The URL can be used to link to this page

100698 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 1998 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 2. 3. 3.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 6. 7. 7.1 7.2 7.3 8. 9. CALLTO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT ITEMS Case 98-17 PUBLIC HEARINGS Consideration of Ordinance No. 98-18, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing Measurement Procedures to Determine Maximum Curb Cut Widths, City of New Hope, Petitioner Case 98-22 Case 98-23 Request for a Variance to Allow an Air Conditioning Unit in the Side Yard, 9209 40 % Avenue North, Duane & Mary Jo Russ, Petitioners Request for a Variance in the Fence Height Requirement to Allow Construction of a 10-Foot Sound Barrier/Fence, 8201 54t~ Avenue North, CNH Architects, Petitioner Case 98-24 Case 98-16 Request for Planned Unit Develqpment to Allow Second Building on One Lot and a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Drive-Through Window at a Newly Constructed Restaurant Building at Midland Shopping Center, 2703-2769 Winnetka Avenue North, Engelsma Limited Partnership/Taco Bell, Petitioner Consideration of An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.035(2) by Reducing the Lot Area Size for Two Family Dwellings, City of New Hope, Petitioner COMMITTEE REPORTS Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: ThUrsday, October 15 at 8 a.m. Report of Codes & Standards Committee - Next Meeting: Thursday, October 29 at 7 a.m. Report of Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - No Meeting Scheduled OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of September 2, 1998. Review of City Council Minutes of August 24 and September 14, 1998. Review of EDA Minutes of August 24, 1998. ANNOUNCEMENTS 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. Ti'~ Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal, based upon th~ Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. Al If the Planning' Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a requeSt, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 98-17 Consideration of Ordinance No. 98-18, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing Measurement Procedures to Determine Maximum Curb Cut Widths City-Wide All Zoning Districts City of New Hope October 2, 1998 October 6, 1998 BACKGROUND The City is requesting consideration of An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing Measurement Procedures to Determine Maximum Curb Cut VVidths, pursuant to Section 4.036(4)(h)(vi) - New Hope Code of Ordinances. At the July 7 Planning Commission meeting, Pipe Fabricators was granted a variance for a curb cut that exceeds the allowance by the city code. They were requesting a 38-foot wide curb cut to accommodate semi-truck and trailer traffic entering and exiting the site at 2720 Nevada Avenue. Dudng the course of this request, the City Engineer and staff noted that for industrial purposes, the current curb cut code was not sufficient. Examination of the Pipe Fabricator site and adjoining industrial sites reveals that most of the curb cuts in the industrial park along Nevada Avenue lacked sufficient width and turning radius to accommodate their larger trucks. The problems lies with the definition of curb cut, and thus staff is recommending a zoning code text amendment to allow more flexibility for driveways and curb cuts in industrial zones. Section 4.036(f)(h)(vi), regulates curb cut widths. This section allows the City to approve a 32-foot curb cut width where the land use and related traffic warrants wider curb cuts. With curb cut width being measured at the property line, even the 32-foot curb cut width is insufficient to provide proper turning radii for large trucks due to the shallow boulevard depths inherent in the City's industrial parks. As a result, variances need to be processed to resolve a common problem within New Hope's industrial parks. The existing code reads as follows: Section 4.036(4)(h)(vi) "Curb Cut Maximum. No curb cut access shall exceed the following width dimensions at the property line: Residential 24 feet Commercial/Industrial 26 feet All curb cuts shall be installed to comply with the City's curb cut design standards. Curb cut widths not exceeding 32 feet may be permitted subject to review and recommendation of the City Engineer and approval of the City Council. Before the City Engineer recommends a curb cut exceeding the maximum widths set out herein, 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. The City Engineer shall also consider any regulations promulgated by the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation relative to driveway and curb cut dimensions before making a recommendation to exceed the 26-foot maximum width." 5. The term "curb cut width" is defined in the Zoning Code as "curb cut width will be measured a~J~e property line on a curb face to curb face basis." While the petitioner in the Pipe Fabricators case is requesting a 32-foot wide driveway with a 35-foot radius, the distance from curb face to curb face at the property line was 38 feet. If the Zoning Code definition of "curb cut width" was to be applied as it is written, it was the Planning Consultant's opinion that, technically, a variance should be required. This is when staff recommended that a future code amendment address this definitional issue. 6. The Codes & Standards Committee discussed this issue at its August meeting and reviewed the attached report on this matter from the Planning Consultant. 7. Based on a discussion with the City Engineer, it was recommended that new curb cut regulations include the following standards: A. The maXimum curb cut width will remain: Residential 24 feet Commercial/Industrial 26 feet B. Establish a maximum curb radius of 35 feet. C. With the aforementioned dimensions and a standard boulevard depth of 15 feet in the City's industrial areas, staff is recommending that curb cut width be measured 20 feet from the property line. D. To reduce administration efforts, staff is suggesting that the 32-foot wide curb cut approval be subject to just staff review. 8. The Codes & Standards Committee agreed with this recommendation and the City Attorney prepared the attached ordinance amendment containing the recommendations. The proposed ordinance amends the measurement procedures to determine curb cut widths by establishing a maximum 35foot curb radius and by measuring the curb width at a point 20 feet behind the property.line. 9. The City Engineer supports the proposed ordinance amendment and the attached "Exhibit A" prepared by the Planning Consultant illustrates graphically how the ordinance would be applied. 10. Due to the simple nature of the amendment, this item has been placed on the consent agenda. If the Commissioners desire to discuss the amendment in more detail, the amendment can be removed from the consent agenda. Attachments: Ordinance 98-18 8/31 City Attorney Correspondence 7/1 Planning Consultant's Report Zoning Code Excerpts 7/2 Pipe Fabricators Report and City Engineer Comments Codes & Standards Memo ORDINANCE NO. 98-18 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE MAXIMUM CURB CUT WIDTHS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.036(z~)(h)(vi) "Curb Cut Maximums" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (vi) Curb Cut Maximum. No curb cut access shall exceed the following width dimensions at measured at a point setback twen _ty (20) feet from the property line: Residential ...................... 24 feet Commercial/Industrial ....... 26 feet All curb cuts shall be installed to comply with the City's curb cut design standards. The curb radius for any curb cut shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet. Curb cut widths not exceeding 32 feet may be permitted subject to review and recommendation of the City Engineer and approval of the City E-ouaeii Manager. Before the City Engineer recommends a curb cut exceeding the maximum widths set out herein, 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. The City Engineer shall also consider any regulations promulgated by the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation relative to driveway and curb cut dimensions before making a recommendation to exceed the 26 foot maximum width. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the day of ,199_. W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the day of , 199m.) GORDON L. SENSEN* WILLIAM G. SWANSON STEVEN A. SONDRALL MICHAEL R. LAFLEUR MARTIN P. MALECHA BREI'r A. PERRY* C. ALDEN ~.ARSO~t OF COUNSEL LORF. N5 ~. [{RYNE, STAD *Real Pro~ew/Law $_ue~ialist Minn~mo~a Sine ~ar Association tQunlified ADR N~dtrai JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRAI L, P.A. Attorneys ~It Law EDINBROOK CROSSING, S~-~)01 8525 BROOKLYN PARK~ ~tlNNKSOTA 55443-1999 TELr. PHON~. (612) 424-8811 · T~.LKFAX (612) 493-5193 August 31, 1998 Mr. Kirk McDonald Director of Community Development 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Measurement Procedures to Determine Maximum Curb Cut Widths Our File No.: 99.49818 Dear Kirk: In follow up to our discussions at the August 26~ Codes and Standards meeting, please fred enclosed proposed Ordinance No. 98-18 amending New Hope Code Section 4.036(4)(h)(vi) regulating curb cut maximums. The proposed Ordinance amends the measurement procedures to determine curb cut widths by establishing a maximum 35 feet curb radius and by measuring the curb width at a point 20 feet behind the property line. This Ordinance was generated by Pipe Fabricator's application for a variance to curb cut widths. Specifically, it allows for a 42 foot curb cut maximum at the right-of-way but maintains the smaller curb cut widths as the driveways channel back to the property parking lots. This Ordinance is scheduled for a public hearing at the October planning commission meeting. Contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding the Ordinance. Very truly yours, S~ondrall J'ENSI~I ~WANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. SAS:phb Enclosure cc: Valerie Leone, City Clerk Mark Hanson Alan Brixuis, City Planner NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED COMMUNITY PLANNING DESION 7 C 0 N S U LTAN TS MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Alan Brixius 1 July 1998 New Hope - Curb Cut Width Regulations 131.00 - 98.03 BACKGROUND Recently the City has received a request from Pipe Fabricator, Inc. for a variance from the City's maximum curb cut width. They were requesting a 38 foot wide curb cut to accommodate semi-truck and trailer traffic entering and existing the site at 2720 Nevada Avenue. Examination of the Pipe Fabricator, Inc. site and adjoining industrial sites reveals that most of the curb cuts in the Industrial Park along Nevada Avenue lacked sufficient width and turning radius to accommodate their larger trucks. EXISTING CODE Section 4.036 (4) (h) (vi), as follows, regulates curb cut widths. This section allows the City to approve a 32 foot curb cut width where the land use and related traffic warrants wider curb cuts. With curb cut width being measured at the property line, even the 32 foot curb cut width is insufficient to provide proper turning radii for large trucks due to the shallow boulevard depths inherent in the City's industrial parks. As a result, variances need to be processed to resolve a common problem within New Hope's industrial parks. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 5541 6 PHONE 61 2-595-9636 FAX 61 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC~ WINTERNET.COM 4.036 (4)(h) (vi) Curb Cut Maximum. No curb cut access shall 'exceed the following width dimensions at the property line: Residential Commercial/Industrial 24 feet 26 feet All curb cuts shall be installed to comply with the City's curb cut design standards. Curb cut widths not exceeding 32 feet may be permitted subject to review and recommendation of the City Engineer and approval of the City Council. Before the City Engineer recommends a curb cut exceeding the maximum widths set out herein, 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. The City Engineer shall also consider any regulations promulgated by the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation relative to driveway and curb cut dimensions before making a recommendation to exceed the 26 foot maximum width. RECOMMENDATION Based on discussion with the City Engineer, regulations include the following standards: 1. it is recommended that new curb cut The maximum curb cut width will remain: Residential 24 feet Commercial/Industrial 26 feet Option to expand to a maximum of 32 feet with City Engineer approval. Establish a maximum curb radius of 35 feet. With the aforementioned dimensions and a standard boulevard depth of 15 feet in the City's Industrial areas, staff is recommending that curb cut width be measured 20 feet from the property line. To reduce administration efforts, staff is suggesting that the 32 foot wide curb cut approval be subject to just staff review. Exhibit A illustrates the application of the aforementioned changes to the Pipe Fabricators site. Exhibit.B represents a draft ordinance. pc: Doug Sandstad Mark Hanson Steve Sondrall SITE_P, LAN NORTH I'. -~'¢~ EXHIBIT A TOTPJ_ P. 02 (31-) Cooperative (Houling), ~ mu~tiPi'e ~amily dwelling ov~ed and maintaLned ~y the residents. ?he entire structure and real dvell£ng where Lndividu&~ units are under sep&tate individu4~l occuplnt ownership. 072684, Ord. 86-L3) (32) Court. An unoccupied open space other than a vatd which [s ~"~u~-'~-~ed on three ot mote sides by the walls of the buildings. (Code 072684, Ord. 86-13) ' a)Curb Cut Width. Curb cut width measured at the property line on a curb face to curb face basis. (Ord. 88-10) 072514 ) (vii) (ix) 4.034 (4) (~) Curb Cut #aximum. MO curb cut &cress shall exceed the ~'~ ffOLLOVtflg width diilenaionl at the property Lina~ Relidant/aL ........ . .... 24 ~eaC ALl curb cuts shall b~ installed to comply with the City's curb cuc design standards. Curb cut widths floc and recommendation or the City ~ngineer and approval of the City Council. Before tbs City engineer recommends a curb cut exceeding the oaxinum widths set out herein, he shall consider the type o~ land use thecurb cut traffic anticipited and the type and width of the street serving ~he property where the curb cut vail be located. The City ~ngLneer shall also consider any r~gulatioel promulgated by the Xinnesota Cmmisaioner of TransgresSion relative to driveway and curb'cuc dimensions ~ore making a rec~ndaCion ~o ~ceed the (Cede 072684, Ord. Sa-10) Curb Cut Hen/mum. Curbcut openings shall be located districts. Curb Cut Separation. Driveway access curb openings on a public street except ~or single, two ~amily and Courthouse dvelllflge shall flat be located leis than forty feet ~ron one another. Park~n{ Area Oradea. The grade elevation of any perking area shall not exceed five ptrcenC. 4-33 A Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 98-14 City Engineer/City Council Approval of 32-Foot Wide Driveway or Vadance to Allow an Increase in Curb Cut Width to 38 Feet 2720 Nevada Avenue North 20-118-21-34-0017 I-1, Limited Industrial Pipe Fabricators, Inc. July 2, 1998 July 7, 1998 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting City Engineer/City Council approval of a 32'f°ot wide driveway, per Ordinance 4.036 or a variance 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. 2. 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. 3. Pipe Fabricators is requesting to widen the ddve to 32 feet and have a 38-foot curb cut. ICity staff and have reviewed the request and feel that it can be processed several different consultants ways and this report is intended to cover processing the request both ways. Option 1 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 exceeding 32 feet may be permitted subject to review and recommendation of the City Engineer and approval of the City Council. The petitioner is requesting a 32-foot wide driveway, so one option would be to consider a driveway and curb cut the same thing and simply have the City Engineer recommend and Council approve the request. Option 2 .. However, the term 'curb cut width' is defined in the Z. oning Code as "curb cut width will be measured at the property line on a curb face to curb face basis. VVhile the petitioner is requesting a 32-foot wide ddveway with a 35-foot radius, the distance from curb face to curb face at the property line is 38 feet' If the Zoning Code definition of 'curb cut width' is t° be applied a~ it is written, it is the Planning Consultant's oPinion that, technically, a vadance should be required. (Staff will be recommending that a future code amendment address this definitional issue.) 5. 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. 6. The property 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 is P~ed pdmadly by the warehouse tenant. Two offices are rented by a second tenant. 7. The property is located in Planning Distdct #30 of the Comprehensive Plan, which anticipated routine industrial land uses and the present use is consistent with that plan. The Comprehensive Plan Update encourages the retention of industry, and by allowing better access to the site, the City would be promoting industry.. 8. 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. 9. The topography of the property is elevated five feet above the roadway, with some plantings along NeVada Avenue. 10. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified, including the City of Crystal, and staff have received no comments regarding this request. ANALYSIS 1. If the request is to be processed as a variance, the following cdteda should be utilized. 2. The purpose of a vadance is to permit relief from stdct application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent reasonable use of property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the vadance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 3. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstancee unique to his Property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.' Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. Additional criteda to be used in considering requests for a vadance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: A. Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. B. Li.qht and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. C. Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. D. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. E. Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. 5. 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 primary tenant, Pipe Fabricators, has significant trucking. Nevada Avenue is 30 feet wide. The relative narrowness of this street creates difficulty for semi-trucks entering the site from the dght lane without crossing the center line or the curb. When the tuming 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. Planning Case 98-14 Page 2 7/2/98 ~.6_.~. Appropriate City staff and consultants met to review the plans on June 16 and the City Engineer recommended in. creasing the turning radius. Other issues discussed included trucks being parked in the driveway, which'should not be allowed for fire lane purposes, and outdoor storage issues. 7. 'The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on June 18 and issues discussed included defining the outdoor storage area, increasing the curb cut width, landscaping, lighting, trash enclosure an dire lane striping/storage. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting. 8. The revised plans include the following details: A. City En.qineer Comments - The ddveway entrance has been redesigned in accordance with the attached memo and recommendation dated June 17, 1998, and the discussion at Design & Review. The redesign provides for a 32-foot wide ddveway and a 35-foot radius for the south curb. B. Landscaping - 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. Photo.qraphs - 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 ddveway curb to be painted yellow and signs to be installed stating ~No Parking, Fire Lane, by Order of Fire Chief.' F. ADA Parkin.q - Two disability parking spaces are illustrated at front entrance. G. Loadin.q Docks - Short trucks have been noted using the east loading docks. H. Extedor Li.qhting - is identified on the south side of the building. 9. Outside pipe storage has been an issue at the property over the past 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 sides. City Code allows outdoor storage up to 20% of the gross floor area in the Zoning Distdct and the plan complies with that requirement (7,560 square feet would be allowed). Staff request that more detail be provided regarding the character and size of the storage items/materials. 10.