot. The existing ddve is 24 feet wide.
Pipe Fabricators ie requesting to widen the drive to 32 feet and have a 38-foot curb cut
The City Code states that no curb cut access for commercial/industrial properties shall exceed 26 feet in
width at the property line. The Code further states that curb cut widths not exceedin,q 32 feet may be
permitted subject to review and recommendation of the Citv En.(li~r and acm'oval of the City Council.
However, the term 'curb cut width' is defined in the Zoning Code as "-,P-,rb cut width will be me-_--3urad
the property line on a curb face to curb face b-_~i~.' While the petitioner is requesting a 32-foot wide
ddveway with a 35-foot radius, the distance from curb face to curb f?_e at the property line is 38 feet. If
the Zoning Code definition of "curb cut width' is to be applied as it is written, technically, a vadance
should be required. (Staff will be recommending that a future code amendment address this definitional
issue.)
Pipe Fabricators is located north of Medicine Lake Road on the Nevada Avenue cul-de-sac in an I-1,
Limited Industrial Zoning District. The office-warehouse use is a permitted use in the I-1 DiStrict.
Surrounding properties in all directions are also zoned I-1. The properly contains 2.47 acres and the
building contains 37,800 square feet (33,000 on the main level and a 4,800 square foot mezzanine
level). Thirty-five percent of the property is green area. The warehouse space in the building is a single
occupancy and the office space in the building ia used primarily by the warehouse tenant. Two offices
are rented by a second tenant.
The Zoning Code states that before the City Engineer recommends a curb cut exceeding the maximum
widths, he shall consider the type of land use the curb cut will serve, the extent and nature of the
vehicular traffic anticipated and the type and width of the street serving the property where the curb cut
will be located. It is staff's opinion that properties with significant trucking need a 30' - 32' driveway, in
general. The pdmary tenant, Pipe Fabricators, has significant trucking. Nevada Avenue is 30 feet wide.
(cont'd.)
MOTION BY ~COND
TO:
Request for Action Page 2 7-27-98
The relative narroWness of this street creates difficulty for semi-trucks entering the site from the right
lane without crossing the center line or the curb. When the turning radius of a 50-foot truck is applied to
the site, it is clear that the 28-foot curb cut is insufficient for semi-truck access.
The plans include the following details:
A. City Enqineer Comments - The driveway entrance has been redesigned in accordance with the
recommendation: the redesign provides for a 32-foot wide driveway and a 35-foot radius for the
south curb.
B, LandscaDincl - Additional existing landscaping detail has been illustrated on the site plan. Notes
indicate that existing plantings will be tdmmed and pruned; dead wood and plants will be removed,
all bare soil to be sodded and existing mature trees to remain. Six new 2" ash are shown to be
planted near entrance on south side.
C. Photoc~raDhs - Property and building photographs have been included on the revised site plan.
D. Trash Enclosure - is shown on plan at southeast comer of property with outdoor storage screened
on three sides with 8-foot slatted cyclone fence. A second enclosure is shown on the east near the
loading docks.
E. Fire Lane - is identified on plan, with driveway curb to be painted yellow and signs to be installed
stating "No Parking, Fire Lane, by Order of Fire Chief."
F. Parking - A total of 34-37 parking spaces are required, based on usage, and 40 parking spaces are
shown on the plan for the current tenant (exclusive of outdoor storage). Fifty-seven spaces are
available without outdoor storage.
G. ADA Parkina - Two disability parking Spaces are illustrated at front entrance.
H. Loadina Docks - Short trucks have been noted using the east loading docks.
I. Exteflor Liahtina - is identified on the south side of the building.
J. Outside Store.e - Outside pipe storage has been an issue at the property over the pas{ year. The
new site data and plan identifies 5,500 square feet devoted to outside storage at the southwest
comer of the parking lot for current tenant. The area would have an 8-foot chain link fence with slats
on the west/south/east side~. City Code allows outdoor storage up to 20% of the gross floor area in
the Zoning District and the plan complies with that requirement (7,560 square feet would be allowed).
Staff has requested that more detail be provided regarding the character and size of the storage
items/materials and the petitioner did describe the storage in more detail at the Planning
Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission considered this request at its July 7 meeting and recommended approval,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to building permit al:/plication, petitioner to submit signed statement regarding nature and detail
of outdoor storage.
2. Financial guarantee to be submitted to cover landscaping restoration, curb work and screening fence
(amount to be determined by Building Official and City Engineer).
The petitioner has submitted the attached letter dated July 14, 1998, clarifying the outdoor storage issue.
Staff further recommends that the Codes & Standards Committee of the Planning Commission research
the 'curb cut width' definition to determine if an ordinance amendment is necessary.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
272O Nm N
Mimell~i~ MN
612-~ 1-0220
Fax 612-~95.4161
July 14, 1998
City of New Hope
Attn Mr. Kirk McDonald
Director of Community Development
4401 Xylon Ave N.
New Hope MN 55428-4898
Dear Mr. McDonald
As th~ has~ °ftn°Pm3r a~ 2720 Nevada Avenu~ N- New I~ MN 55427, I wish to
respond to your letter ofh~ 9 1998 requesting sutmmm ~or the outside storage at orr
The 7,560 scl. l~ will be fenced 81~ bi~ and slated per out pilms for finiahed product
awaiting shipment to customm, s. It is my intent that no fini_ai~d pt'oduct will b~
IfI can be of any ~ assistam, e, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
COUNCIT.,
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Depa,-q~e~t
Community
Development
Kirk McDonald
Director
Approved for Rgenda
July 27, 1998
Agenda Section
Ordinances
& Resolutions
Item No.
ORDINANCE NO, 98-03 PLANNING CASE 97-15,~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE SIGN CODE
The City of New Hope is requesting consideration/approval of Ordinance No. 98-03, An Ordinance Amending the
New Hope Sign Code, Section 3.40 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
For the past six months, the Codes & Standards Committee of the Planning Commission, Planning Consultant,
Building Official, City Attorney and Community Development Director have worked to update the current New
Hope Sign Code.
The City staff wanted to update the Sign Code to achieve the following objectives:
1. Simplify the ordinance to make it user friendly, easy to understand and simpler to enforce.
2. Make the Sign Ordinance business friendly. The ordinance update will attempt to provide New Hope
businesses with signage opportunities that would be equal to competitive locations in neighboring cities.
3. The ordinance update is also intended to correct some functional flews that exist in the current ordinance.
The City's Planning Consultant prepared a side by side compe~ of the existing sign ordinance and the
proposed new ordinance, which was previously distributed to you in the Planning Commission packet, and the City
Attorney prepared the attached ordinance in its preliminary final format.
A bdef description of each section of Ihe revised ordinance and the p~ changes am ouflineq, as follows:
Section 3.41, Purpo~: The basic change in purpose is to stress that this ia a content neutral ordinance and the
proposed code would be moving away from regulations that specify the type of signs or the content. This is
intended to promote some creativity and elf.;live communication.
MOTION BY
TO:
SECOND BY
RFA-O01
Request For Action
Page 2
Section 3.42, Rules & Definitions: The section has been established on a Zoning District basis rather than land
use, in an effort to simplify the code and its application. Sign height was included as a new definition, along with
several other new definitions (monument and freestanding signs.)
Section 3.43, General Standards: New standards included are: sign permit, sign maintenance, and sign location.
The current code did not have a uniform setback for signs and this section establishes 10 feet from the property
line for all signs city-wide. Signs on comer lots are better explained in this section as far as number of signs and
sight lines at the intersection of two streets.
Section 3.435, addresses sign illumination. Previously the code had restrictions and hours of operation for
commercial properties and the length a sign could be turned on. Staff is recommending that a foot candle be
established so that businesses whose hours of operation are later into the evening can keep their sign on longer.
Section 3.44, Prohibited Signs: Under this section, billboard signs are now prohibited in the City.
Section 3.46, Permitted Signs: Identifiable address numbers was changed to 3 inches in heighL
Section 3.464, Public Convenience and Directional Signs: Open house signs are addressed in this section to
allow these to be in place one day before and removed one day after the open house.
Section 3.469, *For Sale" and 'For Rent' Signs: The signage size for a single family home was increased to eight
square feet, multi-family and commercial/industrial building signage can be 75 square feet, and for multi-family and
commercial/industrial buildings with frontage on Highway 169 the signage was increased to two signs with a total
area of 150 square feel
A new subsection was added which designates ltm duration as "For Sale" for "For Rent' sign can be posed,
stating that they shall be erected not prior to the time which the unit ia available for sale or lease, and shall be
removed within seven days after the sate/lease of the subject unit.