-The Planning Consultant has prepared the attached report for your information. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend approval of the 32-foot wide driveway and a vadance for the curb cut at the property line, subject to the following conditions: 1. Pdor to building permit application, 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). dStaff further recommends that the Codes & Standards Committee research the 'curb cut width' definition t~ etermine if an ordinance amendment is necessary. ~ Planning Case 98-14 Page 3 7/2/98 B onestroo Rosene ~ Anderllk & ~ Associates Engineers & Architects (~12~474179; Jun-17.g8 5:08PM; Page 2/3 MEMO TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Mm~ Hanson SUBJECT:' Pipe Fabricators Inc. (2720 Nev~ Avenue) Driveway Variance to 38' wide F'tlo 34-C~n DATE: Jtm,e, ,!,7.,., 1998 We have reviewed the above variance and offer the foUowing comments: · The City required driveway width at prop~ty line k 32' wid~ which provides 2-16' wide driving lanes. To allow e wider width may encom-a~ parking which is not t~commended. · If the turning movement from Nevada Avenue is at i~me it i~ suggeSmd a .35' rndiu.q be provided in southeast com~ of drive as show~ o~ ~f~cl~l sket~. " t 23'--~5 ~Jve~tHlgh~-3v 36. St. Pouf, MN* 55113 · 6lz-636-46oo · Fax: 6tz-636-j3n Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Codes & Standards Committee Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Phil Kern, Community Development Intern August 21, 1998 Curb Cut Code Amendment (Planning Case 98-17) At the July 7 Planning Commission meeting, Pipe Fabricators was granted a variance for a curb cut that exceeds the allowance by the City Code. During the course of this request, the City Engineer and staff noted that for industrial purposes, the current curb cut code was not sufficient. The problem lies with the definition of curb cut, and thus staff is recommending a zoning code text amendment to allow more flexibility for driveways and curb cuts in industrial zones. Attachments: 7/1/98 Planner's Report/Sample Ordinance 6/17/98 Engineer's Report (Pipe Fabricator's as example) Excerpts: PipeFabricator's Plan Case Report Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 98-22 Request for a Variance to Allow an Air Conditioning Unit in the Side Yard 9209 40 % Avenue North 18-118-21-23-0035 R-l, Single Family Residential Duane & Mary Jo Russ October 2, 1998 October 6, 1998 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow an air conditioning unit in the side yard, pursuant to Sections 4.032(3)(i) and 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. The petitioner had a new air conditioner installed this summer on the rear yard patio of their home after their old air conditioner quit working. The old unit was located in the rear yard on a wood deck. The new unit was installed while they were on vacation. They had installed new landscaping and patio blocks prior to the time the new unit was installed. Their contractor contacted the City and was informed that the unit must be placed in the rear yard unless a variance was approved, as city code prohibits air conditioners in the side yard. The petitioner wants to have the air conditioner moved off of the new patio blocks in the rear yard and have the unit placed in the side yard on the other side of their privacy fence for aesthetic purposes. 3. The petitioner states that their seasonal entertainment occurs in their "outside room," which is a covered patio that extends across the entire back of the house. They indicate that the air conditioner placement on the new patio blocks inside their six-foot privacy fence is unsightly. They desire to move the unit east (outside) of the privacy fence. 4. The petitioner indicates that the neighbors on the east have an existing fence and that they would have an enclosure built to contain the unit so that it would blend with the existing privacy fence. They also indicate that the unit would not be seen from the street due to the walkout basement and that it would be tucked behind the fireplace chimney. They state that the new unit is a Carrier and that it is built and mounted to be extremely quiet. 5. Section 4.032(3)(i) of the Zoning Code, "Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment - Air Conditioners," states that "accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers (ground mounted) which generate noise shall be located in rear yards behind the rear building lines." The code also states that certain structural elements or equipment shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements and air conditioners in rear yards are permitted encroachments, however, air conditioners are not allowed as encroachments in side yards. 6. The property is located on the south side of 40 ~ Avenue North between Gettysburg and Jordan Avenues and the rear yard abuts Northwood Park pond. The property is located in an R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District and is surrounded by R-1 properties. 7. The property is 76 feet in width, has a depth of 126 feet, and has a lot area of approximately 9,500 . square feet. 8. The existing home on the property meets the required setbacks with a five-foot side yard setback o~J,~e west/garage side of the property and a 10-foot side yard setback on the east side of the property w 'e the air conditioner is proposed to be located. 9. The topography of the property is level with the roadway in the front and slopes at the midpoint of the house down to a walk-out basement, with the flood plain at the lot rear. 10. The property is located in Planning District #12 of the Comprehensive Plan, which anticipates no change to the single family neighborhood and encourages maintenance and improvements. 11. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments regarding this request. The petitioners indicated at the Design & Review Committee meeting that they had discussed this request with the neighbors on the east side of their property and that they had no objections. ANALYSIS The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent reasonable use of property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a vadance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used Under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 3. Additional criteria to be used in considering requests for a vadance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: A. Consistent VVith Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. B. Light and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. C. Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the .congestion in the public street. D. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. E. Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. 4. City Code prohibits buildings and equipment within a "required setback" area, but allows some exceptions or permitted encroachments into the required setback areas, per the attached code excerpts. The code does not allow air conditioning units to be located in the required side yard setback. 5. In 1992 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve an ordinance amendment to the section of the city code i'egulating air conditioner setbacks. The amendment addressed the replacement of air conditioning condensers currently located in side yards as non- conforming uses, therefore, the amendment is not applicable to this situation. In 1997 the Planning Commission proposed amending the code to allow air conditioners to be placed in side yards if certain conditions were met, however, the amendment was not approved by the City Council, as the Council indicated they wanted to review these requests on a case-by-case basis. The two basic reasons for the ordinance are: = Planning Case 98-22 Page 2 10/2/98 Noise problems are serious when sleep disruption occurs and health is impacted. The noise ordinance severely restricts nighttime noise levels in residential areas between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. With nearby adjacent buildings and a noise source on the ground, there is the potential for both direct and reflected noise. Placing air conditioning condensers between the end walls of adjacent homes has been a source of conflict in the City, unless one home had the garage wall adjacent to the source. B. Aesthetic problems with equipment viewed from the front street is unsightly. This concern can be resolved with shrubbery or a decorative fence/enclosure between the equipment and the street or around the unit. 7. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitione~' in September and had no objection to the request as long as adequate screening was provided. 8. The city code allows replacement air conditioners to be located in the side yard if three conditions are met: A. Noise code violations may not result B. Unit to be visually screened from adjacent property C. Unit may not be within an easement 9. Staff does not have an objection to the approval of the variance for the following reasons: A. The topography of the property would screen the air conditioner from the front street view. B. The air conditioner would be somewhat screened from the neighbors on the east side because there is an existing four-foot wood fence between the properties. C. Per the submitted certified survey, the air conditioner would not be located in a drainage and utility easement because there is no easement on the side yard lot line. D. The petitioners have agreed to screen the unit by constructing an enclosure around it with materials similar to the privacy fence. E. A number of these requests have been approved in the past if adequate screening is provided. RECOMMENDATION Pending comments from the neighboring property, staff recommend approval of the request for a variance to locate an air conditioner in the side yard, subject to the following condition: 1. Adequate screening is provided around the unit, including an enclosure constructed of materials similar to the privacy fence and additional landscaping is added, with screening plan to be submitted to the City. Attachments: Zoning/Address/Topo Maps Petitioner's Correspondence Property Survey Petitioner Photos Application Log Planning Case 98-22 Page 3 10/2/98 I-. 0 44~S ,, · ~331~J~ ~ ~1~ .... ~, ',~. ' . , .,/ . '.,, .... ~ I ~ ...... ~ , ~ ~11~. ~ . --'.. , ' - ~-q '-"~"-, . · - 'r' ~ ..".. '.. ,. ,." ' --, /- ......... i~! ...... i--;.,',';t ! ~ ! 3~'- - ' ..": --,~'-. ='"'. ---:'. ". / ~ I / ~ : ,.~,-- .,, .., .,.,. ,o~,.... .,.. ,.. /. *'~,,2'": , ~ ',,,,.~".'~, ...... . .' --='. "~,". ~ '.-_ - / -- ~ ¥- . ,~,,ms', .~ . . ...- , -[ ... -., · -.. : - - ,~.~. .. ,~, ... ,. ~ , ~ ' :.- ~ ~ ', .~- , ,~ ... ". , -. .: - .~ ~ '- ...; '~.. / '-.. .. ,- · .-- , ; ~ , 4ke ~'Jr;re boc~ °4' +be- ~;./.g ClUIULTIIO [llllnilt~l IJJll JLtlll BIT.* III#LI Mill. qurve~ I ~ Pi..~.~ DECLARATION J [CERTIFY' ,., I~1~ OWNER T~T, A~ T~ ~.OPi OR 'OWNER S REPRESENTATIVE AI~I~T THIS "P..L~.,..'i'/~ LA N/'~,a,p p R 0 V E D. I'- 40' of' · S~LTVey O~ ,,he bounderS, es oft · Lo*, *8, B].ock 3, Goz'cloflJo' Likeview _Tez. rice. ~ ~ ~) - ~o//'.% /2~.~. ~,. ~/~, ,~.~. '7/1/ ;ton o~' 811 bu~.ldings, ~hereon,' end ell'vLsi, hie Arid o'~ lncz'ol~lMn_~l, if &nYe On II/d lsnd, A1 suz'voyed .by me t. hJ.l 28.,h d&y~Oc*,obez", 1969,' ' nd Suz'veyoz', MJ, rm. R~q. lqo. 7979 CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG a B C D E f g H I J Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant Address by City that required expires expires of under application Phone information extension extension was missing or waiver 98-22 Duane & Mary Jo Russ 8/24/98 10/23/98 12/22/98 9209 40 % Avenue N New Hope 546-2675 Ao B. C. D. Eo Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. VVhether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. Assign each application a number. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). List the date the City received the application. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval pedod applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) List the deadline under any extension or waiver. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the t~ -,limit expires. Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 98-23 Request for a Variance to the Fence Height Requirement to Allow Construction of a 10-Foot Sound Barrier/Fence 8201 54th Avenue North 07-118-21-11-0002 I-1, Limited Industrial Zoning District CNH Architects October 2, 1998 October 6, 1998 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to the fence, height requirement to allow construction of a 10-foot sound barrier/fence, pursuant to Sections 4.033(3), 4.034 and 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. CNH Architects has submitted a request for a variance in order to construct a fence that would exceed the maximum allowed height. The subject property is the 54t~ Avenue Warehouse (formerly United Hardware). The property is zoned I-1, Limited Industrial District and is adjacent to an R-l, Single Family Residential District. 3. The owner's intent of the fence would be to act as a sound barrier with screening between the docking bays and the residential property, which is across the street. Other options have been looked at in the past included relocating the loading bays and constructing a building to enclose the loading bay area. Both have been determined to be either too costly (enclosure) or not possible due to the lack of space needed (relocation). The enclosure that was approved earlier this year did not proceed, as the tenant did not move into the building. Currently, the owner claims that the site cannot be put to reasonable use as a warehouse facility due to noise that would be created by the traffic in and out of the loading area. 4. The owner of the building wants to solve the historical neighborhood trucking noise problem for a new warehouse tenant by installing a sound wall between the industrial use and the residential property to the north. The wall construction would also eliminate one driveway, which hopefully will enable the tenant to use the property without violating the noise ordinance. 5. The existing office/warehouse building contains 369,000 square feet, and is located on a parcel that contains 13 acres. The proposed sound wall would have'a length of 505 feet on 54"~ Avenue on the north side of the building and 64 feet on the northwest corner of the property, for a total of 569 linear feet. 6. Surrounding land uses to the east, south and west are all I-1 office/warehouse and R-1 single family homes, and Begin Park is located north of the site across 54"' Avenue. 7. The property is located in Planning District #8 of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, which include a specific concern about the noise and land use compatibility along this block, with a second caution about the condition and appearance of this building. Another basic principle of the new Comprehensive Plan is to encourage private investment, maintenance and upgrading of all properties. This application is intended to return the site to full use and reduce problems for nearby residents. Planning Case 98-23 Page 1 10/2/98 8. The topography of the property has a north (front) trucking area that is depressed five feet below the .54th Avenue roadway and the lot is generally fiat from that point to the south boundary. ~ 9. The petitioner has submitted correspondence which states that "the subject property is zoned I-1 and is adjacent to an R-1 Zoning District. No transitional zoning district exists, nor is there a topographical feature buffering the residential district from the Subject Property. The owner intends to construct a sound barrier/fence in excess of zoning ordinance limitations. City staff has indicated that a variance is necessary before commencement of construction. Once allowed and constructed, the fence height will be 10 feet. Subject to limits noted below, the fence will allow a property occupant uninterrupted trucking operations on site without the possibility of violating the City's noise ordinance. Without the variance, the property owner cannot put the property to reasonable use since it was designed as a warehouse facility. This request is justified in that it will allow the owner to address the acoustical issues inherent in the existing site. This building was built in 1966 with the docks on the north side of the building adjacent to the current residential zone. Our office has reviewed the options and have determined that there is not enough room on any other building side to relocate the loading docks. Consequently, we had our acoustical engineer evaluate the acoustical impact of adding the proposed sound barrier fence. He has determined that this design will reduce the sound level in order to meet the City of New Hope - Sound Ordinance while still being able to operate a viable warehouse operation (see attached letter). In summary, according to the acoustical study by Midwest Acoustics this fence will allow deliveries by up to 12 trucks per hour during the nighttime and 17 trucks per hour for the daytime while complying with the Sound Ordinance. The tenant that just began to occupy the building does not expect to exceed eight trucks per hour during the nighttime on the busiest nights with a majority of the nights being significantly less than that amount." 10. The petitioner further states that "in addition to addressing the sound issues for the neighborhood and bolstering adjacent property values, this site improvement would positively impact the aesthetics of the property. First of all, the fence would screen the overhead doors facing 54th Avenue as well as trucks and trailers in the dock area. This fence would be constructed of precast concrete piers and stained wood panels. The wood panels will alternate sides of the piers to create some variety of shadow lines along the fence. In addition, the property owner proposes to remove the existing bushes which are planted on the street side of the property line in order to improve sightlines for vehicles entering and exiting the site. The attached landscape plan indicates that these plantings will be replaced with boulevard style trees, coniferous bushes and vines to soften the visual impact of the fence. We are indicating generously sized plantings to provide as much immediate visual benefit as possible." 11. Finally, the petitioner states that "the building owner has also begun a building revitalization program that will benefit the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Currently planned work includes repaving the parking lot, replacing the existing overhead doors, replacing the building's roofing, removing the propane tank along the east side of the building and tuckpointing deteriorated mortar joints. In summary, we submit that this project will be a benefit to the neighborhood, the City, and the building owner. The sound barrier fence will allow for improved acoustics, landscaping, and building image while at the same time not have any significant negative impact on the neighborhood." 12. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments regarding this particular request, however, staff have received calls about increased trucking activity in the neighborhood over the past several weeks. ANALYSIS 1. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent reasonable use of property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness,, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner, and if the Planning Case 98-23 Page 2 10/2/98 f., variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably ~ diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 2. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 3. Additional criteria to be used in considering requests for a variance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: A. Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. B. Light and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. C. Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. D. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. E. Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. 4. The applicant has stated that the owner cannot put the property t° reasonable use since it is designated as a warehouse facility, due to the noise that will be created by the flow of semi-trailer traffic that would enter, stand, and exit the property. The loading area is located on the north side of the building. Across the street exists a residential neighborhood that would receive a majority of the noise reflecting off the building. A fence acting as a sound barrier and visual screen for the residential neighborhood must be erected in order to bdng the noise levels down to meet the standards established by the Code of Ordinances. 