Section 3.470, Construction & Renxxieling Signs: Previously the construction and remodeling signs were 25
square feet and this has been i~ to 32 square feet, which represents a standard size piece of plywood.
Section 3.473, Residential District~ A new provision in this section is reader boards accessory to churches,
schools, non-profit in~titut~ and governmental buildings allowed within residential zoning d~, and off-
premise directional signa.
Section 3.474, Mulliple Family Re~:lantlal Signage: Ama identification sign,age was increa~,:l form 25 square feet
to 100 square feet becauee this is the size allowed in other zoning disllicts.
Section 3.48, Residential Office Oi~a'ict: This signage is the same as the Re~Jenlial District and is referenced in
the proposed code.
Section 3.49, Commemiai/Industrlel Zoning District. The language in this section has been standardized to include
two wall signs per building, and have allowed 200 square feet to be utilized on one and/or two signs or 15 percent
of the wall face. The freestanding sign for single occupancy bu~inesse~ was dramatically simplified. The
proposed code would allow one freestanding sign per lot up to 1IX) square feet, not to exceed 30 feet in height.
This section pertains to single occupancy businesses. The window signage was standardized to 33 percent of the
window display area to allow more flexibility for busirle~Ses. The signage for gas stations was simplified in that oil
Request For Action
Page 3
rack and tire tack signage was eliminated and included with general signs. Provisions for reader boards in
commercial areas was also added. Promotional signage, i.e., banners and pennants, has remained the same as
the existing ordinance. The grand opening portion is proposed to extend for a 30-day pedod. There is a provision
for non-compliance. In the event there would be a violation, future permits could be withheld.
Section 3.493, Signs Accessory to Multiple Occupancy Buildings/Shopping Centers: Much of the language has
been retained as far as purpose, comprehensive sign information requirements, and individual walls signs. The
major changes in this area relate to freestanding signs. Shopping centers containing four separate and distinct
occupancies can erect one freestanding sign par street frontage not to exceed two signs per site. Each ground
sign can be 200 square feet or one sign cannot exceed 300 square feet. Ground signs cannot exceed 30 feet in
height. Reader boards have been incorporated into shopping center signage as a permitted arrangement, and
cannot exceed 50 percent of the sign area. A single occupancy, freestanding satellite site can install only one
freestanding sign not to exceed 100 square feet.
The shopping center identification requirement has been eliminated on ground signs. A reader board may display
a given copy or graphic image for a minimum of three seconds within the reader board frame.
Section 3.50, Non-Conforming Signs & Sign Structures. The amortization schedule was removed and replaced
with a five-year time limit for the replacement of legal, non-conforming signs.
Section 3.51, Sign Variance. The vadance procedure remains the same.
Section 3.52, Review Procedures & Informational Requirements. This section is new and perteins to the sign
application, permits, frees and Council approval.
The Planning Commission considered this ordinance at their July 7~ meeting and recommended approval. The
Council may want to approve the ordinance as presented, or discuss it in more detail at a worksassion. There is
one New Hope business (Park National Bank) waiting for the new ordinance to be effective, so they can erect a
new time/temperature bank sign on Bass Lake Road (prohibited under the current code, but allowed under the
revised code.)
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
COUNCIL
FOR ACTION
OrlctnaLiz~ Depaz'tment
Community Development
Kirk McDonald
Director
Approved for Agenda
July 27, 1998
ACeada Section
Ordinances
& Resolutions
Item No.
APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE #98-03, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEVV HOPE SIGN
CODE
If the City Council approves the revised Sign Code Ordinance, staff recommends approval of the attached
summary ordinance which was prepared by the City Attorney. Adopting of a summary ordinance is
authorized by Minn. Stat. ~412.191, and publication of the summary ordinance wilt permit the City to save
significant publication costs. If the ordinance summery is adopted by a 415ths vote of the Council, only the
summary needs to be published. The summary ordinance should be adopted after the adoption of the full
ordinance. In other words, there should be two votes on the Sign Code issue by the Council: one to
adopt the full text of the ordinance, and a second to adopt the summery ordinance.
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
MOTION BY
TO:
SECOND BY
JUL-22-98 ~ED
11:48
FRX NO. 4255867 P, 02/04
JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A.
Attorn~s At Law
8f2S EDnqnoor ~ STL 201
BaOO~Ly~ P~aZ, M~U~,SOTA SS443.1999
'rEI, EPHO,~B (612) 424.8811 · Tl2,ur~ (61~) 40'J-SI93
Mr. Kirk
City of New Hol~
4~)1 Xylon Avem~
New H~,
Tim ~ smmmry m~ts tim mn,u, ory mluirmm~ m out h ~412.191. ~,
ff tb C~ Com,~l wtd~m m ~ o~ ~he mmm~ and not tt~ ordtmnm's full teat,
to Mopr ~m fun re:ct of ~m m, dimme mt ~ m:oM motioa to Mopt the summary
JUL-22-98 ~
11:49 FRX NO. 4255887
P, 03/04
Pirate co~ me i~ you lmve ~ queeciom or ~ re~t-di,,.~ r. ttts procalure.
Very I~,ttly yours,
Stevcn A. Sonch'~il
~l~lq Sw~dqsow & SONI~.~.L, P-A.
SAS:st
cc: V~lerle Leona
jUL-22-98 NED
11:49 FaX NO, 4255887 P, 04/04
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. I)8-0;3
~ ORDIN.~ICE ~ING ~ NEW HOPE SIGN CODK
The following summary of Ordinance No. 98-03 was approved by the New Hope City
Council for official publication.
The t/tie of Ordinance 98-03 is An Ordinmx.~ Amending The New Hope ,~ign Code.
~u~ction One of th~ ordinan~: r~pe. als in it~ ~nttrety the existing $i~n Cod~.
S~tion Two of tlz ordinance r~-adopts a new Sik~n Code as Sec~om 3.,10 through 3.$24
ol' the City Code. The new Sign Code is in~nd~d to simplify th~ Sign Code ~,,a m,ee
it mom user friendly for applilatloo by bottl City staff nrta all applicnnts for Si~ Cod~
permits. 'rile ~ cod~ provides for n~w ml~ and dofmitions in ~.tion $.42, sets fortll
in S~ion 3.43 ~en~ral smxlanls for permitted signs in all zonin~ districts, ~ al~
prohibited signs in Section 3.d4. sp~.i~.e~ tl~ s~nral ponnim:d signs in all Y.,Onlfl~'
~ commercial alld incb~..s~ial zOning di~gots in ,~otiom 3.47, 3.48 ~ 3.4~
re~l~otively. Baaically, the sp~lflc sign regulations in th~ residential, residential offio~,
monument signs and reader boazds. ,.qecttoas 3.50, 3.$1 and 3.52 of the new Si~n Code
de, al with non. cont'ormi~ sisns, vazian~ to tho sizn cod~ and permit application
pro,:edurc,s reapec~ly.
S~tion 3 of th~ ot'dinan~ e,sl~Hsll~ Its eff~e da~ upon passage ,,,,4 publication.
'I'nis ~ ~ adOlX~ by at least a 4/St~s yom of the Council as tequind by M~,,n.
Stat. ~412.191. Also. a~copy of tl~ full anI of this ~tsavallabie for
review durin~ regular business hours at the office oftbz New Hope City Clerk and it will
Dared tt~ 27th da~ of ~luly,
Attest:
EDA
RF UE T FOR ACTXON
~atJz~ DepaJL~,ent
Community
Development
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant
Approved for Agenda
July 27, 1998
A~eada Section
EDA
[tea] No.
DISCUSSION REGARDING POTENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY REHABILITATION PROJECT AT REGENT
APARTMENTS, 7136 60TM AVENUE, 6017 LOUISIANA AVENUE, AND 7124 LOMBARDY LANE
The owners of Regent Apartments have met with City staff and are interested in possible City EDA financial
assistance for the potential rehabilitation of the three building, 38-unit mural.family housing complex which they
own, located at 7136 60m Avenue, 6017 Louisiana Avenue, and 7124 Lombardy Lane. In 1993, the EDA adopted
a resolution approving multi-family housing policies, which stated, on a case by case basis, that the City would
consider utilizing public funds in the form of a loan to leverage private funds to a~ilt with the rehabilitation of
multi-family structures in the City. The resolution establishing the policy is attached, funding priority is given to
basic needs as opposed to amenities, and normally a 50/50 matching of funds is required for eligible projects.