5. The issue associated with the request involves the applicant needing a sound barrier (fence) to reduce the amount of noise created by the semi traffic entering the loading bay area. The New Hope Code describes fence height requirements, but is silent about acoustical sound walls. Fence height maximums on residential properties are 42 inches in the front yard and eight feet in the side and rear yards and the maximum fence height for all other properties, including industrial, is eight feet. The height necessary to adequately shield the residential neighborhood from the sound and visual impact of the loading area would exceed the eight-foot maximum, as the proposed sound wall (solid, tongue and groove wood) would be 10 feet high when viewed from the public street, thus being two-feet higher than allowed by code. 6. The fence will be constructed of precast concrete piers and stained wood panels. The wood panels would alternate sides of the piers to create some variety of shadow lines along the fence. To be an effective noise barrier, the fence must be of a height that completely blocks the line of sight of the loading dock and associated truck traffic. The height of the wall is determined by a straight line drawn from the top of residential windows across the street, to the top of the overhead truck doors on this site. The wall will be 10 feet high from the street and 12 or 13 feet when viewed from the trucking area, because sound walls always extend below grade. 7. Many complaints have been received over the years about trucking noise and a lack of maintenance at this warehouse. It has become clear that few companies wanted to lease space with constant complaints and city noise ordinance warnings. These truck docks were approved on the front of the warehouse in 1967; facing homes built in the 1950s. The city code no longer allows loading docks in the front yard. The best solution for this property seems to be a sound wall. Planning Case 98-23 Page 3 10/2/98 8. Per the Planner's report, in requesting a variance, the applicant must prove "undue hardship" for~e Planning Commission to find in favor of the request. Section 4.221(1) of the New Hope Zoning ~ e reads as follows: "Undue hardship as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if used under conditions a/lowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations a/one shall not constitute an Undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for so/ar energy systems." In this case, the applicant cannot put the operation to reasonable use due to the noise that will be created. The warehouse operation is a permitted use within the I-1 District. The prospect of relocating the loading area to the side of the building or enclosing the lOading area have been looked at, and' have been found to be impossible or financially unlikely. 9. The New Hope Comprehensive Plan provides provisions that support the request for the fence height variance. The following are policies that relate to the 54th Avenue warehouse. City-Wide General Goals Protect property values and maintain a strong tax base. Goal 2: Policies: D. Enhance local tax base within the City by encouraging high quality commercial and industrial building expansions. Goal 4: A cohesive land use pattern which ensures compatibility and strong functional relationships among activities is to be implemented. Policies: A. Maintain and strengthen the character of individual neighborhood. C. Investigate remedies to correct or eliminate existing land use compatibility problems. Industrial Goals Goal 1: Retain and expand New Hope's industrial land uses to insure a diverse tax base and local employment opportunities. Policies: A. Goal 2: Continue to facilitate the in-place expansion of existing industries. Redevelop industrial sites that display buildin§ deterioration, obsolete site design, and/or land use compatibility issues. 10. The property is located in the I-1, Limited Industrial District. Warehouse operation is among the permitted uses included in the zoning district. There is no' transitional zoning district, nor is there a topographical feature buffering the industrial district and the residential district. 11. For variance justification, under Section 9.423(1) of the Code of Ordinances, states that the maximum noise level received by the R-1 Zoning Distdct shall not exceed the following: Planning Case 98-23 Page 4 10/2/98 · I Day ( 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Night (10 p.m. to 7: a.m.) L10 L50 L10 L50 Decibels 65 60 55 50 The L10 means the sound level expressed in decibels (dBA) which is exceeded 10 percent of the time for a one-hour period, as specified in the current standards, S1.4, of the American National Standards Institute. The L50 means the sound level similarly expressed and measured which is exceeded 50 percent of the time for a one-hour period. As stated in the letter by Mr. Rich Van Doeren of Midwest Acoustics and Electronics, Inc., there are varying levels of barriers that would accommodate varying levels of traffic into the loading area so as to satisfy the L10 and L50 categories. 12. The Building Official states that the acoustical analysis letter is consistent with the Noise Ordinance and EPA techniques to predict the performance of sound walls. The proposed barrier is a ":4 dBA barrier" design, meaning that this hard-surfaced wall will reduce the measured noise at the receiver's home by 4 decibels - a very significant reduction. During the nighttime hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., the code is toughest and this wall will allow a few trucks to move around the lot without violating the law. The petitioner has stated an intention to have no more than eight trucks per hour at night, which is 50 percent of the predicted maximum. This applies for brief 30-second truck noise events, only, not trucks parking for 10 minutes or four hours, with the engine running. 13. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and City Department Heads and appropriate staff and consultants reviewed the plans. Revised plans were submitted as a result of these meetings. 14. The revised plans include the following details: A. Wall Detail: The aesthetics of the wall will be limited to stained wood, with precast concrete posts about six feet apart. The fence will be staggered so that 32-foot sections are offset about one foot, with posts on the north side/south side/north side/south side, etc. This reduces the effect of a long, straight, massive wall along the roadway. The varying shadow line created by this effect will improve its functional appearance. Neighbors may have suggestions on the color of stain, behind landscaping. B. Landscaping; Presently, some plantings exist, but additional trees and shrubs will be provided between the fence and the road to act as a visual screening of the fence. Vines will be provided as over growth on the fence, which is intended to screen the physical appearance of the fence from the residential area. Staff find that the landscaping is generous. The existing illegal boulevard shrubs will be removed with this plan. Healthy boulevard trees will remain. Thirty-three new trees, pines and honeylocust are planned, as well as 40 tall tree-like shrubs, arborvitae and serviceberry, 93 junipers, 24 Boston ivy clumps, for a total of 190 plantings. All of these will be on the residential side of the wall to provide a softening of its effect. The petitioner has provided the following planting schedule: Quantity Name Size 10 Austrian Pine 6' BB 18 Techny Arborvitae 8' BB 11 Skyline Honeylocust 4" BB 12 Skyline Honeylocust 2 ~" BB 22 Shadblow Serviceberry/clump 6' BB 93 Broadmoor Juniper 18" Cont. 24 Boston Ivy 2 yr. Cont. Planning Case 98-23 Page 5 10/2/98 The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and provided the following comments: 1. The plans reference--MnDOT Standard Plate 5-297.661, "Wood Planking Noise Barrier with Concrete Posts." The noise wall will be constructed in accordance with the information in the plate. A copy of the plate is attached. 2. The plans indicate an alternating face type of wall is proposed. This is a wall type No. 2 according to the plate. This type of wall is to be used in a non-fill condition. In other words, the soil must be at the same height on both sides of the wall. If there is soil fill on the post side, the soil pressure will push the boards away from the posts over time. 3. The soil must slope away from the wall for proper drainage. Based on this criterion and the previous cited fill requirement, a grading plan should be submitted. The direction of drainage must be indicated on both sides of the wall. Grading, paving, and storm water requirements including sewers and swales should be reflected on the site plan. Planting locations must be coordinated with the drainage plan. 4. Elevations of the wall in relation to 54th Avenue and the on-site parking lot should be indicated. The height of the wall should be based on the height of anticipated vehicles and/or lights on the buildings by the loading docks. 5. Leaving the existing west entrance in lieu of the center entrance is recommended. This would lead to more efficient traffic patterns on the lot. This .also leaves the driveway in a closer alignment with a side street, Yukon Avenue. 6. The setback requirements for the wall from public right-of-way shall comply with city requirements. Driveway and boulevard construction in public right-of-way shall be reviewed and coordinated with Public Works. D. Li.clhtin~: on the site will not change and a plan of existing lighting contours has been provided showing minimal illumination. E. Snow Storage: shown on plan at west side of parking lot. F. Directional Si.qns: "Truck Entry" sign indicated at west driveway entrance and "Truck Exit Only" at east driveway. Also eight signs to be installed on south side of wall stating "No Idling Within 40 feet of Wall." G. 'Center Curb Cut: to be closed. H. Curb and Gutter: New B6x12 concrete curb and gutter to be installed at curb cuts and along north side of truck area. Turning radius is illustrated. I, Trash & RecYclin.q Stora.qe: identified inside building. 15. Staff is supportive of granting the variance request and commends the petitioner on the submitted plans. RECOMMENDATION Pending public comment, staff recommends approval of the variance fence/sound wall, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. request to install a 10-foot Compliance with City Engineer recommendations, including submittal of grading plan. Submit a specific trucking log to the Building Official covering an agreed upon timeline for one year after wall completion. This will list all truck arrival and departure times between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. It is assumed that such records already exist for truck manifolds, etc. Planning Case 98-23 No outdoor storage is included with the approval. Page 6 10/2/98 Development Agreement to be executed with City and performance bond to be submitted for specific site improvements (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). Attachments: Zoning/AddressFFopo Maps Petitioner Correspondence Midwest Acoustics Correspondence Property Survey Site Data Site Plan Landscape Plan Landscape Schedule Site Section Partial Sound Wall Elevation Sound Wall Details Planning Consultant Report City Engineer Comments Comprehensive Plan Excerpt Application Log Planning Case 98-23 Page 7 10/2/98 R-1 R-O R-1 $ R-2 ~. R-3 R-4 - R-5 R-O t: R-O(F B-1 L B-2 F B-3 ~ HOSTERMAN JR HIGH SCHOOL NOR;'H RDGE CARE F~.~ CENTER RAILROAD , 55TH AVE. N. BEGIN PARK 5q07 AVE. ~'lDO S",' 7C'- ?7 tURI OF RRIST 50 TH AVE. ZEAL&NO AVE, ACRE PARK AVE. WINNETKA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ;'40;.n4o7 ST. AVE. N. 50 AVE. N. j ! ? ,,' 7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLEVALLEY~ MN 55124-7580 {612) 431-4433 September 24, 1998 City of New Hope Planning Commission and City Council 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: 54th Avenue Warehouse (formerly United Hardware) Fence Height Variance Request The subject property is zoned I-1 and is adjacent to an R-1 zOning district. No transitional zoning district exists, nor is there a topographical feature buffering the residential district from the Subject Property. The owner intends to construct a sound barrier/fence in excess of zoning ordinance limitations. City staff'has indicated that a variance is necessary before commencement of construction. Once allowed and constructed, the fence height will be 10 feet. Subject to limits noted below, the fence will allow a property occupant uninterrupted trucking operations on site without the possibility of violating the City's noise ordinance. Without the variance the property owner cannot put the property to reasonable use since it was designed as a warehouse facility. This request is justified in that it will allow the owner to address the acoustical issues inherent in the existing site. This building was built in 1966 with the docks on the north side oftbe building adjacent to the current residential zone. Our office has reviewed the options and have determined that there is not enough room on any other building side to relocate the loading docks. Consequently, we had our acoustical engineer, Rick Van Doeren of Midwest Acoustics, evaluate the acoustical impact of adding the proposed sound barrier fence. He has determined that this design will reduce the sound level in order to meet the City of New Hope - Sound Ordinance while still being able to operate a viable warehouse operation (see attached letter). In summary, according to the acoustical study by Midwest Acoustics this fence will allow deliveries by up to twelve trucks per hour during the nighttime and seventeen trucks per hour for the daytime while complying with the Sound Ordinance. The tenant that just began to occupy the building does not expect to exceed eight trucks per hour during the nighttime on the busiest nights with a majority of the nights being significantly less than that amount. In addition to addressing the sound issues for the neighborhood and bolstering adjacent property values, this site improvement would positively impact the aesthetics of the property. First of all, the fence would screen the overhead doors facing 54th Avenue as well as trucks and trailers in the dock area. This fence would be constructed of precast concrete piers and stained wood panels. The wood panels will alternate sides of the piers to create some variety of shadow lines along the fence. In addition, as suggested by the city staff, the property owner proposes to remove the existing bushes which are planted on the street side of the property line in order to improve sightlines for vehicles entering and exiting the site. The attached landscape plan indicates that these plantings will be replaced with boulevard style trees, coniferous bushes and vines to soften the visual impact of the H:~'/76~02~VARIANC t.TXT fence. We are indicating generously sized plantings to provide as much immediate visual benefit as possible. The building owner has also began a building revitalization program that will benefit the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Currently planned work includes repaying the parking lot, replacing the existing overhead doors, replacing the building's roofing, removing the propane tank along the east side of the building and mckpoiming deteriorated mortar joints. In summary, we submit that this project will be a benefit to the neighborhood, the city, and the building owner. The sound barrier fence will allow for improved acoustics, landscaping, and building image while at the same time not have any significant negative impact on the neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, CNH Architects, Inc. Reg. No. · 21234 H:V~/6W~VARIANC~.'rXT Midwest Acoustics and Electronics, Inc. 7300 France Avenue South, Suite 201 Edina, MN 55435 (612) 897-1814, (800) 544-5311 SEP 4 1998 To~ From: Re: CNH Architects, Inc. September 1, 1998 7300 West 147th Street, Suite 504 Apple Valley, MN 55124 Attention: Mr. Quinn Hutson Rick Van Doeren Estimated exceedance of the New Hope Noise Ordinance by trucks entering and leaving the 54t~ Avenue Northwestern Mutual Life warehouse just west of Winnetka Ave. N. in New Hope, MN.. Background Midwest Acoustics was asked to provide a brief summary of the estimated exceedance or non-exceedance of the noise levels in the New Hope noise ordinance by trucks using the 54*" Avenue North warehouse owned by Northwestern Mutual Life. The operation of the warehouse was to include trucks entering, docking, turning off their engines, and closing the dock overhead doors. No refrigeration traits were to be present and there was to be no idling of truck engines while wa/tinE in the truck yarcL The track yard is the area within the property in which trucks maneuver in order to back into a dock, and through which they move in order to exit onto a public meet. The present warehouse plan shows a nominally 400 foot long barrier erected on the north property line of the warehouse property and extending about S0 feet to the south from the northwest corner of the property. The receiver locations of concern were locations on the property line of the residential and park property on the north side of 54~ Ave. North. It is our understanding that both residential and park land uses are classified as residential for the purposes of the New Hope noise ordinance (the ordinance). In order to estimate the potential for exceedance of the L10 and L$0 noise levels in the ordinance, two categofiee of receiver locations were considered: 1. Locations having a direct line of sight (LOS) to the entering or leaving truck during its entire stay in the yard, 2. Locations that would be shielded from the truck after it had proceeded into the yard a distance of nominally twenty feet. Barrier walls can be effective noise reduction tools, When a noise source is between a barrier and another large reflecting surface such as the wall of a building, multiple reflections will exist that can significantly degrade the benefits of the l~m'ier. These multiple reflections can be substantially reduced by using an absorbing inner surface (on the source side) for the hamer or by using an outward vertical slope for the barrier. Either absorbing material on the source side of the barrier wall, or a vertical slope (on the order of ten degrees) is needed to realize a barrier noise reduction (NR) close to that predicted using free space caleulatious. In this case, with the vertical sides of the warehouse present, for a barrier as planned along the north property line of the vrarehouse, use of either a slope or of absorber will matter. For a barrier top edge nominally 13 feet above the yard elevation and a truck noise source, the barrier noise reduction for either an absorbing or sloped barrier would be approximately 9 dBA~ For a hard, vertical barrier, the noise reduction would be approximately 4 dBA. Placement of the truck entry and exit openings in the barrier will affect the amount of time that residences (as opposed to park property) will be subject to line-of-sight truck noise. Since the ordinance considers both residential and park property lines to be residential, placement of the openings will probably not affect ordinance conclusions. The entry placement may affect the noise environment for one or more neighbors to the nort~ l:~e 2, Memorandum to CNH Architect~, Inc. from Midwest Acoustics, September 1, 1998 Findinga The estimates were baaed on the following assumptionS: No idling truck engines inside the truck yard, trucks make noise only while in motion to the dock where the engine is shut off and the door is closed, · There is a simplified truck path from the entry to the dock, · Truck speed in the yard is 8 mph, Truck data from the Fleming yard is applicable, · Trucks move directly from the entry to the dock, and turn off their engines with a notmnal time in the yard of 30 seconds.' If the time in the yard were to double, the number of trucks permitted per hour wouM be halved. Nighttime (lOpm to 7 am). Trucks will cause an exceedance of the nighttime L10 level of 55 dBA the entire time they are present in the yard with or without the proposed barrier. For an average yard time of 30 seconds, this would mean that: · A total of twelve trucks per hour would be permitted by the ordinance L 10 requirement. · The L50 requirement will be met if the L 10 is satisfied. Daytime (7 am to lOpm). The' estimated number of trucks per hour that would be permitted by the ordinance with the above assumptionS are discussed below for various hamer conditions. For No Barrier, the trucks in the yard wonld cause an exceedance of 65 dBA for the entire time in the yard. For an average yard time of 30 seconds, this would mean that, approximately. · A total of twelve trucks per hour would be permitted by the ordinance L 10 requ/rement. · The L50 requirement will be met ff the L 10 is satisifi~ For a 4 dBA Barrier (vertical, no absorption, barrier top edge nominally at an elevation of 927), trucks in the yard would cause an exceedance of 65 dBA for time periods ranging from seven seconds to 30 seconds. This means that, approximately. · A total of seventeen trucks per hour would be permitted by the ordinance L 10 requirement. · The LS0 requirement will be met if the L 10 is satisfied For a 9 dBA Barrier (sloped or absorber-lined, berrier top edge nominally at an elevation of 927), trucks in the yard wxmld cause a 65 dBA exceedance of either 30 seconds (for LOS receivers) or approximately 4 seconds (for shielded receivers). This means that, approximately:. · A total of 28 trucks per hour would be permitted by the ordinance L10 requ~emant. · The LS0 requi~_m_~nt will be met ff the L 10 is satistied Thanks for your busing. Please call with any questionS. Midwe~e~tce~'tics ~lect/~f~ics, Inc. Richard E. Van Doeren President I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN. SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT V/AS PREPARED BY ME UNDER MY DIRECT S[,tPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REg&STERED PROFESSIONAL ENO;NEER UNDER THE LAWS It Ii EDGE Or E)I TUM~NOU$ NOTES Location and sizes of oil underground utilities shown hereon ore oppro×imote only and ore shown based on field location of visible fi~tures in combination with available data provided by various sources. Not oll underground utilities ore shown hereon. Verier o!1 utilities critical to construction or design Cat'tact CO!