One project has been completed under this policy. New Hope Apallments were renovated in 1994-95. The
improvements the owners discussed with staff and the City Attorney included replacement or repairs of windows,
repair of parking lot, roof repiacemenL installation of perimeter drain tile systems, potential repair or replacement
of inoperable outdoor swimming pool, some new appliances, interior work including hallway carpet and carpet
replacement in some units, replacement of some kitchen cabinets and tloom, repair of leaking air conditioning
units, and adding landscaping to the property. The City Inspectom have confirmed that the buildings are in need
of rehabilitation. Staff also discussed with the owners the ~lity of adding garagea to It~ lite (there are
currently seven garages for 38 units) and discul~ld improved property manegamenL The total cost of the
improvements without garagea il eltinlatld at $150,000. S2QO,(XIO. The celt of the garages is estimatad at
$225,000. The ownem are reque~ing · loin and coflsMemliofl of · grant for · po~iofl of the project. Staff did
indicate to the ownem that this program hea n~ involved ~ in the IDle[
Staff is inquiring if ~ EDA il i~ in pumu~ · ~ project at this ~ off a pmliminery basis and
authorize a review of Ifil owne~' i ~ts ~ ~ City's outsids flfl·flcial ¢ofl~uEaflt. ~ analysis
would detem~ine if the paflnemhip ~ the ~mea to pay back the Ioen, and the colt of &lid analysis would be
paid for by the emmem of Ifle mmplex.
MOTION BY
TO:
RF, A-O01
Request For Action
page 2
After that step was completed, staff would work with the owners to establish a firm list of improvements, the
owners would solicit I~ids, the City Attomey would prepare the necessary agreements, and the final documents
would be sul~mitted to the EDA for approval.
Staff recommends that the EDA authorize a financial analysis, the cost of which is to be paid by the property
owners, to determine if a multi-family rehab project at this site is feasible.
//
ST. ~M'I~[I.
1431 Bae~ Wayza~.a Boulevard
Suite 210
~ayaata, Mn. 5539L
473-252Z
July 20, 1998
Su~an Henry
Coz~uni~y Develolment Specialist
cl=y of New Rope
4401 X~lon Avenue North
Now Hope, Mn. SS428-4898
By FAX: 531-5136
Re: Reqen~ Ap&r~zen~e 6017 Louisiana, 7136 60TJIAvenue No. and 7124
Lombardy Lane, New Hope, Mrt.
Coneie~ent with ~ meetiz~ on t~xla¥'s date, I have li~e4 ~e
p~med ~rov~nts ~o ~ ~e refer~ 12 unit ap~en~
~ildi~s ~ich I ~li~e are n~~ ~ br~ ~e building~, ~e
individual a~~t8 ~orein ~d ~scap~ ~=o a o=a=e of
repair, whi~ ia acce~le to ~e Ci~ of H~ Ho~.
1. Wi~- Repla~ glass where mls ~ve broken. Replace
w~ ~m ~ ~r~ au ~eded.
2. Wa~e~r~fing- In8~ll ~ =ile ~ '~amn~ unica or all ~ree
~ild~o ~o all~iate ~i8~i~ water p~obl~.
3. Appli~c~- ~pla~ ~lot~ wo~ ~ appli~ces and air
co~itio~, as ~~
4. ~~l~- ~lace haXl~y ~~i~ in eac~ building, and
n~ ·
6. Par~ ~- T~ ~t ~d repla~ or ~erlay ~e existing
7. 8~1~- ~pla~ a~ or ~ir ~istl~ aid~al~ which
O. ~fs- ~ir or r~lace ~fu as ne~ed.
X0.W~ A~r Units- ~ir ~C 81~es =o avoid wa~er see~qe in=o
~XXo.
12. T.andocaping-
Plant t~l and o~er S~A~AMS tO eflAance CAe
appeal of ~e p~oper~y ~or ~e Tenant's and
neigA~orhoed.
x3.
14. C~Jae~-
eac~ apextment unit has a garage.
Trim,all garbage disposal unl~ and diehwasAers
in eac~ unit.
I have not made an inspection o£ each indLvLdual unl~, nor have
obtained estimates for any o~ ~e ~rk, b~er ~ would es~i~Ce
~C ~he ~oCal coiC of ~e iCm lis~ed ~e not inclvding i~em
void ~ ipprox~ely $180,000.00 ~o $200,000.00.
garag~ vouXd ~ approx~ely $~3S, 000.00.
lmp=~nC8 ~ a ~, ~e ~e~'a are vlll/~ ~o pay ~e coa~ o~
cons~i~ gaFa~ee on ~e p~~y aa ~ ~o~ ~ i~ x3. ~e
~ant uy con~n co~itio~ o~ ~~lp, a nt~lly a~M~e
a~ual min~ renal ra~e l~ase ~ u~n the coat of living,
a~ My include o~er ~Cuall~ aqro~le co~i21ons whi~ oa~ard
Please le~ me know you~ ~oughts on ~Ale matter aa soon aa
possible. Tl~e Ovner'o would liXe ~o begin ~Ae restoration of khe
complex aa soon as passable.
Bdva~d B.
cc Larry aaill
EDA
FOR ACTION
O~-t~lnat. tn~ De~ent A~p~v~d for A~enda A~enda Se~ort
Community Development July 27, 1998 EDA
Kirk McDonald ~ Item No.
Director ~ 6
DISCUSSION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 9200 49TM
AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 597)
Staff requests to discuss development options with the EDA regarding the City-owned property at 9200
4g· Avenue and requests that the EDA provide some direction to staff on this issue. This matter was last
discussed at the March 23'~ Council meeting.
In June of 1997, the City of New Hope purchased this vacant 2.8 acre industrial site from Clarence
Bmndell. The City acquired the property because a portion of the property is identified in New Hope
Surface Water Management Plan as a future potential site for a water quality pond to help improve the
water quality of the large wetland north of, and adjacent to, the site. The City acquired the property to
have control over the future development of the site and is interested in a potential joint-cooperative
development (similar to Conductive Containers, Inc. on Quebec Avenue), where a development couid
occur in conjunction with the installation of a water quality pond. The City purchased the property for
$195,000 and the City Engineer has estimated that the City would need to utilize approximately one acre
of the site for ponding improvements, leaving two acres available for development
Shortly after the City purchased ttm site, the City w~ contacted by Upper Midwest Management
Corporation, owners of the oflk:e buMing Ioceted on ti're PropertY adJ~:~nt t~' and Juet we~t °f' this site at
4900 Highway 169 Frontage Ro~d, w~o indicated t~ey were intem~ted in the proper~ for a po~n~l twin
ofl~ce building to match their existing building. They ~ u~ the City's de,re for a cooperative
developmant wt~re ponding imlxovement~ could be achieved. Over the ~ nine month~, staff has had
several conversations ~ Upper ~ mix)ut this pro~K~ and they hive indiclted they were still
potentially in~ in the property, however, no I~ens have been sul~t~l to date. Staff has indicated
to Upper Midweat th~ the City continu~ to receive inquide~ al3out the proper~ and h~ encouraged
Upper Midwest to ~ a ~etatmln~ as to whather or nct they went t~ IXOceed with developing the
have soma indic~tion ;md would r.~ to tfte City by the flint pitt of Idly.
MOTION BY' ,. ~I~3OND BY
RFA-OOI
~luast For Action
P~ge 2
In March, another party interested in the property, Larry and Susan Johnson, submitted a Real Estate
Purchase Contract to the City with an offer to purchase the property for $120,250. Their ofl~r was based
on utilizing 1.8 acres of the site and leaving one acre for ponding improvements. Johnson is the owner of
Precision Machine Shop, which is cun'enth/leasing space in Hopkins. The company has six employees
and Johnson was proposing to construct an 8,250 square foot industrial building on the site. Maximum
one-story industrial development for the site would be 20,000 - 30,000 square feet. Johnson met with City
staff and staff indicated to him our informal on-going working relationship with Upper Midwest. Staff
indicated to him that his purchase contract would be presented to the Council for consideration, but that
staff could not recommend approval at this time, pending further discussions with Upper Midwest. The
Council took no action on the Real Estate Purchase Contract, as you wanted to wait and see if Upper
Midwest Management was still interested in the property, and you indicated you did not feel that Mr.
Johnson's proposal was for the highest and best use of the property in terms of the valuation/real estate
taxes that would be generated by his proposal.