~NEP STATE ONE CALL at 454-0002 fo~ precise on sire Jocati?n of utilities Drior to any e×c,Jvotion. 3.) This s,jrveyo,' is not aware of anv easements or other matters of record or not of record affecting the above described property other than as shown 4.) Survey ;s subject to revision upon receipt of a current attorney's + fle opinion or a title insurance commi~m_~n+ 5.) The property hereon lies within Flood Zone ¢ (~reas of minimal flooding) of the Notional Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance I~ate Mop Community P~ne' Number 270177 QO01 B, dated January I. 1981. 6. ) Area: Gross = 612.959 sauare feet or 14.072 acres Net = 569.24'7 square feet or 13.0n.~3 ,]:,'es .; ) Z,.,nif~g I-- I (,Ind,~¢tr,,]t I) 8. ) Setbacks' Building = 54th Street - .50 feet Side - 20 feet Rear - 35 feet or I0 feet from ro:lroot Parking = 54th Street - I0 feet Side and Rear - I0 feet LEGENO CB '--.BOX CI~ EM G~DL GW Mit Denotes control bo,' Denotes cast iron pipe Denotes corrugated metal bide W Denotes e~ertnc meter WMH Denote~__ fire -hookuc, COT Denotes. flag pole LOC Denotes guard post PINM Denotes ground light PINR Denotes guy wire SPRCB Denotes handicap ~,arkir, g sign Denotes fire hvdro,~t Denotes n~onhole OH ELEC Denotes overhead e,ectric DIV Denotes post indicator DP Denotes power Dole PPLP Denotes power !~ote/light Dole RCP Denotes reinforced concrete pipe SAN S Denotes sanit~-~. STA Denotes Surve~ Control UG TELE Denotes undergroun:l telep~ SPRCG Denotes water main Denotes water r~anh,l,le Denotes Cottonwood t,'ee Denotes Locust tree Denofes Mu.oho Pine free Denotes Red P;ne tree Denotes Colorado B'ue SDr'J:'~ tree Dena+es ',:~,:,'a.to ?een Sc' ;-e tree Denotes shrub WAREHOUSE I landscape schedule 10 AUSTRIAN PINE Pinus nigra 18 TECHNY ARBORVITAE Thuja occidentalis 11 SKYLINE tlONEYLOCUST Gleditsia triacanthos 12 SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST Gleditsia triacanthos 'Skycole' 22 SI-LADBLOW SERVICEBERRY/clump Amelanchier canadensis 'Techny' 'Skycole' 6' BB 8' BB 4" BB 2!~" BB 6' BB ~93 24 BROADMOOR JUNIPER Juniperus sabina 'Broadmoor' plant staggered doulbe row, 3ft.on BOSTON IVY Parthenocissus plant in threes, tricuspidata 8ft.apart 18" Cont. center 2yr. Cont. Areas planted.with SERVICEBERRY & ARBORVITAE shall be mulched with shredded wood,. 6"thick. should be away from planted E Y L O C U S T '~ · P ,~ ,. Individual trees shall have a shredded wood mulch placed over the root zone, 6'~thick. Care taken to keep mulch the bark of newly trees. I N E S SC 3 J_ I' I I I 'I-'Y~I(..AL YV,~L.J_ I~L~V^'I"I~N P~:~T' I~_'I-AIL AT ~EP,, PeST PP__TAIL AT 5f=I=SET H/C",,-f..-..~ P~T N~~=~O RT H W E ST ASSOCIATED COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN CO N S U LTANTS MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Troy D. Hagen / Alan BriXius 1 October 1998 New Hope - 54th Avenue Warehouse - Fence Height Variance 131.01 - 98.15 BACKGROUND CNH Architects has submitted a request for a variance in order to construct a fence that would exceed the maximum allowed height. The subject property is the 54th Avenue Warehouse (formerly United Hardware). The property is zoned I-1, Limited Industrial District and is adjacent to an R-l, Single Family District. The owner's intent of the fence would be to act as a sound barrier with screening between the docking bays and the residential property, which is across the street. Other options have been looked at in the past included relocating the loading bays and constructing a building to enclose the loading bay area. Both have been determined to be either too costly (enclosure) or not possible due to the lack of space needed (relocation). Currently, the owner claims that the site cannot be-put to reasonable use as a warehouse facility due to noise that would be created by the traffic in and out of the loading area. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Landscaping Illustration Exhibit D - Midwest Acoustics and Electronics Correspondence 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 5541 6 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 ! 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@WINTERNET.cOM ANALYSIS The subject property is an existing 1-story brick office/warehouse building located at 8201 54th Avenue North. The applicant has stated that the owner cannot put the property to reasonable use since it is designated as a warehouse facility, due to the noise that will be created by the flow of semi-trailer traffic the would enter, stand, and exit the property. The loading area is located on the north side of the building. Across the street exists a residential neighborhood that would receive a majority of the noise reflecting off the building..A fence acting as a sound barrier and visual screen for the residential neighborhood must be erected in order to bring the noise levels down to meet the standards established by the Code of Ordinances. Fence Height. The issue associated with the request involves the applicant needing a sound barrier (fence) to reduce the amount of noise created by the semi traffic entering the loading bay area. ,'--~ ...... , th~ h~:,,3ht n~c~ry t,., ~,d~quat~ly o, ,,~,,., ,,,~ r~c~",d~nt:,~l r;,A;-""-'"'"c'',.,~,...,.,,,,., .. Rcm '" ...... '~ ""'~ "; .... ' ;-~ "' '"" '"""': ........" ' '"' ..... '~ tho ~'"~" The fence will be constructed of precast concrete piers and stained wood panels.' The wood panels would alternate sides of the piers to create some variety of shadow lines along the fence. To be an effective noise barrier the fence must be of a height that completely blocks the line of sight of the loading dock and associated truck traffic. Justification. In requesting a variance, the applicant must prove "undue hardship" for the Planning Commission to find in favor of the request. Section 4.221(1) of the New Hope Zoning Code reads as follows: "Undue Hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the pro~perty in question cannot be put to reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the-terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. In this case, the applicant cannot put the operation to reasonable use due to the noise that will be created. The warehouse operation is a permitted use within the I-1 District. The prospect of re-locating the loading area to the side of the building or enclose the loading area have been looked at, and have been found to be impossible or financially unlikely. 2 Comprehensive Plan. The New Hope Comprehensive Plan provides provisions that support the request for the fence height variance. The following are policies that relate to the 54th Avenue Warehouse: CITY-WIDE GENERAL GOALS Goal 2: Protect property values and maintain a strong tax base. Policies: Enhance local tax baSe within the City by encouraging high quality commercial and industrial building expansions. Goal 4: A cohesive land use pattern which ensures compatibility and strong functional relationships among activities is to be implemented. A. Maintain and strengthen the character of individual neighborhood. Investigate remedies to correct or eliminate existing land use compatibility problems. INDUSTRIAL GOALS Goal 1: Retain and expand New Hope's industrial land uses to insure a diverse tax base and local employment opportunities. Policies: A. Continue to facilitate the in-place expansion of existing industries. Goal 2: Redevelop industrial site that display building deterioration, obsolete site design, and/or land use compatibility issues. Zoning. The property is located in the I-1, Limited Industrial District. -Warehouse operation is among the permitted uses included in the zoning district. There is no transitional zoning district, nor is there a topographical feature buffering the 'industrial district and the residential district. 3 Noise. For variance justification, under Section 9.423 (1) of the Code of Ordinances~'' states that the maximum noise level received by the R-1 zoning district shall not exceed the following: Day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) L10 L50 L10 L50 Decibels 65 60 55 50 The L10 means the sound level expressed in decibels (dBA) which is exceeded 10 percent of the time for a one hour period, as specified in the current standards, S1.4, of the American National Standards Institute. The L50 means the sound level similarly expressed and measured which is exceeded 50 percent of the time for a one hour period. As stated in the letter by Mr. Rick Van Doeren of Midwest Acoustics and Electronics, Inc. (Exhibit E), there are varying levels of barriers that would accommodate varying levels of traffic into the loading area so as to satisfy the L10 and L50 categories. Landscaping. Presently, some plantings exists, but additional trees and shrubs will be provided between the fence and the road to act as a visual screening of the fence (EXhibit C). Vines will be provided as over growth on the fence, which is intended to screen the physical appearance of the fence from the residential area. The landscaping shall .meet the minimum standards established under Section 4.033(4). Minimum plant size, spacing of plants, and design shall be closely followed. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding review, our office recommends that the variance from fence height be approved based on the following conditions: 1. The Planning Commission finds that the request is consistent with the Nev~ Hope Comprehensive Plan. 2. The applicant designates the type or level of sound barrier to be installed as fencing. 3. The Planning Commission finds that there exist a need for the fence height to ten (10) feet. Doug Sandstad Quinn Hutson 4 BROOKLYN PARK INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMEI~T TARGET AREA S I nd ustdal Redevelopment Infill Development Industrial Compatibility Areas City of New Hope GOLDEN VALLEY EXHIBIT A ease Map: Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates June lSgS 0 1000 2000 30C0 SCALE IN FEET ComPrehensive Plan Update Development Frame work BONESTRO0 ROSENE ANDERL[K Bonestroo Rosene M d rlik & Associates Engineers & Architects MEMO ~'6516361311 10/01/98 09:51 ~ :02/C~3 N0:502 Foster, P~. · David ~. I ~nta. Pt · ffO~tl C. ~u~beK, AJ.A - Mine A. ~ ~[. · Kirk McDonald, Community Development Coordinator FROM:* Viam Vander Top DATE: 8201 Ma* Avm~ North Our File No. 34-Gan E98-10 We have reviewed the mbmitted plans and pmpom~ site impmvemems as they relate to the Noise Wail. The following comments am provided: e at The phnl roferenm MnlX)T gtsndatd Plate 5-299.661. 'q~Vood Planldng Noise Barrier wffh Concrete Posts." The noise wail wil~ be constructed ia accordance with the iaformatioa in Iba plate. A copy of the plate is attached. The plans indicate an slimming faoe type of wall is proposed. This is a Wall type No. 2 according to the plato, This type of wall is to be used in a non-fill condition. In (Xbor words, the soil must bo at the nme height on both sides of the wall. ff there is soft fill on the post dde, the soil pressure will push the boards away fi'om the porn ave~ time. The soil must slope away from tim wall tm, proper draiaa~, Based on this criterion nd the previous cimt fill mqulremanL a gxsdiag plan should be submitted. Tho direction of draln~ must be indicated on both sides of thc wall. Grading, pavan& and storm warm' req~ts including sewers and swales should be reflected on the site plan, Planting locations must be coordinated with tho drainase pin. ElevaUons of the wall Lu relation to 49~ Avenue and tho on-site parking lot should bo indicated, The hoi~t of the wall ~mld be based on the heist of anticipated vehicles and/or lights on the ImJldisp by lt~ loading docks. Leaving tho existing w~ enlr~ce in lieu of the center entrance is recommended. This would leed to more ~fieient usfflo proteins on the lin, This dso leaves the driveway in a closm' alignment with 8 side slxeeL Yukon Avenue. The seti~ck requirements for tho wM] from pubiIo fight-of-way shall comply wi~h City req~ts. Driveway and boulevard oonsffuction in public right-of.w~ shall bo reviewed and coordinated wi~h Public Works. ff you have any questions regarding these eommeau, please call Mark or myself. Mark Hah.me 2335 ~dVest Highway 36 · St. paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 · Fax: 612-636-1311 BONESTRO0 ROSENE ANDERL[K ~'6516361311 10/01/98 09:51 I~ :03/08 N0:502 BONESTRO0 ROSENE ANDERLZK ~'6516361311 10/01/98 09:51 ~] :04/08 N0:502 Community Perspectives District 8 District 8 represents an industrial area between Boone and Winnetka Avenue. District 8 Issues · Noise and land use compatibility issues between the industrial land uses and residential land use to the north. · The condition and appearance of the industrial building on 54th Avenue. District 10 District 10 consists primarily of a single family land use, however, there is some medium density residential and industrial land uses in the northeast corner of this planning district. The New Hope Public Works Capital Improvement Plan identifies infrastructure improvements between 47th Avenue and 50th Avenue in the Year 2000. City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update 32 Planning Tactics O. 0 -'ri.u o8 UJ Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 98-24 Request for Planned Unit Development to Allow Second Building on One Lot and a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Drive-Through Window at a Newly Constructed Restaurant Building at Midland Shopping Center 2703 - 2769 Winnetka Avenue North 19-118-21-44-0066 B-4, Community Business Zoning District Engelsma LP/Kraus-Anderson (owner) Applicant: Taco Bell October 2, 1998 October 6, 1998 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting planned unit development to allow a second building on one lot and a conditional use permit to allow a drive-through window at a newly constructed restaurant building at Midland Shopping Center, pursuant to Sections 4.032(2)(e), 4.124(3)(j), 4.036(10)(z), and 4.21 Of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. Kraus-Anderson Realty Company has requested PUD approval to construct a 2,135 square foot building for Taco Bell at the Midland Shopping Center. The applicant is also requesting CUP approval to allow a drive-through window and flexibility through the PUD to allow less than 180 feet of car stacking. The proposed building would replace approximately 3,000 square feet of the eastern part of the shopping center that would be demolished, which formerly contained a bank building. The new restaurant would be constructed 40 feet east of the center. City staff believes that this is a good redevelopment opportunity to add new interest and vitality to the Midland Shopping Center. The shopping center is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. The proposed location of the Taco Bell i~ at the northeast corner of the site. 3. The shopping center is located on a parcel that contains 7.58 acres and the existing shopping center building contains 69,000 square feet. 4. The shopping center is located in a B-4, Community Business Zoning District and surrounding land uses include R-O office across Winnetka Avenue to the east, the muffler shop, Medicine Lake Road and Golden Valley to the south, R-O nursing home and R-3 apartments to the west, and R-O/PUD dentist office and R-2 duplexes to the north adjacent to the proposed new restaurant. 5. The property is located in Planning District #18 of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, which sites a concern about the viability of Midland Shopping Center due to the vacancy rates. A basic principle of the Comprehensive Plan Update is to encourage private investment, maintenance and upgrading of all properties. This private redevelopment would be an economic boost to the center and vicinity. 6. This project will involve private water and sewer main revisions and an extensive redesign of the north Midland Center driveway, along with a new restaurant drive-up lane. 7. The topography of the site is fiat at a 910-foot elevation, except for the northwest corner of the lot, which has a steep bank rising to the existing residential land to the north and is at a 928-foot elevation. 8.' Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified, including the City of Golden Valley, and staff have received several comments from neighboring property owners regarding this request, including hoUrs of operation, loitering and increased traffic on neighborhood streets. General PUD Requirements 1. ANALYSIS The site is zoned B-4, Community Business District. A restaurant is a permitted use in this District. A drive- through service window requires a conditional use permit. The shopping center requires a CUP/PUD. 2. The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to provide for the grouping of land parcels for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel by parcel, piecemeal, sporadic and Unplanned approach to development. It is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering of buildings and activities. It is further intended that PUDs are to be characterized by central management, integrated planning and architecture, joint or common use of parking, maintenance of open space and other similar facilities, and harmonious selection and efficient distribution of uses. 3. Midland Center was constructed in 1961, before PUDs existed, but today the City considers each of the large shopping centers a PUD. The typical PUD includes a cluster of lots, buildings and land uses that tend to have a wide range of hours of operation and peak usage. This is the case.with Midland Center and the proposal to add a small restaurant as a second building and sharing existing driveways and parking facilities. The New Hope Code prohibits two principle buildings on one lot, except for a PUD. Staff finds that this proposal is routine if a determination is made that the capacity of the property and roadways is sufficient to absorb a Taco Bell. 4. Documentation has been submitted from the Midland Center owner to cleady define grounds and parking lot maintenance responsibilities, as required for a PUD. A new survey has been provided with all of the construction details that were requested. Conditional Use Permit 1. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the conditional use is to be allowed, the City may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite for consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health, and safety. 2. Other general criteria to be considered when determining Whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit include: A. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City. B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the Code. D. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. E. Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteda ' specified for the various zoning districts: Planning Case 98-24 Page 2 10/2/98 1. In Business Districts (B-t, B-2, B-3, B-4): a. Traffic. The proposed use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. b. Nearby Residences. Adjacent residentially zoned land will not be adversely affected because of traffic generation, noise, glare, or other nuisance characteristics. c. Effect on Other Businesses. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of unduly heavy non- shopping traffic or general unsightliness. 3. The Zoning Code allows drive-through service windows for convenience food establishments by conditional use permit if the following cdteria are satisfied: (a) Stacking: Not less than 180 feet of segregated automobile stacking lane must be provided for the service window. (b) Traffic Control: The stacking lane and its access must be designed to control traffic in a manner to protect the buildings and green area on the site. (c) Use of Street: No part of the public street or boulevard may be used for stacking or automobiles. (d) Noise: The stacking lane, order board intercom and window placement shall be designed and located in such a manner as to minimize automobile and communication noises, emissions and headlight glare as to adjacent premises, particularly residential premises, and to maximize maneuverability of vehicles on the site. (e) Hours: Hours of operation shall be limited as necessary to minimize the effect of nuisance factors such as traffic, noise and glare. Site Plan Review 1. The petitioners met with the Design & Review Committee'in September and a number of issues were discussed, including building design, traffic control, landscaping, signage, utilities, etc. The plans were also reviewed by Department Heads and other appropriate staff and consultants. Revised plans were submitted as a result of these meetings. 2. The revised plans include the following details: A. Parking: The proposed restaurant requires 31 parking stalls. This number was calculated based on a dining area of 810.5 square feet and a kitchen of 711.5 square feet. One parking stall per 40 square feet of dining and service area is required (20 stalls), one parking stall per 80 square feet of kitchen area is required (9 stalls); and two stalls for a drive-through window are required. The proposed development would eliminate 17 stalls and replace them with 15 stalls in close proximity to the restaurant. Because the restaurant can share parking with the shopping center, staff have reviewed total parking stalls required and provided for the shopping center. The applicant has submitted a tenant lease and site plan for the shopping center. Based upon 31 stalls for Taco Bell, 30 stalls for Kinhdo (the only other restaurant), and six stalls per 1,000 square feet for other tenants or potential tenants, the shopping center would require 454 total stalls. The information submitted indicates that presently the Midland Shopping Center provides 344 parking stalls. The proposed development would eliminate two stalls. A variance is required within the PUD for the parking ratio for five spaces per 1,000 square feet which would require 345 stalls. Staff have long supported a reduction in the shopping center parking requirements from six to five spaces per 1,000 square feet. The petitioner has also presented data that illustrates New Hope's standards are stdcter than other communities. Staff finds that adequate parking is provided for the shopping center. Handicap parking stalls are identified on the north side of the building. B. Vehicular Circulation: Based upon the recommendation of city staff and the Design & Review Committee, the curb cut serving Taco Bell has been relocated to 13 feet from the northern property Planning Case 98-24 Page 3 10/2/98 Planning Case 98-24 line so that it aligns with the drive aisle into the Taco Bell area. This shift improves access .~ circulation. The curb cut location is subject to Hennepin County Highway approval. Drive aisles a compliant at 25 feet wide and contain painted directional arrows. A variance within the PUD is required, as the driveway and the one serving the property to the north will be less than 40 feet apart. The shifting of the curb cut to the north was recommended by the City Engineer. C. Service Window: City Code requires not lesS than 180 feet of segregated automobile stacking lane for the service window. This site plan has approximately 130 feet of stacking lane space, which accommodates six cars. The applicant is requesting flexibility with the PUD to allow the reduced stacking length. Site constraints related to the existing shopping center, site traffic circulation and required setback prevent compliance with the standard 180-foot stacking lane. Staff feels that this is a reasonable design. The building would have to be moved elsewhere on the property to provide the stacking required by the code. No off-site stacking is planned. D. Curbing: The site plan proposes curbing surrounding the entire work area. The curbing will direct.traffic and control parking. E. Grading, Drainage and Utilities: The grading and drainage plan illustrates how water will drain toward the east edge of the site. The grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. The utilities plan has been revised to indicate two additional catch basins at the eastern edge of the site and the storm sewer has been moved closer to the Winnetka driveway, per the City Engineer's recommendation. Water from these catch basins will be piped to the nearest catch basin south of the curbed "island" shown on the plan. The site utilities plan includes a note that should be revised to provide the correct meaning. The note reads "Note: This is a Sewer Manhole, not a Sewer Manhole." F. Loading: The dropping off of goods must be coordinated to occur in off hours so that it does not interfere with customer parking. Staff is requesting that as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a narrative explaining the hours of operation and hours of loading since no loading zone is available. G. Refuse Storage: A refuse enclosure is proposed on the west side of the building. The enclosure has concrete walls and chain link gates with aluminum privacy slats. Garbage pick-up must be coordinated to occur in off hours so that it does not interfere with customer parking. H. Building Materials:Building elevations show that bdck will be used to face the building with stucco used at the entrances and rock face block used as an accent. These are acceptable materials. The architectural style will add a new look to the shopping center. I. Extedor Finish in Area of Demolition: There was considerable discussion at Design & Review regarding the extedor finish of "Bay 26" on the north of the shopping center where the building demolition will take place. Per the petitioner's correspondence: "Bay 26 was constructed as an addition to the shopping center in 1978. The odginal east wall of the shopping center was constructed with a brick veneer that matches the front of the shopping center. Upon inSpection, we have discovered that this brick veneer was not removed with the addition of Bay 26. It is our plan to restore this brick veneer by either painting or cleaning so it will match the front of the shopping center. A canopy would not be wrapped around this east wall." J. Signs: The applicant is proposing two wall signs, one on the east side and one on the north side of the building. The applicant is also proposing one freestanding sign 62 square feet in size and 20 feet in height that will be located on the northeast comer of the site. A number of traffic directional signs are also noted on the plans. These signs are compliant. K. Li.(:lhtin.cl: Exterior wall lights are downlights and up and down sconces. Lights mounted to poles will match exterior flood lights around the Midland Shopping Center. All site lighting is less than one footcandle at adjacent property lines. Illumination contours have been provided. Page 4 10/2/98 Snow Storage: A snow storage plan should be submitted for the Midland Shopping Center showing how snow from the Taco Bell area will be removed and/or stored. Sprinkler Protection: Taco Bell does not include fire sprinkler protection. The applicant has provided a Certificate of Installation and a Certificate of Inspection for the auto fire sprinkler protection system in the existing Midland Shopping Center. Since 87 percent of the center is fire-sprinkled, the Fire Department would like to receive a commitment that this expansion will result in a commitment to complete 100 percent fire sprinkling in the principal building, Landscaping: The landscape plan has been revised to include landscaping on the northern edge of the site to provide a buffer between Taco Bell and adjacent R-O and R-2 Districts. The landscaping consists of a row of spirea shrubs and two trees. Because of the space constraints on the Taco Bell site, the two proposed trees are located on the property of the owner to the north. The applicant has proposed providing this property owner with the funds for buying and planting the two trees, with the property owner maintaining thereafter. The property owner would then determine the exact location and type of trees. Providing trees between Taco Bell and the residence to the north will help to screen the residence from extedor lighting. Additional information should be provided by the applicant regarding tree type, canopy width, and spacing in order to evaluate whether'a sufficient buffer will be provided between Taco Bell and the residence. Without knowing this information, staff is inclined to say that two trees will not be sufficient to provide an adequate buffer. The applicant should also report on the status of this agreement with the property owner to the north. The landscape plan has also been revised to include landscaping in the southeast corner of the area of work on the curbed "island." The plant types and sizes proposed are appropriate and an irrigation system will be installed. The landscaping schedule is as follows: Landscape Schedule Key Common Name B'otanical Name Size Shrubs AW Anthony Waterer Spirea SJ Skandia Juniper RW Red Spdte Winterberry WE Dwarf Winged Euonymus HC Hedge Cotoneaster Perennials BI Boston Ivy SD Stella d' Oro Daylily Spiraea X bumolda 'Anthony Waterer' Juniperus sabina 'Skandia' Ilex verticillata 'Red Sprite' Euonymus alatus 'Compactus' Cotoneaster lucidus 15-18" ht. Cont. 24" dia. Cont. 18-24" ht. Cont. 24" hr. Cont. 36" ht. Cont. Parthenocissus tricuspidata Hemerocallis 'Stella d' Oro' 1 qt. Pot 1 qt. Pot O. Outdoor Dininq: No outdoor dining has been requested or is being approved with this PUD/CUP. A separate CUP for outdoor dining is required. P. Hours of Operation: Hours of operation for the restaurant and drive-through need to be confirmed with the petitioner. Q. Menu Board: A menu board and speaker system would be located on the southwest comer of the site and details are illustrated in the attachments. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has made the following comments: A. In general, the site drains from west to east and then north to south to existing catch basins and storm sewer in the Midland Center parking lot. Additional storm sewer and two new catch basins are shown along the east side of the lot. Planning Case 98-24 Page 5 10/2/98 Approximately two acres of drainage area will be served by the two catch basins. Refer to the atta~d sheet. A majority of this runoff will cross drive lanes to reach the catch basins. It is preferred one o, ~ ~e catch basins be moved west to the opposite side of the drive lane. Refer to the attached sheet. This will collect water from typical rain events prior to crossing the drive lane. B. The existing sanitary sewer manhole is close to the proposed swale in the parking lot. This leads to the possibility of water flowing over the casting and/or ponding on the casting. This creates an inflow source. The adjusted casting must be a minimum of two' inches higher than the bottom of the swale. Adjusting rings must be tipped to match the cross slope of the pavement. Provide a chimney seal in the manhole and Ram-Nek below the casting. If the existing lid has a hole, replace it with a solid cover (two concealed pick holes) and new frame. C. Winnetka Avenue and adjacent parking lots shall remain free of construction materials including soil and construction debris. D. Provide a PVC saddle for sanitary service connection in VCP sewer. City must inspect the connection. Remove existing sanitary service and grout invert of existing manhOle. E. The water main connection shall be coordinated with the City Inspector and Public Works. F. Clarify the note addressing the storm sewer manhole in Winnetka Avenue adjacent to the sanitary sewer service. Label it as a storm sewer manhole. G. The drive relocation and related work in Winnetka Avenue will require review by Hennepin County and a permit to work in county right-of-way. 4. The petitioner has provided the attached documents regarding common area maintenance, including rubbish hauling and grounds maintenance responsibilities. 5. Staff believes that the construction of the restaurant will contribute to the vitality of the Midland Shopping Center and feels that the proposed development provides a good redevelopment opportunity, is compatible with existing zoning and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Pending public comment, staff recommends approval of the PUD and CUP, with flexibility on the parking, stacking and curb cut requirements, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with recommendations from City Engineer. 2. Submit a narrative explaining the hours of operation, hours of loading and hours of refuse collection since no loading zone is available. 3. The utility plan shall be revised to identify manholes and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. A snow storage plan should be submitted for the Midland Shopping Center showing how snow from the Taco Bell area will be removed and/or stored. 5. Restore/repair brick on south face of existing center that will be exposed. 6. Submit a letter of commitment on the timing of the completion of fire sprinkler installation in the Midland building, prior to application for a building permit. 7. The applicant should provide additional information in .the landscape plan about the trees to be planted on the property to the north. Information should include tree type, canopy width and spacing to demonstrate that a sufficient landscape buffer will be created between the residence and Taco Bell's exterior lighting. The applicant should also report on the status of their agreement with the property owner and submit a co-signed agreement with adjacent property owner on the off-site landscape installation and maintenance of same, prior to application for the Taco Bell building permit. Planning Case 98-24 Page 6 10/2/98 ,(~, Hours of operation for the drive-up window may be restricted, if Council feels it necessary. Police Department recommends closing restaurant earlier than drive-through to prevent parking lot loitering and recommends that drive-through be closed no later than 1:00 a.m. on weekdays and 2:00 a.m. on weekends. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement outlining the standard and time frame of development and provide an appropriate financial security for specific improvements (amount to be determined by Building Official and City Engineer). Attachments: Zoning/Address/Topo Maps Petitioner Correspondence/Tenant Lease & Site Plan Property Survey Site Data Demolition Plan Site Plan Site Summary Grading & Drainage Plan Site Details Utility Plan Landscape Plan Landscape Schedule Lighting Plan Floor Plan Exterior Elevations Seating Plan Sign Details Engineer's Comments Planner's Report Neighbors Survey Application Log Planning Case 98-24 Page 7 10/2/98 GOLDEN VALLEY B-3 IIIII g43.~ X X~t3~ .jmt,t,4 X NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA SEP. 30. 1998 ll'35AM KRAUS-ANDERSON NO. 3984 P. 2 KaAL'S., 'Dm SO COm, Development, Le~i~ · Management September IS, l gS' Mr. Doug Sandstad Development-Review Committee criT oF NEW HOP~ 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: TACO BELL AT MID~ SHOPPING CENTER - DESIGN RRVIEW Dear Dou& Attached please find a tenant lease and site plan. The parking lot stall assessment is based upon 35 mils required by Taco Bell and 25 stalls required by Kinhdo. There are no other restaurants in the shopping center. No other tenants in the shopping center have mi. lmura parking requirements as set forth in a lease a&reement. A demand of 5 stalls pet 1,000 square feet for other tenants or potential tenants, and the demands of the two ~ would require 387 total stalls (total demand orS.§ stalls per 1,000 st'). At present there are 344 stalls (5 stalls pet 1,000 st) at Midland 8hoppin8 Center. The proposed development would elimku~e 5 stalls. A brief'list of'comparable shopp~ oanters is enclosed. As verification for the auto ~e sprinkler protection existin8 shopping center, please review the attached Certificate of In~fllation from TranI-Alatm, Inc. and the most recent Certffieate oflnsl~tion from Viking Sprinlder Company. B~,ay .26 ~ constructed as an addition to the shopping center in 1978. The ori~nl enst wall of · mopping center was co~ with a ~lck veneer that ma~ches the front of the shopping center. Ulmn inspection, we have discover~ that this brick veneer was not removed with the addition of Bay 26. It is our plan to restore this hr~ck veneer by e~her painting or cleaning so it will ma~ch the front of the shopp~n~ center. A canopy would not be wrapped around this east wall. Thank you for yom- time sad efforts in this desi~a review. -Sincere[y, KRAU$-ANDERSON REALTY COMPANY Hans K. Okerm~m Doug Sinclair Ma ah Acorn Barb Schneide~ 4220 West Old Shakopee Road, Suite 200 - Bloomington, MN 55437-2995 612/881-8166 · Fax: 6 t 2/881-8114 - Wats: 1 - 800-399-4220 1.44 1.44 1.,1'1 72 3 16 ~' 10 1 .~4 7.2 1.44 ].2 ?.~& 1 1.11 ~.~ 12 0.7) ".~ 2.138 F. mp~oyee paddng only ~N'allte 8p~t~t Plaza, Mlnne(oeka Midland Shopping Center PaWing Stall Assessment 18-Sep.98 Feet 8tails 81ails f,O00 Si= Tenm~lz gS, T/g 481 $.02 130,700 653 4.99 04,3~6 476 5.04 t16,:382 528 4.4 ~'011 ~'50 300 Ace Hard~are, Jul~ee Foods, Snydar Drag, Star liquor, Video Ujx~e Ra~bow Foods, Drag EmpoE~m. Mar~all's Luml'~, Rexall Drug. Dr. mn Bros. Coifee Office Max, Scltmilt Music, Toys 'R' Ua site plan~, I location map site information I OIOII lITIl AIGA BIO. Ill iq T.I AClllI TO/AL LIAIADLI AlIA TO, lTl BIGI I TOTAL BUILDING AREA lO,IAI ffl I PARKING IP~CEI PROVIDED 4141 midland shopping center winnetka ave. & medicine lake rd. new hope, minnesota KRAUS-~ERSON REALTY DEVELOPMENT · LEA~ING · ~AGEMENT ~PANY Alliant Engineering, Inc' Engineers · Planne.rs · Landscape Architects DATE: TO: CC: FROM: RE: MEMORANDUM September 4, 1998 Barb Schneider, Border Foods Maleah Acosta, Alliant Engineering John Dillingham, PE Taco Bell, New Hope, Minnesota Traffic Operations 212 Second Street SE Suite 300, St. Anthony Main Minneapolis, MN 55414 Phone: 612 - 362 - 0432 Fax: 612 - 676 - 2797 Alliant Engineering was asked to review the proposed traffic operations at the proposed Taco Bell restaurant in New Hope, Minnesota. Located on Winnetka Ave north of Medicine Lake Road, the location is within a larger strip mall which houses both retail and commercial establishments. The proposed access and egress to the Taco Bell site is via an existing driveway with full access to Winnetka Ave. The access is proposed to be two way, with an ingress to the rear of the strip mall passing through the Taco Bell site. The drive through window will be a one way which passes around the south side of the building and intersects with the mall access corridors in a three legged intersection. (See site sketch.) The three legged intersection will require significant traffic control and marking because of it's geometry. We propose the following: 1. Extend the island which delineates the Taco Bell drive through on the south side of the building to discourage right turns out of the drive through lane and to channelize incoming traffic from the north. 2. Provide stop control at the end of the drive through lane. 3. Provide stop control on the eastbound lane of the mall service road. 4. Delineate a pedestrian cross-walk at the east end of the Taco Bell drive through. 