In May, another party interested in the site met with staff. Bob Welle from Axion Realty, representing G &
K Services, Inc. a business that processes and leases workplace uniforms, desired to register his client as
a prospective purchaser of the property. G & K would use the site as a satellite facility as a drop off and
pick up site for garments for processing at the company's main plant in Minneapolis. G & K needs
approximately two acres of land to construct an office/warehouse building of approximately 15,000 square
feet (see attached information.) Staff, again, indicated that thi City was on hold until a response wes
received from Midwest.
By June, no response had been received from Midwest, so the atta~ted con'espondence was sent from
the City inquiring if they were still interested in the IXOflerty. I~ Z, adeker from Upfler Midweat
Management Corporation reeponded by phone around July 1" that Upper I~ldw~t wal no longer
intere~.~l in the site.
Staff is requesting direction from the EDA on how you want to proceed wilh ~il site and offer the following
options for ~ .consideration:
1. Take no action and leave the property undav~ for Ihe pre,mt time.
2. Reconsider ~e proposal~ Ittat have I~eafl presented for the property:
a. Precision Machine Shel~ - I.an~ ~ ~ ~ ~ in ~ ~
b. G & K Servicll - may atil be intorasted in Itte ixoflerty, I~ut ataff dee~ no~ support i=eying a
~ to AxOn Relay
Hire a commemtal real astltl I~,~on to merke~ lhe I~Ol~erty for till City and I~,ing agreement back to
EDA for ~
Staff recomrnen~ al~mval of ~ ~4.
PROJECT NO. 613
Bulletin #1
7621 62"a Avenue North
Overview
In the fall of 1997, the City of New Hope acquired the four-plex located at 7621 62"d
Avenue North. Recently, the tenants living in the building were relocated. The building
is now empty and locked. The City purchased the apartment building with the intent of
demolishing the structure and land banking the site for combination with other adjacent
parcels for future housing redevelopment purposes.
In late May, the City had the opportunity to acquire the properties located at 7601 and
7641 62~ Avenue North. Recently, the tenants living in the buildings were given
relocation notices. It is anticipated these buildings will be empty by September.
In addition, the City is working on acquiring the fourth building, 7661, along 62"~
Avenue. Only preliminary discussions have taken place at this point.
Project Schedule
The City is planning to demolish the acquired properties in late fall. At this time, a
construction schedule has not been determined.
Site Manacmmen_t_
Over the seasons, the City will maintain the site. The Police Department and other City
staff will be monitoring the site on a regular basis. However, if you see something
unusual, please contact the Police Department directly at 531-5170.
Contact Person
If you have questions or concerns during the construction project, please contact Susan
Henry, Community Development Specialist, at 531-5137 or Kirk McDonald, Director of
Community Development, at 531-5119.
The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents in the area that may be impacted
during this project. The City will keep you informed about any future activities that are to
take place on the site, Thank you for your cooperation.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
7-17-98
Project No. 616
Bulletin #1
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PROJECT BULLETIN #1
1998 STREET SIGN REPLACEMENT PROJECT ~[f.616
Overview
The City of New Hope is proceeding with a street sign replacement project. The project will
include the following:
· Removal and replacement of street name signs and sign posts at 234 intersections north
of 42"" Avenue.
· Installation of new City entrance signs at 17 locations.
· Installation of 16 "Shared Roadway' signs that notify motorists of bicycle traffic along
Boone Avenue, portions of 49~' Avenue, and Quebec Avenues, and to encourage
courteous driving.
· Replacement of old and incorrectly located bus stop signs along bus routes in the City.
All work is to be done on the public right-of-way. All areas disturbed by the contractor working on
this project shall be restored to a condition that is equal to or better than they were pdor to
construction.
Sprinkler Systems
At various locations, there may be sprinkler heads and piping within the street right-of-way.
Where components of a sprinkler system are identified, the contractor will make every effort to
avoid damage to the sprinkler system. Most of the new sign posts will be installed directly into the
hole created by removal of the old posL At some locations, however, the new posts will be
installed in a slightly different location. If you have a sprinkler system in the area of an existing
sign post and are concerned about the possibility of it being damaged during post replacement,
please contact one of the people listed below. You may be asked to identify the sprinkler heads
prior to sign and post replacement.
Project Schedule
At the May 26 Council Meeting, the New Hope City Council awarded the contract for the Street
Sign Replacement Project to Earl F. Andemen, Inc. The contractor plans to begin replacement of
signs the week of July 20, 1998, and is expected to complete the project by t~e middle of
September.
Construction Hours
Construction may occur between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M., Monday through Friday,
and 9:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. on Saturday. All work, including mobilization of equipment, will take
place during these time periods.
Contact Persons
If you have questions or concems during the Street Sign Replacement project, please direct your
calls to the Project Engineer, Vince VanderTop, at 604-4790 or 533-4823, Ext. 15, or
Tom Schuster, Contract Manager, at 533-4823, ExL 13.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Phone: 531~5100
Thank you for your cooperation!
Projects~616~Project ~ #1
7/16/98
Project 644
60"'/Rhode Island Watermain
Thank you for your patience and cooperation during the recent work on the water main. Your
help has allowed the work to be completed as planned.
Proiect Status
The following activities occurred the week of July 12, 1998:
Sunday - All water services were switched from the street water main to the temporary
backyard service. Special thanks to the neighbors who coordinated with each other to
provide access to homes where the owners were out of town or on vacation!
Monday - A section of the water main was excavated and cut open to allow the entire main
to be televised. The pipe was found to be in good structural condition both internally and
externally; however, the inside of the pipe contained significant iron and mineral deposits.
The main is a cast iron pipe which was not lined with concrete - a standard in today's
construction methods. It is anticipated that the iron and mineral deposits most likely
contributed to the water quality and pressure problems that some residents were
experiencing.
Monday and Tuesday - The water main from 60"' Avenue to 61" Avenue was cleaned with a
high pressure water nozzle. This technique was chosen in lieu of a more abrasive cleaning
method 'in order to protect the pipe. The majority of deposits were removed without
damaging the pipe.
After cleaning, the water main was televised to the extent feasible. Water services
protruding into the main pipe and some remaining deposits prohibited the passage of the
contractor's large camera along the entire water main.
· Wednesday - Each water service was cleaned and the water main flushed.
· Thursday - The section of water main that was removed was repaired and the entire pipe
filled with chlorinated water.
Upcoming Schedule
On Saturday, July 18, the water main will be flushed and samples of the water will be taken
to evaluate the effectiveness of the chlorinating and disinfecting process. The samples will
be tested Saturday and Sunday.
If the test results are favorable, the water main will be flushed on Sunday. Between the
hours of 6:00 PM and 7:30 PM, a city representative will request permission to enter your
home so that the valve at your water meter can be turned back on. He will also turn off the
spigot connected to the temporary service. This will reconnect your home to the water main
and disconnect your home from the temporary service.
Bulletin #2
G:Vincva nWTV~.I. Bulle~n2
Page 2
If the results from the water tests are not favorable, the contractor will cl}lorinate the
water main again and the City will notify residents early in the week of a revised
reconnection date.
Resident Assistance
The City will ask residents to assist with the following tasks on the evening of Sunday, July 19:
· Provide access to your home on Sunday, July 19, between the hours of 6:00 PM and
7:30 PM. Pending acceptable test results, this is when your water service will be
reconnected to the water main.
Open your faucets after the service is connected to the main. This Will flush any remaining
debris, air, or heavily chlorinated water from your service. The City recommends running
your faucets for at least 5 minutes.
Additional Information
The City is interested in the impact of this water main cleaning project on the quality and
pressure of water at your home. Within the next few weeks, please contact Utilities
Maintenance Supervisor Paul Coone if you experience any changes in water quality or
pressure. You may contact Paul at 533-4823, Ext. 12. If Paul is not available, please contact
Project Engineer ¥ince Vander Top at 604-4790.
The City will continue to monitor the water quality and pressure at hydrants located in your
neighborhood, and may ask residents to assist with samples. This will assist the City in
determining the long term status of this water main and identify any possible future
improvements necessary.
Once the City is assured the cleaning that was undertaken has resolved the water quality and
pressure issues, the temporary pipes will be removed from the backyards and the street
restored. The City will keep in touch with the residents about the schedule for this work.
Residents can expect that this work will be scheduled within the next month.
cc: City Council
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works
Mark Hanson, City Engineer
Vince VanderTop Engineering Project Inspector
Paul Coone, Utilities Maintenance Supervisor
G:Vincvan~VTWR.I. Bulletin2