5. Provide a Do Not Enter sign for incoming vehicles approaching the end of the drive through lane. The north/south mall access road will become the through leg of the three legged intersection. Motorists on both the east/wast mall access road and the Taco Bell drive through should be required to stop and yield to the north/south traffic. Minneapolis · San Francisco · Newport Beach- SEP. 14..1998 Ii'5§AM KRAUS-ANDERSON NO. 3259 Attaehment to the Appilcntion to the Planning Commbsion and City Council Applicant: Eng¢lsma Limited Pat'tn~p PID#: 1911821440066 R~garding: Request for a variance to the Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use P~'mit Ad~domd No~s - Common Am~ Maintenance Please no~e that the agreement between Border Foods, Inc. and En~elsma Limited Pamership calls for certain provisions regarding common area maintenance. Speoi~cally Rubbish Haultn~ Th~ tenam will put trash m an ~r~rior stor~e are~ and will arrange for resular pickup at its cost. Grounds Maintenance: The term "common ar~" include all that portion o£thc exterior of the buildinss and grounds includins the driveways, pmtdn~ ar~s, cxterior wn~_.ls and roof, as well as the "drive-thru". The Landlord (En~alsms L~m~a~i Pannership) will mana~ operate, and mslr~ts!n all of the common areas of the shopping center in a clean. saniutry and safe condition~ %. %. %. \ :ih!l: Ill :, :. : i,:t,:, C. S J I~ l Outlot 2, ~k~l ~:R~ LIND& ~;r~ to tt~ ~ ~ on fil~ emi o~ ~ in th~ ~ of the ffegl~n~ of T~tt~. Henn~Mn Couch, Miee~m~to, e~l~ tl~ ~ ~ g fe~. tl~f. ZOOz OzV T' P~nel No. 270177 0002 B the I~mper~ ~ ~ Zone C (~e~ of ~ finding). Rote Map I~ ~ effecthm dore of Jcmu~ry 2, 19~1. EROSION //~ CONTROL BARRIER I L t ^co / PROJECT --'./ :LIMI'FS i METER! t ME., ER~ EX. CURB CUT, AND SIDEWALK TO BE )~ SHED'AND REMOUnT. U, / EROSION CONTROL BARRIER REMOVE EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER WHERE INDICATED. NO WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY. LIN-F_ REMOVE ALL EXISTING PAVEMENT' WITHIN THE' PROJECT UMITS. SAW CUT AS NECESSARY. REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURES ~ REMOVE: EX. SANITARY MANHOLE. PLUG-INVERT ~ONN£CTION ;'LL BUILDING.. " AND coNC'. BASi CAP WIRES, DISCONNECT AN SEWER LINE TO TO. TO NEW TACO E STR~ PRo1 EXIS' WATE PER TA£ PR{; LIMI REMOVE- EXISTING BUILDING; COORDINATE ~ DEMOLITION WfTH PROPERTY OWNER. EX. SI AT BUILDING D~ POINT. 74.' ~' ~DING CORNER 15'R 1 10' - ® 5'R 19' L_ 'TACO BELL 'PROJECT · :,LIMITS ~ ~X. CO~;CPET 5,' 4'R ' 55' gUILDnNG SE:TBS, C,< I -- ' TA I ! ~'~ SITE SU_M~M~ RY* GROSS LOT AREA:, · GRO~ SHO.~.~I~ CE~~ARF~ GROSS PRO~ ~,.T&CO BELL AREA: NET LOTAREA.- ~' ~: pARKING .,ST~. REQ,D~: ~ PARKING ST . .A.U~ P~DED: 33O,355 S.F. 69,427 S.F. 2,136 S.F. 2~8,791. S.F. 14 15 '' WINNETKA AVENUE ............. _ ' Z GRADIHG AND D~INAGE P~N .... A1-B 905.! 905.42 ,~., EROSION CONTROL BAR~ER ~ I 7.6 7.1 6.59 6.25 RIM RIM 905.9 905.9 7.1 6.6 6.8 7.5 7.7 7.: 8.5 ~,PROJECT - ' ~,LIMITS ~ CO~CPETE 6.6 6.1 8.3 8.3 FFE: 908.3 8.1 6.6 8.5 7.5. 6.6 6.6 5.6 ~ EX. 7.6 7.1 7,5 I EX. f 7.5 TACO .LL I~ 8.1 K-~ 8.5- 8.0 8.07 Lt8.77~, ~, TACO BELL PROJECT LIMITS NORTH PROP.---x LINE ALONG x EX. FENCE WET TAP EXISTING WATER LINE. FIELD VERIFY SIZE AND DEPTH. INSTALL CURB STOP AND BOX AS REQUIRED. SALVAGE EXISTING CASTING. INSTALL RINGS AS NECESSARY TO MATCH PROPOSED GRADE EL'----~ATION.. RE-INSTALL CASTING AND SEAL. PROPOSED RIM ELEV. 908.36 EX. RIM=907.36 INV E=901.51 INV S=903.67 -ST L?+ ~LIMITS [ I I RIM=904.90 INV=898.10 RIM=904..97---,~~-%' .... INV=899.57 I ~'~'~3 L.F. 12' RCP O 1.5% EX. CB~I ----,, ~ ~ RIM: 905.55~ ~ I CB~2 '~ 'Il'SZ ~~ 905~M~ 905,9 ' ~ 902.9 I~.N.~2~5 ~ I~.S.: 902.8 EX. CB. 1 t RIM=905.35 ~ ~ I INV. E.=901.40 ' Ex. C~.2 /I RIM=905.28~ INV=901.25 FFE: 908.3 DEPTH sE[ ARC.. PLANS. MIN BEND TACO B~&'U. I ! PROP. UG. ELEC. ELEC T.:~...j; M£TE~ ELE_~T.;.m GAS ,~ METEPS~ STOP ELECT.F~ F TI~ O0¥J. 'dAl 'DIaGV-I ~13.1.-!t..t ~r3AO HOlfl~ S~3HIO X8 A~OIS~3AO "IVOldX. I. '~t30~13 ~k'lOd "l'~DIdX, L '~13903 X-IOd 005 ,2 ,2 .2 ,1 .8 .1 .2 .3 ,1 1.9 3.1 .1 .3 4.5 11.3 12~ 7.9 .4 11.8 11.2 7.3 ,3 6.7 7,7 6.4 .3 3,3 3.8 3.8 .3 2.1 2.4 E 1,9 ~,1 . · 3 ~.7 E.9 32 .3 4.6 4.9 4.6 .3 9.4 9.4 6 ,5 11.;~ 10.5 6,&. 8,7 8.8 6.1 ,I 4.8 4,1 3.3 ,1 1.1 E~. L9 .1 ,3' ,7 1.3 .8 .8 1.9 1.7 2 I ,4 3,9 4,8 3.3 4.5 1.8 1~ .7 .5 5.E 4~ 6.2 10.8 2~ 1.7 .9 .6 5~ 7 1.3 .8 T'Y1~. OF 8 1.9 .9 4,1 1.6 ,9 TACO BELL RESTAURANT ' 1.1 3.7 .9 &9 4.3 4.1 18,8 4.3:'__ .9. 4.3 3.6 4 1 6.4 10.9 ILl 2.7 1.2 1.8 E.2 3,E 3.8 ' 3,~ 3.4 1.3 ,8 1.3 1.7 E.3 ~.~ 2.4 a~3 l-J, .7 .1 .I ,1 .2 .3 .9 .9 I 1.3 1.6 1.7 1,6 1.6 1,3 ,9 ,6 .4 ' " I coup1" TO ~"lr~D NOTC~ CH~E I D .RJyE THRU 64 ,.~Q. FT. TAO0 E~FI L .POL ,~I~N NELIJ NOPE, MINNE5OTA Mlolef- Match Spraytat L8-7917 Yellow- Match Spraylat L8-7836 Magenta- Match Spraytat L8-7937 (ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE) ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS: LAMPS: (2)F117T12 Sign White HO (5100) (2)F108T12 Sign White HO (5100) (2)F96T12 Design 50 HO BALLASTS: (2)51-793-JR-TC Magnetek LINELOAD: 7.0 Amp (1)15 Amp @ 120v circuit MAXIMUM WIND LOAD: 50 pst SERVICING: Face hinged at bottom WEIGHT: 580 lbs. (crated) Optional Appendage Faces SCALE: 1/2"=1'-0" · · *.......,%oo; *. ~ Identity Systems Division WViolet- Match Spraylat L8-7917 ~ Magentc~ Match Spraylat L8-7937 ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS: SIGN SPECIFICATIONS: LAMPS: TACO: (2)F24T12 Design 50 HO (1)F48T12 Design 50 HO BELL: (1) F18T12 Design 50 HO (1) FTU6/60 Sign White HO SERVICING: Remove front face WEIGHT: TACO BELL (letters) CRATED: 75lbs. MINI BELL (logo) CRATED: 65lbs. MINI BELL: (4) F24T12 Design 50 HO BALLASTS( TACO: (1)51-741Magnetek BELl. (1)51-742 Magnatek MINI BELL: (1)51-741 Magnatek J . 3'-2 5/16" ~ 2'-9 29/64" j,_ I j, BE L-- UNELOAD: TOTAL (1) 15 Amp @ 120v circuit ! 4'-21/8' TACO: 1.35Amps ~ BELL: .9Amps ~m~m'~j~,'--"~-'--'-~:, i ~j i t (~ i .... ; .... - ~ ~./ SCALE: 3/16"=1"0" O.UTs~OE M~U SION. BELOW SURFACE 1/2'P.V.C. FOI~. ~ONNECTION t/2. CONDUIT' TO POWER I"DIA TO INSIDE AT UNDERSIDE OF DT CABINET I"DIA 'TO INSIDE AT ORDER 'WINDOW SURFACE P.V.C. 'SLEEVE CAR SENSOR LOOP (~/2" ~.v.c.) MENU BOARD I FOR EXACT. LOCATION , OF' blF_..NU BOARD SEE DRtVE~I;HISJJ SIGN '- Silt['PLAN ' 1./'2" C . '- ,...- 1~2_) 1 "_CO.NDUtl'~ TO "XJg'x4~ J-BOX BELOW' COUNTER-- DF.._SCF CONC HEAT HEAl' PA0 SPAR SPAR SPAR SPAR SPAR SPAR WA1 PANE , PHASE- Violet- Match Spraylat 1.8-7917 Yellow- Match Spraylat L8-7836 ~jli Magenta- McYrch Spraylat L8-7937 ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS: LAMPS: (4)F60T12 CW/HO BALLASTS: (1) G,E. 6G3959 LINELOAD: 2.9 Amp . (1)15 Amp @ 120v circuit SERVICING: Face hinged at top WEIGHT: 360 lbs, (crated) ANCHOR BOLT & CONDUIT SETTING Foundation with four (4) 3/4"x 8" anchor bolts by General Contractor 18' Anchorl ? , Footing -- Electrical Conduit Outline of Base Plate FRONT OF SiGN TACO ~ BELL SCALE: 1~ Violet- Match Spraytat 18-7917 Yellow- Match Spraylat L8-7836 ~ Magenta- Match Spraylat 18-7937 ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS: LAMPS: (1)U9-36T12 CW/HO BALLASTS: (1) G.E. 6G3909 LINELOAD: .75 Amp (1)15 Amp @ 120v circuit WEIGHT: 75 lbs. (crated) Menu Board 1611 .Speaker ..T_ Ij~' P°st 16". ! Curb 10' Locate Speaker Stand ANCHOR BOLT PLAN NOTE: Conduit required for Iow voltage speaker Foundation with four (4) 1/2"x 8" anchor bolts by general contractor Concrete Footing 12-1/2' Thank You FRONT Plate SCALE: 1 "= 1 '--0" · --'-' ' --Everbrite · ' .*'o.~-'. - Identity Systems Division Violet- Match Spraylat 1.8-7917 Yellow- Match Spraylat 1.8-7836 I Magenta- MatchSpraylat L8-7937 .© ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS: LAMPS:(1)FTU9/60T12 Sign White HO "U" lamp BALLASTS: (1)SI-601 Magnetek LINELOAD: 1.35 Amp (1)15 Amp @ 120v circuit SERVICE: Slide face out WEIGHT: 50lbs. (crated) 12-1/2" 3" ?, 3' 19-1/2" 1" 1'-0" SCALE: = Everbrite ' °~ o~ · Identity Systems Division. AL .iLABLE DIRECTIONAL SIGN 'COPY OPTIONS 4-1/2" COPY · * ;'*--~'- Identity Systems Division BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERL[K Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects ~6516~61311 10101198 09:51 ~]:05/08 N0:502 MEMO Kirk McDonald, Community l~veloprnent Coordinator FROM: Vines Vander Top DATE: October 1, 1996 SUBJEC'I': Taco Bell site Plan Our File No, 34-(30n E98=30 .' We have reviewed tho submitted plans and propoaed sim improvements as they mille to the Midland Shopping Center and Taco Bell. The following comments are provided: In general, the site drains from west to east and then north to aouth to existing catch basins and storm sewer in the Midland Center parking lot, Additional storm sewer and two new catch basins are shown along the east side of the lot. Approximately 2 acr~ of drainqe area will be served by the two catch basins. Refer to the ~ sheet. A mm~mity of thin runoff will cross drive lanes to reach the e, ateh basins. It is preferred one of the catch basins be moved west to the opposite side of the drive lane. Refer to the attached sheet. This will collect warn from tNM,,~al rain events prior to crossing the drive lane. e Tho existins mitm'y sower manhob Ja close to the proposed swale in the parking lot. This leads to tho possibility of wman' flowing over the casting and/or pending on the casting. This creatm an inflow source. The edjusted casting must be a minimum of 2 inel~m higher that the bottom of the swale. Adjusting rings muat be ~ to match the cross slope of tim pavement. Provide a chimney seal in tbs manhole and Ram-Nek below th~ e, asting. If the existing lid has a hole, repla~ it with a soUd cover (two concealed ptr. k hole~) and new frame, Winnedm Avenue and adjacent pm~lng lots shah remain free of construction materials Including soil and con~ ~. Provide a IBC middle for mits? Mndee coons:don to VCP ~.I'. City must inspect the connection. Remove eximdng sanitary service and grout invert of existing manhole. 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN S5113 · 612-636-4600 · Fax: 613-636-1311 ~' 80NESTRO0 ROSENE ANDERLIK ~'6516361311 10/01/98 09:51 [~'06/08 N0:502 The water main conneetlon shall be cooMinated with th= City Insl~eCtm' and Publi~ Wodts, Clarify the note addmssins the storm sewer mnnhole in Winnetka Avenue adjacent to the sanitary sewer service, l. abel it u a storm sewer manhole. The drive relocation and related work in Winnetka Avenue will require review by Hennepin County and a permit to wodt in county right-of-way. If you have questions re~udtns ~ese comment~, please csll M~'k or myself. cc: Mark Hanson BONESTRO0 ROSENE ANDERLZK 6516361~11 10/01/98 09:51 ~:07/08 NO: 502 90~ X 920. cji 1.4X 9tl.~ /, ~:~1'/o, 906. ? X 23. NORTH · BONESTRO0 ROSENE ANDERLIK ~,6516361311 10/01/98 09:51 ~:0~/0~ N0:502 ""'---'---"'-- W R. JM=905:61 INV=899.11 RIM~,904.91 INV-898.10 .97--, 9! EX. CB. 1 RIM-,905.35 INV. E.=901.40 EX. CB.2 RIM-905. INV'- 901.2.3 RIM-905. INV-901 .: TACO UMII'$ ~ ~. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS I · COMMUNITY PLANNINO DE:SION - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Cynthia Putz-Yang I Alan Brixius DATE: October 1, 1998 RE: New Hope - Taco Bell Site Plan FILE NO: 131.01 - 98.14 BACKGROUND Kraus-Anderson Realty Company has requested PUD approval to construct a 2,136 square foot building for Taco Bell at the Midland Shopping Center. The applicant is also requesting CUP approval to allow a drive through window and flexibility through the PUD to allow less than 180 feet of car stacking. The New Hope Design Review Board met September 17, 1998 and reviewed the application. Based on the Board's comments, the applicant has submitted revised plans and information regarding parking stalls required and provided. The proposed building would replace approximately 3,000 square feet of the eastern part of the shopping center that would be demolished. City staff believes that this is a good redevelopment opportunity to add new interest and vitality to the'Midland Shopping Center. The Shopping Center is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. The proposed location of the Taco Bell is at the northeast corner of the site. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Survey Exhibit C - Site Plan Exhibit D - Landscape Plan RECOMMENDATION Our office believes that the proposed development provides a good redevelopment opportunity, is compatible with existing zoning, and is consistent with the Comprehensive · Plan. We therefore recommend approval of the PUD with car stacking length flexibility 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 6 I 2-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@WINTERNET.COM and CUP for a drive through window subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall submit a narrative explaining the hOurs of operation, hours of loading and hours of refuse collection since no loading zone is available. The curb cut location shall be subject to the review of the Hennepin County Highway Department. The utility plan shall be revised to identify manholes and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The grading and drainage plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant should provide additional information in the landscape plan about the trees to be planted on the property to the north. Information should include tree type, canopy width and spacing to demonstrate that a sufficient landscape buffer will be created between the residence and Taco Bell exterior lighting. The applicant should also report on the status of their agreement with the property owner. o A snow storage plan should be submitted for the Midland Shopping Center showing how snow from the Taco Bell area will be removed and/or stored. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement outlining the standard and time frame of development and providing an appropriate financial security. ISSUES Land Use. The site is zoned B-4, Community Business District. A restaurant is a permitted use in this District. ^ drive-through service window requires a conditional use permit. The Shopping Center requires a CUP PUD. Parking. The proposed restaurant requires 31 parking stalls. This numberwas calCUlated based on a dining area of 810.5 square feet and a kitchen of 711.5 square feet. One parking stall per 40 square feet of dining and service area is required (20 stalls); one parking stall per 80 square feet of kitchen area is required (9 stalls); and two sta!ls for a drive-through window are required. The proposed development would eliminate 17 stalls and replace them with 15 stalls in close proximity to the restaurant. Because the restaurant can share parking with the Shopping Center, wa have reviewed total parking stalls required and provided for the Shopping Center. The applicant has submitted a tenant lease and site plan for the Shopping Center. Based upon 31 stalls for Taco Bell, 30 stalls for Kinhdo (the only other restaurant), and 6 stalls per 1,000 square feet for other tenants or Potential tenants, the Shopping Center would require 454 total stalls. The 2 information submitted indicates that presently the Midland Shopping Center provides 474 parking stalls. The proposed development would eliminate two stalls. Therefore, adequate parking is provided for the Shopping Center. Vehicular Circulation. Based upon the recommendation of City staff and the Design Review Board, the curb cut serving Taco Bell has been relocated to 13 feet from the northern property line so that it aligns with the drive aisle into the Taco Bell area. This shift improves access and circulation. The curb cut location is subject to Hennepin County Highway approval. Drive aisles are compliant at 25 feet wide and contain painted directional arrows. Service Window. Code requires not less than 180 feet of segregated automobile stacking lane for the service window. This site plan has approximately 130 feet of stacking lane space, which accommodates six cars. The applicant is requesting flexibility with the PuD to allow the reduced stacking length. Site COnstraints related to the existing shopping center, site traffic circulation and required setback prevent COmpliance with the standard 180 foot stacking lane. Curbing. The site plan proposes curbing surrounding the entire work area. The curbing will direct traffic and COntrol parking. Grading, Drainage and Utilities. The grading and drainage plan illustrates howwaterwill drain toward the east edge of the site. The grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. The utilities plan has been revised to indicate two additional catch basins at the eastern edge of the site. Water from these catch basins will be piped to the nearest catch basin south of the curbed "island" shown on the plan. The site utilities plan includes a note that should be revised to provide the correct meaning. The note reads "Note: This is a Sewer Manhole, not a Sewer Manhole." Loading. The dropping off of goods must be COordinated to occur in off hours so that it does not interfere with customer parking. As a COndition of approval, the applicant shall submit a narrative explaining the hours of operation and hours of loading since no loading zone is available. Refuse Storage. A refuse enclosure is proposed on the west side of the building. The enclosure has COncrete walls and chain link gates with aluminum privacy slats. Garbage pick-up must be coordinated to occur in off hours so that it does not interfere with customer parking. Building Materials. Building elevations show that brick will be used to face the building with stucco used at the entrances and rock face block used as an accent. These are acceptable materials. 3 Signs. The applicant is proposing two wall signs, one on the east side and one on the north side of the building. The applicant is also proposing one freestanding sign 62 square feet in size and 20 feet in height. These signs are compliant. Lighting. Exterior wall lights are downlights and up and down sconces. Lights mounted to poles will match exterior flood lights around the Midland Shopping Center. All site lighting is less than one footcandle at adjacent property lines. Landscaping. The landscape plan has been revised to include landscaping on the northern edge of the site to provide a buffer between Taco Bell and adjacent R-O and R-2 Districts.' .The landscaping consists of a row of spirea shrubs and two trees. Because of space constraints on the Taco Bell site, the two proposed trees are located on the property of the owner to the north. The applicant has proposed providing this property owner with funds for buying and planting the two trees. The property owner would then determine the exact location and type of trees. Providing trees between Taco Bell and the residence to the north will help to screen the residence from exterior lighting. Additional information should be provided by the applicant regarding tree type, canopy width, and spacing in order to evaluate whether a sufficient buffer will be provided between Taco Bell and the residence. Without knowing this information, we are inclined to say that two trees will not be sufficient to provide an adequate buffer. The applicant should also report on the status of this agreement with the property owner to the north. At the time of this report the agreement wes not finalized. The landscape plan has also been revised to include landscaping in the southeast corner of the area of work on the curbed "island". The plant types and sizes proposed are appropriate and an irrigation system will be installed. Sprinkler Protection. Taco Bell does not include fire sprinkler protection. The applicant has provided a Certificate of Installation and a Certificate of Inspection for the auto fire sprinkler protection system in the existing Midland Shopping Center. Dining. No outdoor dining has been requested and none will be allowed. Snow Storage. A snow storage plan should be submitted for the Midland Shopping Center showing how snow from the Taco Bell area will be removed and/or stored. CONCLUSION The construction of this restaurant will contribute t° the vitality of the Midland Shopping Center. If the Planning Commission finds that a drive through window is consistent with the existing land use, we recommend that the PUD and CUP be approved with car stacking 4 length flexibility subject to the conditions listed in the recommendation section of this~-'- report. pc: Doug Sandstad Mark Hanson 5 CEI~TIFICATE OF' ,.~URVEY LoT )7 ~I_oc.K ] O. Avl.. No. I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws ..~sota Reg. No. /~~ Job No "7'7J Aol Soak ,,6, ? Page Sec __L9~ T. ! IG R. 21 CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG A B C D E F G H I J Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant Address by City that required expires expires of under application Phone information extension extension was missing or waiver 98-24 Engelsma Ltd Partnership 9/11/98 11/10/98 1/9/99 523 South 8"~ Street Minneapolis 55404 881-8166 B. C. D. Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. Assign each application a number. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). List the date the City received the application. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval pedod applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) List the deadline under any extension or waiver. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. Planning Case: Request: Location: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: Attachments: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 98-16 Consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035(2) by Reducing the Lot Area Size for Two Family Dwellings City-Wide R-2, Single and Two Family Residential Zoning Districts City of New Hope October 2, 1998 October 6, 1998 BACKGROUND 1. The City is requesting consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035(2) by Reducing the Lot Area Size for Two Family Dwellings, pursuant to the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. This issue was discussed briefly at the September Codes & Standards meeting and it is staff's understanding that the Chair of the Committee would like this matter tabled until the November Planning Commission meeting so that it can be further discussed at the October Codes & Standards meeting. 3. This item was placed on the agenda because a legal notice was published for a public hearing on this ordinance for this meeting, therefore, the Commission needs to take some action on the ordinance. 4. The Planning Consultant has prepared the attached report which compares the R-2 lot size requirements in New Hope with those in other cities and staff feels there is justification to reduce the lot size requirements. Staff is recommending that the R-2 lot size per unit requirement be reduced from 7,000 to 6,000 square feet. The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed ordinance making that change. Additional supporting documentation from staff is attached. 5. This amendment would be effective on a city-wide basis and would be utilized as a redevelopment tool. 6. Staff is not pursuing this amendment specifically to construct a twinhome on the recently acquired property at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue for the scattered site housing program. However, that property did bring to staff's attention the discrepancy in R-2 lot size requirements between New Hope and other cities. The Wisconsin property currently contains 13,500 square feet and would not accommodate a twinhome under the current ordinance. If the ordinance was changed to 6,000 square feet per unit, the property would accommodate a twinhome. Even if the ordinance is changed; a decision has still not been made as to whether a twinhome or a single family home will be built on the site. Staff will be conducting a neighborhood meeting with residents in that area in October to solicit their input as to what they would like to see built on the property. If there is a strong response from the neighborhood that only a single family home be built on the site, that is probably what staff will recommend to the Council. 7. Irregardless of what is constructed on the Wisconsin Avenue property, staff wants the Commission to consider the appropriateness of this amendment on a city-wide basis. 8. If the Commission wants to table this matter for further discussion by the Codes & Standards Committee, that is agreeable to staff. City Attorney Correspondence & Ordinance 7/21 Planner's Report 9/18 Codes & Standards Memo 7/16 Building Official Memo ~r~v~ A. SONDL~U. c. ~ i~.~-t O~ C, OtJN~F.C S~pm~b~ 18, 1998 Kirk McDomLld Community Deve]opmeat Dimct~ City of'New Hope · 4401 Xylon Avenue North A~ OrdinAnce Aw~f R-2 Lot Size R~emmt= · Our File No.: 99.497 m~'tin8 · proposM ~e ~ New Hog~ Cod~ ~im 4.035(2) by l~iu~i~8 Lot A Siz~ fa- Two Family Dwelling. As w~ dimm~ ti~ lot are~ f~' two t~ily dw~ll~gs is b~ng~ ~t 6,000 squsr~ f~.t or a mdmtion of 1,000 ~r~ f~t from th~ ~-m. rmt ~ ~t 7,000 ~quam f~t. This PIeme ~,anm~t rr~ if you ~ m~ otl~r quesltam (~ cammmm zbout th~ enclosed ordizame. ORDINANCE NO. ~- AN ORDINANCE A2t4ENDING N~eV HOPE CITY CODE SECTION 4.03~(2) BY REDUC~G ~ LOT AItEA SIZE FOR TWO FAMU.Y DWI~.I.rNGs Section 1. Section 4.035(2) 'Lot .&.ret Per_ l~nit", ofthe New Hope City Code is hereby amendod to read as follows: (2) Lot Area Per Unit. The Iot area per unit requirement for towniMuses, multiple family dwellln? and planned unit developments shall be caiculat~ on the basis of the total area in the project ..a as contmllat by an individual and joint ownership. O~t[ minim, eR afe~ Single Family Two Family Townhouae Elderly Hon_sin~ and/or *4,000squnreft~innR-3Dlsui~ Section 2. Effective Dnte. Thl8 ~ .,,hr, i! b· ~ve upofl its pssafe and W. Pemr FaEk, Mayor va ie Laona, C rt {]~Wiinh~_ in the New Hope-Oolden ValL~ Sun-Post the day of ,1998.) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Jeffrey $chaumanrVDaniel Licht/Alan 8dxiu$ 21 July 1998 New Hope - Twinhome Performance Standards 13t.00 - 98.04 BACKGROUND The City has very succes~tJIly utilized twinhomea a~ the preferred housing type in its scattered site redevelopment effort. ~ efliort~ have resulted in the elimination of blighted properties and provided new housing oppettunitie~ in the City. In looking to the future, City staff believes ~ ~ ~ z~_~atMardl for twinhQmes may prevent the use of this housing type in the redevel~ of ~maller single family Iot~. " The development of twinfteme~ on single family Iol size~ railel several is,tues. Some of the issue~ are delcribed ~ ,.~ Nelg~ Cllaracter. By intmckJcing twinlx)~ into single family neiglll~llttee~l, more life cycle housing op6one are mede available through the Iol ~ re~ ClOe8 c:114nge the ~ cf~ c~ predominantly single family meiclen~ m by reducing green Sl~ ancl making garag~ ~om e the potential for ~--,atteted ~ reclevelopmem i~ which ia an ideal consistent with City policy. By increasing the opFmrttality for ~ family site redevelopment, the frequency with which blighted area~ are redeveloped is increased. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. :SUITE 555 ST/ L. OUII IIIAIIIK. IdlNN[SOTA 554 ! 6 PHONE 6 I 2-595-9S348 FAX 481 ~-595-9e37 l-MAll., NACOWINTERNm'T.('''OM lnfras~c~m. As density increases, so do the demands placed on City services. City service capacity and street capacity must be evaluated prior to any increase in density. One positive outCOme of more dense development is lower capital infrastructure costs per housing unit. If it is found that the concept of developing twinhomes on single family lot sizes is appropriate, a further evaluation can occur. It is staff's opinion that some reduction in required lot size for twinhome units is warranted. The City Council and Planning Commission should make a determination on what level of density is appropriate given existing neighborhood character. In the following sections of this report, staff will identify the City's Current regulations, provide a comparison with other cities and offer options for amending current twinhome performance standards. CURRENT REGULATIONS The following are the lot areas and width standards established in the New Hope Zoning Ordinance for residential uses: 4.035 (1) District Standards: R-1 9,500 sq.ft. 75 feet R-2 9,500 sq.ff. 75 feet R-3 10,000 sq.ff. 80 feet R-4 15,000 sq.ff. 100 feet R-5 15,000 SCl.ff. 100 feet (2) Lot Area Per Unit The lot area per unit requirement for townhouses, multiple family dwellings and planned unit developments shall be calculated on the basis of the total, area in the project and as controlled by an individual end joint ownership. Other minimum areee are: Single Family Two Family Townhouse Multiple Family Elderly Housing and/or Physically Handicapped 9,500 sq.ff. 7,000 5,000 sq. ff. 3,000 SCl. ff.* 1,000 sq.ft. '4,000 square feet in an R-3 District. 2 (8) Subdivision of Double Bungalow. Quadraminium or Townhouse Lot,~, The--~ subdivision of base lots containing double bungalows, quadreminiums, or townhoues to permit individual private ownership of a single dwelling unit within such a structure is acceptable upon approval by the City Council, but is contingent on the following requirements: (a) Meet Zoning Requirements. Prior to a double bungalow, quadraminium, or townhouse subdivision, the base lot must meet all the requirements of the zoning district. (b) Minimum area and Width. The following are minimum unit lot requirements for double bungalow, quadraminium, or townhouse subdivisions: Double Bun_aalow Lot Area 7,000 sq.ff. 5,000 sq.ft. 5,000 sq.ft. Lot Width ½ the base lot 50 feet 20 feet street frontage (c) Principal Structure. There shall be no more than one principal structure on a base lot in all residential districts. The principal structure on a unit lot created in a double bungalow, quadreminium, or townhouse subdivision will be the portion of the attached dwelling existing or constructed on the platted unit lots. Under current regulations, a twinhome unit would have a minimum lot size standard of 14,000 square feet. The 14,000 square foot twinhome lot has not presented a problem for development of vacant land. However, it limits the use of twinhomes as a redevelopment tool in areas developed at smaller single family lot size standards. If it is determined that it is appropriate to develop twinhomes on single family lot sizes, staff offers the following: COMPARISON WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES Thechart below provides a compad~ of New Hope's twinhome lot sizes with other area communities. New Hope's twinhome lot area requirements rank as one of the largest of all communities surveyed with 7,000 square feet per unit required. Most of the communities have lot area requirements of 4,000 to 6,250 square feet per unit, with 60 to 100 foot lot widths. The required lot width in New Hope is 75 feet, well within the average range. Of the 11 communities surveyed, only Brooklyn Park and Minnetonka have more stringent requirements. 3 TWlNHOME LOT SIZE COMPARISON CHART City Zoning Lot Width Land Area Per Total Lot Area Distdct Dwelling Required New Hope R-2 75 feet 7,000 sq.ft. 14,000 sq,ft. St. Louis Park R-2 by Permit only must have 600 sq.ff, open , R-3** 60 feet 4,000 sq.ff. 8,000 sq.ff. Columbia Heights R-2 60 feet 4,200 sq.ft. 8,400 sq.ff. Robbinsdale R-2 80 feet 4,800 sq.ff. 9,600 sq.ff. Plymouth R-MF* 90 feet 5,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ff. Hopkins R-2° 100 feet 6,000 SCl.ff. 12,000 sq.ff. multi family district R-3 3,500 sq.ft. 7,000 sq.ft. Brooklyn center R-2 75 feet 6,200 sq.ft. 12,400 sq.ft. for a comer lot R-2 90 feet 6,200 sq.ff. 12,400 sq.ft. Crystal R-2 100 feet 6,250 sq.ff. 12,500 sq.lt. Golden Valley R-2 100 feet 6,250 sq.ff. 12,500 sq.ft. Maple Grove R-3° 85 feet 7,000 sq.ff. 14,000 sq.ft. Brooklyn Park R-4* 120 feet 8,100 sq.ft. 16,200 sq.ff. homes built after 1980 R-4* 5,400 sq.ft. 10,800 sq.ft. Minnetonka R-2 None required 12,500 sq.ft. 25,000 sq.ff. AVERAGE 95 feet 6,450 SCl.ff. 12,900 sCl.ff. Denotes zoning district equivalent to the single/two-family residential district (R-2 in New Hope) In St. Louis Pad[, R-2 is ,Mctly single family and twinhomee are by permit only. In St. Lou~s Park, the R-3 Dislrict is b two.family district, and the parameters listed, above in R-3 are for its twirthomes. The figures attached as Exhibit A illustrate visually the minimum lot requirements of New Hope as compared with the average of all communities surveyed. As is apparent by the exhibit, the primary difference between the two lots are their relative buildable area restrictions. The minimum New Hope yard is narrow and long, thus creating difficulties with the width of the twinhorne. Conversely, the average lot is restricted in its depth. The question .that should be answered then is how wide and deep of a lot is needed for a twinhome structure? 4 An examination of prospective single family lot redevelopment areas within New Hope~ found the average lot sizes within each respective area to be different than that required under the existing Ordinance. The map attached as Exhibit B identifies the areas examined. The chart below lists our results. Redevelopment Minimum Average Lot Area Areas Lot Width Lot VVidth Area A 90 95 13,300 Area El 90 95 13,300 Area C 85 95 16,200 Area D 85 95 13,300 Area E 90 90 12,600 AVE RAG E 90 95 13,300 An analysis of current twinhome sites within New Hope was also performed to determine what lot sizes actually exist for twinhomas within New Hope. Of the twinhomes or duplexes reviewed, the majority had lot areas of less than 14,000 square feet. The average lot size for said developments was 12,960 square feet, with some units built on lots of as little as 8,000 square feet. OPTIONS FOR AMENDING THE CURRENT TWINHOME PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The following analysis is provided to allow City officials a basis upon which to determine appropriate zoning standards as related to twinhomas. To answer the question on the appropriate lot area and width for twinhomas, the following discussed is offered: Width. An identified goal of New Hope is to encourage single family residential redevelopment into twinhomas. Since many single family lots within the City have widthe of 85 feet, the allowance of such widths for twinhomas is necessary to encourage twinhome development on existing single family lots. The existing requirement of 75 foot lot widths does allow for such redevelopment. Several outcomes result from small lot widths. Lower infrastructure costs. With narrow lots, less street, water and sewer main lines need to be constructed per housing unit, thus decreasing costs. 5 Aesthetic character. With narrow lots, the likelihood of highly visible garages increases due to buildable area restrictions. More dense development. By placing a twinhome where a single family home was, we are doubling density. As a result, externalities such as an increase in traffic, noise, service demands and the like occur. If City officials find these outcomes acceptable, the City should either maintain the 75 foot minimum lot width. ; Lot Area. The current area required for twinhome development in a R-2 District is 14,000 square feet. Based upon the minimum lot size and the lot width of 75 feet as is currently required, a lot depth of 189 feet would be needed. Such dimensions are not reflective of most (all) single family lots within New Hope. Most single family lots are 85 to 90 feet wide with areas of 13,300 square feet~ Because of the existing square foot requirements, most single family lots do not qualify for twinhome redevelopment. The examination of existing twinhome developments found a lot area of 12,960 to be average. A reduction of the minimum requirement would greatly increase'the potential for twinhome redevelopment of single family lots. Staff believes that lot areas of 10,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet is sufficient for twinhomes in most cases, as is evidenced by lot area requirements in Robbinsdale, Plymouth, Hopkins, Crystal and many other communities. CONCLUSION A policy decision must be made in regard to the appropriateness of twinhomes on single family lot sizes. If found to be appropriate, a decision can be made regarding the acceptable lot area for twinhome developments. Upon decision of this factor, a Zoning Ordinance amendment can subsequently be prepared for consideration. pc: Dou~ Sandstad Steve Sondrall 6 Figure I New Hope * Minimum Standards Figure 2 Surveyed Communities. Average Minimum Standards 95 feet 75 feet Scale = 1:50 Exhibit A - Comparison Figures MARKET VALUES _~ ,,,,~_,;-.- ,, ASSESSED IN 1995 Area B _~ ~.k~. · :q![ I ._. '" : :,~-. i ;~J !!'~.'.~ ~; ~ ...... ~ ~---~' '. Area C ' "~i --- HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES ONLY I S::Q.QQO tO 5~. J'leflfleoift ~ Q~ice o( Planni.g an~l De~elol~me~t Exhibit B - Potential RedevelOpment Areas N N~ A~gust lgg? Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Codes & Standards Committee Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Phil Kern, Community Development Intern September 18, 1998 R-2 Lot Size (Planning Case 98-16) This is intended to be for discussion and directional purposes at this point. Preliminary discussions have raised questions concerning the current zoning requirements for development in the R-2 Zone, causing staff to research and develop potential changes to the City Code. Such changes could allow more flexibility for twinhome developments in the R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District. The Planning Consultant, in his attached report, explains why changing the lot size requirements would be consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. Of our potential redevelopment areas, 80% have lot sizes smaller than the current requirement. This will make the van.'ety of options in our scattered site housing program and pdvate redevelopment limited in the future. Staff would like to discuss potential options for a zoning code text amendment. The discrepancy in the R-2 lot size requirements between New Hope's current ordinance and those of neighboring cities was discovered when staff started researching redevelopment options for 5629 Wisconsin Avenue. That property contains 13,500 square feet and would not accommodate .a twinhome even if it is rezoned R-2 because the existing ordinance requires 14,000 square feet. Staff initially felt that property could be acquired from adjacent properties to increase the lot size, however that is not feasible because both lots on either side of the property also contain 13,500 square feet. Upon further discussion with the City Manager, he has indicated he wants the Codes & Standards Committee to consider amending the R-2 lot size requirements for the entire City, especially after reviewing the requirements from other cities for R-2 properties. A number of changes have been made recently to the standards in other districts and it may be time to modify the standards for the R-2 District. Staff is requesting that the Committee consider amending the standards based on the Planner's report. After consideration has been given to the standards on a City-wide basis, then the specific redevelopment or rezoning at 5629 Wisconsin can be discussed at a future meeting. City staff also met with the Planning Consultant and City Attorney on 9/9 to discuss this issue and the consensus of those present was to reduce the R-2 lot size requirements from 7,000 square feet per unit for two-family dwellings to 8,000 square feet per unit. The City Attomey has prepar~ed the attached ordinance making this change. Attachments: 9/18 City Attomey Correspondence and Ordinance 7/21/98 Planner's Report (Twinhome Lot Size) 7/16/98 Building Official Report 6126/98 Surrounding community survey MEMORANDUM TO: KIRK McDONALD AL BRIXIUS, NAC ~. FROM DOUG sANDsTAD ~ DATE: JULY 16, 1998 {' ] RE: EXISTING TWINHOMES & DUPLEXEs IN NEW HOPE I have reviewed basic land area data for 156 of our twinhomes or duplexes. The approximate minimum lot size for ~A of a dwelling [some are not platted as "zero lot line"] was found to be 4,000 sr. In this case, the land is zoned R-3, but has two separate twinhomes on it. In other neighborhoods, unit lot sizes [actual or perceived] range from 4,800 to 8,000 sf. Six of the 11 clusters oftwinhomes have at least one lot area under the 7,000 sf threshold in today's code. Two are PUDs. Perhaps a dozen were found to have been built on 75' or 77 'wide lots. All had garages except for the Oregon Avenue cluster of 32 dwelling units, where 50% have built a detached garage in the rear yard of the narrow lots. I believe that a minimum lot area/unit of 5,000 to 6,000 is sufficient for a twinhome in many cases. Naturally, they tend not to be isolated. They tend to be on the edge of a neighborhOOd or clustered. Two existing twinhomes are alone, on comer lots, another few are part of a pair, while most are in larger developments up to 24 structures. We may want to consider an appeal to a different housing market, one that desires a smaller yard, but a nice dwelling with a maintenance free-exterior, which is one metro- area trend. These are not solely "empty nesters", either. Singles, first time buyers and professionals who travel a lot like this type of housing. Zoning Requirements for Twinhomes/Two-Family Residential Updated and Verified: June 26, 1998 New Hope R-2 ??? 7,000 S.F. 14,000 S.F. St. Louis Park R-2 by permit only must have 600 $.F. open R-3** 60' 4,000 S.F. 8,000 S.F. Columbia Heights R-2 60' 4,200 S.F. 8,400 S.F. Robbinsdale R-2 '*80' 4,800 S.F. 9,600 S.F. Plymouth R-MF * 90' 5,000 S.F. 10,000 S.F. Hopkins R-2 * 100' 6,000 S.F. 12,000 S.F. multi-family district R-3 3,500 S.F. 7, 000 $.F. Brooklyn Center R-2 75' 6,200 S.F. 12,400 S.F. for a comer lot R-2 90' 6,200 $.F. 12,400 S.F. Crystal R-2 100' 6,250 S.F. 12,500 S.F. Golden Valley R-2 100' 6,250 S.F. 12,500 S.F. Maple Grove - R-3 * 85' 7,000 S.F. 14,000 S.F. Brooklyn Park R-4 '~ 120' 8,100 S.F. 16,200 S.F. homes built 1980 R-4 * 5,400 $.F. 10,800 S.F. none Minnetonka R-2 required 12,500 S.F. 25,000 S.F. * denotes zoning dis~ct equivolent to the single/two-family residential d~strict (R-2 in New Hope) **In St. Louis Park, R-2 is stdcUy single-family and twinhomes are by permit only. In St. Louis Park, the R-3 district is its two-family district, and the parameters listed above in R-3 are for its twinhomes. Memorandum To: From: Date: sUbject: Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development October 2,1998 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. 1. September 14 Council/EDA Meetings At the September 14 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Project #646, Motion Authorizing Staff to Negotiate to Purchase the Property at 5546 Sumter Avenue North from Luverne and June Peterson, Owners: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Resolution Electing to Continue Participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, Calendar Year 1999: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Resolution Authorizing Release of Security for Development at 7300 49"' Avenue North (Planning Case 97-06): Approved, see attached Council request. D. Ordinance No. 98-17, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing a Shoreland Permit Overlay District (Planning3 Case 96-31): Adopted, see attached Council request. Due to the minor nature of the changes, this ordinance was not reconsidered by the Planning Commission. E. Planning Case 98-20, Request for Variance to the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Garagle, 8489 North Meadow Lake Road: Approved. F. Plannin;I Case 98-18, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of Brandell Fourth Addition and Side Yard Setback Variance to Allow Parking Lot Five Feet from Property Line, 9401-9443 and 9449 Science Center Drive Approved, final plat is in process. G. Planning Case 97-32, Request for CUP/Development Stage PUD with Waivers to Allow Townhouse Development for Bass Lake Court and Final Plat Approval of PPL Addition, 7300-7332 Bass Lake Road: Approved. H. Project 578, Discussion Regarding Property at 2751 Lamphere Drive: Council declined purchase of property and abandoned park expansion option, see attached Council request. I. Planning3 Case 96-27, Resolution Approving 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update: Approved, see attached Council request. The Council extended its thanks for ali the work devoted to the update. J. Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain Quotes for an Appra!sa! for Pro~ne.,ty Located at 611,'t West Broadway and Authorizing Staff to Obtain an Appraisal from the Lcwcst Responsibl,~ Bidder. Approved, see attached Council request. K. Proiect ~620, Discussion Regarding Proposed 49~ Avenue.trill69 Ramp Si,~~-~ Improvements and Medicine Lake Road/TH169 Ramp Signal Improvement.-: Approved MnDOT concept plans and financial participation, see attached Council request. L. DiscuSsion Regarding Proposed 49t~ Avenue/Winnetka Avenue Signal Improvement=: Approved signal reconstruction and financial contribution in the amount of $12,000, see attached Council request. M. Summary of Ordinance No. 98-17, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing a Shoreland Permit Overlay District: Adopted, see attached Council request and ordinance. 2. September 28 CouncillEDA Meetings - At the September 28 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Resolution Declaring October 12-16, 1998, "Minnesota Manufacturers Week" in the city of New Hope: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Project #614, Motion Approving Quote Submitted by Peer Environmental & Engineerin_cl, Inc in the Amount of $14,512.50 for Overseeing the Removal of Underground Storage Tanks at 7300 Bass Lake Road: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Project #613 & ~:~41, Motion Approving Bid Submitted by Angstrom Analytical in th,- Amount of $860 for Environmental Survey at 62"~ Avenue A~na.rtment Propert_!ee: Approved, see attached Council request. D. Project ~547, Resolution Authorizing Preparation of En;linesHn~3 Feasibility Report for Street & Storm Sewer Project; Approved, see attached Council request. E. Proiect #614, Resolution Authorizing Funding for Acquisition of Property Located at 733? Bass Lake Road by Proiect for Pride in Living, Inc. for Ba~_ [:~ke Townhomes Project: Approved, see attached EDA request. F. Proiect #467, Discussion Regarding Release of Security on Mo~n~a;ie for Property Located at 7709 42"~ Avenue: See attached EDA request. 2. Codes & Standards Committee - The Committee met in September to discuss bus benches, sign code, home occupations and R-2 lot size. 3. Desian & Review Committee - Design & Review met in September to review plans for Taco Bell at Midland Center, United Hardware building sound barrier/fence, and a side yard air conditioner variance request. 4. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - The Committee will remain in tact to review-plan updates for neighboring cities. 5. Project Bulletin - Enclosed is a project bulletins regarding 5629 Wisconsin Avenue, Dorothy Mary Park and the Project for Pride in Living/Bass Lake Road Townhome Project. Attachments: 5546 Sumter Avenue Metropolitan Livable Communities Act 7300 49~ Avenue Shoreland Permit Overlay District Ordinance 2751 Lamphere Drive 1998 Comprehensive Plan 6113 W. Broadway 7300 Bass Lake Road Underground Storage Tanks Signal Improvements 49~¥Winnetka/Feasiblity Study 62"~ Avenue Apartments/Angstrom Street & Storm Sewer Project/Feasibility Study 7332 Bass Lake Road 7709 42n~ Avenue Signal Improvements: 49~/I-Iwy 169 & 27~/Hwy. 169 Shoreland Permit Overlay District Summary Ordinance Minnesota Manufacturers Week FOR ACTION Ongma~mg D~parm~ent Community Development Appro~l ~'or ACenda aCenda Secuon ~ .r'--)~, 9-14-98 Item No. 6.7 By.cSusan Henry ommunity Development Specialist MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AT 5546 SUMTER AVENUE NORTH FROM LUVERNE AND JUNE PETERSON, OVVNERS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #646) At the August 10 New Hope City Council meeting, the City Council approved and directed staff to have an appraisal completed of the property located at 5546 Sumter Avenue North. Forsythe Appraisals completed an appraisal of the property on August 24, 1998, and estimated the fair market value of the property to be $94,000. The 1998 valuation of the property is $78,000 ($19,500 lend/S58,500 building). Staff has given a copy of the 'appraisal to the Petersons. Mr. Peterson stated to staff that he thought his property is worth more than the recent appraisal. Staff stated this would be discussed further, pending Council's authorization to proceed with purchase negotiations. Staff has also indicated to the Petersons that because this would be a voluntary sale, no relocation benefits would be paid. The property, at the southeast intersection of Bass Lake Road and Sumter Avenue, is located in a targeted redevelopment area. The City owns some of the propertle~ in the area; specifically, 7621 Bass Lake Road and 5530 Sumter Avenue North. These properties have been landbanked for future redevelopment. If this property at 5546 Sumter Avenue is purchased, the house would be demolished and the site would be landbanked. Demolition and a~3ciated site preparations will be paid from CDBG or TIF funds. Staff reCOmmends approval of a motion authorizing staff to negotiate'to purchase the property at 5546 Sumter Avenue No~. MOTION BY' TO: 7800 UNTY T# ELM ST. Rid)IdEk CATHOUC CHURCH COONcI~, R] UEST FOR ACTION OngmaUng De~'~t Community Development Approved for Agenda .*4enda Secuon Cdnserlt 8 Item No. 1~. 6.8 By.cSusan Henry ommunity Development Specialist RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT, CALENDAR In 1995, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA) was enacted to address the development and maintenance of affordable and lEe-cycle housing in the metropolitan area. As part of the LCA, municipalities negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals based on current indexes and benchmark goals set by the Metropolitan Council. In 1996, the City of New Hope identified goals and methods of achieving those goals through the development of the Housing Action Plan. The Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, established by the LCA, provides funding and assistance for affordable and life-cycle housing related activities to achieve goals set by the City. In order for the City to be eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act in calendar year 1999, the City must participate in the Local Housing Incentive Account Program. The deadline for participation in this program is November 15, 1998. Therefore, staff recommends approvM of a Resolution Electing to Continue Participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities ACt. MOTION BY TO:. c zz, RF UE T FOR ACTZON Approved for Agenda Agenda Section ~nn~qt / Item 9-14-98 6.9 Originating Depax~aeat Community Development BY'Kirk McDonald 1 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF SECURITY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 7300 49~ AVENUE NORTH (PLANNING CASE 97-06) At the May 26 CounCil meeting, the City Council authorized a reduction in the financial guarantee for the development at 7300 49"~ Avenue' North (Planning Case 97-06) to $3,000. The City Engineer and Building Official recommended holding that amount to insure that all restoration around the ponds was acceptable and the developer provided a cashier's check to the City in the amount of $3,000 as the financial guarantee. The City Engineer has recently inspected the site and reports that all restoration work around the ponds ~s acceptable, states that all engineering related issues have been addressed, and recommends releasing the remaining letter of credit for the project. The B~ilding Official has completed the enclosed Plat Bond Review form and also recommends releasing the remaining funds being held on the project. All of the related administrative expenses have been paid. The enclosed resolution authorizes the release of the remaining security for the development at 7300 49"~ Avenue North and staff recommefx:l approval of the resolution. MOTION BY TO: J A-O01 COONCm RE U'E T FOR ACTION Approved t'or Agenda Agenda Section Public Hearin9 9~ Item ~o. OrtgtrmCtng Department Community Development BY'irk McDonald PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE NO. 98-17, A/N ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING A SHORELAND PERMIT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PLANNING CASE 96-31) This is a public hearing to consider the adoption of An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing a Shoreland Permit Overlay District (Planning Case 96-31). The Council adopted a similar ordinance at the October 13, 1997, City Council meeting. Following the adoption of that ordinance, the City Manager sent the enclosed correspondence and ordinance to the Department of Natural Resources. Recognizing the existing development conditions surrounding the City's lakes and tributaries and the City's proactive efforts to encourage reinvestment and maintenance in the City's housing stock, the ordinance that was approved by the Council requested flexibility in two areas: structure setbacks and accessory building height. The DNR has finally responded to the City's request for flexibility in these areas and the City Attorney has revised the odginal ordinance, per staff's request, to incorporate the final determinations by the DNR. Structure Setbacks Tho State Model Shoreland Ordinance requiree a minimum structure setback of 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHW) of lakes and tributaries. Under the current City Code regulations, a minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet is required. In 1997, the DNR established an OHVVL for Northwood Lake of 885.5 feet. Because there wes no established OHWL, the elevation historically utilized for setback purposes was 884.3 feet, which was the controlled outlet elevation for the lake. It was the City's position that the City's lakeshore setbacks should continue to be measured from the controlled outlet elevation of 884.3 feet, as the lake elevation will not exceed this controlled elevation. Utilizing the newly established OI-IWt. (885.5 feet), it wes determined that there were 11 structures, that do not meet the Model Ordinance setback requirement of 50 feet, and another five homes are dght at the 50-foot setbaclc It wa~ the City's ~ that the State's more restrictive OHWl. on New Hope lakes and shoreland setback would prevent the expansion of these homee within the rear yard. The lots that surround the City'e waterbodiee are small in size (~9,500 square feet) with little room for any home expansion. As a remJIt, it wa~ indicated that the City would likely see numerous variance requests for construction within a 50-foot lalramhore setback area. It wes the City's position that rather than processing variancee to allow cormtmction within the 50-foot settmck, it would be much easier and efficient in terms of time spent by city staff and the DNR (variances require review and comment by the DNR), to enforce a standard 40-foot setback requirement. (cont'd.) MOTION BY ~:OlqD ~' TO:- Request for Action Page 2 9-14-98 The City requested a minimum lake structure setback of 40 feet in order to allow for re~nvestme~ ,i the City's lake homes through new construction and additions, and to reduce the need for time consuming variances. The request was also made due to the establishment of an ordinary high water elevation on Northwood and Meadow Lakes, which would be the point from which setbacks are measured, a point which may be more restrictive than the runout elevation the City had been using. The DNR responded that they cannot support a 40-foot lake structure setback due to the conditions that exist in New Hope and that it is their Opinion that conditions do not exist to warrant a setback closer than $0 feet. The DNR states that "a 40-foot setback would change the character of the shoreland in New Hope. Presently, a substantial majority of the structures exceed the 50-foot setback and the average setback of all structures on dparian lots exceeds 50 feet. There are only 11 structures that do not meet the 50-foot requirement. It doesn't seem reasonable to lower setback standards for 11 structures. It may be worth mentioning that the DNR would not comment negatively on variances for these 11 structures, or the five structures at the 50-foot setback as long as waterward encroachment was not increased. It is our observation that shoreland variances haven't been a real problem in New Hope. i think the fact that only 11 structures are closer than 50 feet to the lake in a city with a current setback of 35 feet indicates the reasonableness of a 50-foot setback.' Acceeaory Structure Building Heiaht The State Model Ordinance eetablLahee a maximum height requirement for water oriented accessory structures of 10 feel SuCh height standard La not consLatont with the maximum 1S- foot height requirement historically impo~KI bY the City of New Hope. Aea result, the City requested that a maximum of 1S-foot height requirement be applLad to water-oriented accetsory structures so that the 1S-foot height requirement for aecetsory structure* would remain uniform throughout the City. The City indicated that to impose a 10-foot height restriction to accessory structures would unfaidy prohibit a person-on a dparian lot from constructing or replacing an existing accessory structure to be the same height as the person on a non-riparian lot. The purpose of the height restriction is to protect the integrity of the lake, by preserving lakeshore views of users of the lake, and views of the lake from existing 'homes. An issue pertinent'to small urban lots is outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, lawn equipment, etc. The City stated that in this respect, the provision of an accessory building for storage is aesthetically more preferable than the alternative. Due to .the fact that all of the City's waterbodiee are fully developed, the continued allowance of a 15-foot height for accessory structures will not have a negative impact on the existing integrity of the lake. The'DNR responded that it La their opinion that a higher aenthedc standard should be held for shoreLand areas, especially those Iota abutting the water. However, the City's request for consistency with the height ~ for acce,~ strtmturee of 18 feet in the reet of the City can be allowed. Therefore, the DNR apprtwed mm of the requ~tz for flexibility and denLad one of the requests. The only remaining ~ hi the 50-foot setback requirement. The DNR'ha, stated that Since adequate justification wa~ not made to alXx'ove a structure setback of'le~ than 50 feet. they cannot recommend approval for the 40-foot setback ee reclu~ted. They have indicated that they will forward a copy of the City's Shoreiand Ordinance for al~zrovel when the structure settmck is changed to 50 feet. In follow-up to the DNR's corre~ondenca, the City Attorney hat prepared the enclosed revised Ordinance Amending the New Hops City Code by Establishing a Shomland Permit OverLay District. The only change made to the ordinance from the one that was previously approved is on page 9, dealing with the required structure setback from the ordinary high water level in Section 4.166(1)(b). The setback has been changed from 40 feet to 50 feet. The ordinance number hat also been changed from 97-15 to 98-17. Due to the minor nature of the change in the ordinance, the Planning Commission did not desire. to again review the ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. " , ~ Minnc.~or~ Depart. mere or' N~urai Rc~ourc~.~ ~ UN[Win. Mam)_~ 1200 Wm~r~ k Pmi. MN fS10~6793 ~ BrMul S~75 Wsyz~ ~ Suit8 SSS SL Z,m,lb Pm~ MXq J~41$ Avenue N~rtJt Minnesota 55425.4898 · :~.t~ce: 512.531.$ ~ 70 =ol~ce ~ax.. ~ '2. -.'.~'..." - 21 Noveml~er 19g? Mr. Tom Hovey Department of Natural Resourcea Metro Waters Division 1200 Wamer Road St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 RE: New Hope - Shoreland Ordinance Dear Mr. Hovey: As you are aware, the City of New Hope ia required to adopt a Shorelancl Ordinance (as part of it~ Surface Water ~egeme~t Plan) to can'y out the intent of the Minnesota Department of Resourcee' State-Wide Star,~rda ~ ~ of Shereland Are_~s~ W'~l't your assistance, the City ~ clrafted and rece~ ~ecl the atta~ed Ordinance pertaining to Sl'lOrelancl regulatior~ for the City of New Hope (see Exhibit A). With this letter, we are formally ~J~mitting the City's Nxx'elancl regulations for DNR review. Recognizing the exi~ing devel~ cortclition~ ~.frounding the City's lakes and tributerie~ (~ee ~ 8), anti the City'~ proactive effo~ to etx:ourage reinvestmant and maintenance in the City'l houalng stock anti c:ommemial ~, the appro~ecl Shoretancl Ord~ ~ flexibility in the following erea~: 4. 5. 6. Oi~riot AIIowecl Lot Area ancl Wlcllll Stanclercl~. Structure ~ Structure HeiSt (mncir Impe~io~ Surface. In our cli~:u~ion$ to date, the City and DNR ~ are in agreeme~ on the flexibility language pertaining to di~'ict bourxleri~, allowed u,~e~, lot &'aa and width standards, and imperviou~ a.~face regulations. We appreciate yoga' cooperation on ~ matters. Mr. Tom Hovey Page 2 Two areas that remain unresolved are flexibility from th® State's structure se~ack requirements (from the OHVVL) and accessory building heights. The basis for tl~e City's flexibility request in these areas ara described as follow~: Structure Setbacks The State Model Shoreland Ordinance requires a minimum structure sa~ack of 50 feet from tt~ ordinary high water level (OHWL) of lake~ and tributariee. Under the current City Code regulations, a minimum rear yard se~ack of 35 feet is required.. The DNR recar~ estal~li~ an OHWL for ~ Lake of 885.5 feet. Because there was no esta~)lished OHWL, the elevation historically utilized for se~ack purposes I~as been 884.3 feet, wi~ich is the controlled outlet elevation for the lake. It is the citY's position, as outlined in the attached letter from Mark Hlnaon, City Engineer (see Ex~ibit C), ~et ~ City's lak~l',3re selt3ec~ s/x, JId continue to be measured from the controlled outlet elevation of 884.3 ~ a~ tt~ lake elevation will n~ exceed ~is controlled elevation. Utilizing the newly estal~li~ OHWl. (885.5 feet), it ha, ~ determined that there are 11 structural that do not melt the Medll Ordinance tatt~ck requirement of 50 flit, and anotl~lr five homll Ire right M ~ 50 feel: ~ (~le Exhibit O). The dull II:~lication of the State's more restrictive OHWL on New ~ Laklt ~ s~'eland ,e~ack will prevent the expansion of theee hom~ within the rear yard. Given the number of ~ thai are I~clted within or near the 50 foot setl~ack requirement, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~in ~~ valu~ in ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ C~I ~ies are small in m ~ ~,~ ~ ~) ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i~. ~ a r~ ~ C~ ~ ~ m ~ v~ r~ ~ ~ ~in a ~ f~t I~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ ~in ~e Tho City is proposing I minimum eetl~ack of 40 feet. Thie will still increase the current required ~ from 35 feet to 40 feet, protect the lake ~ view~, And it will allow some edcliti~ to be built on axi~ng I~ome~. The intent of 1~ ~ from the OHWL is to ~ Ihe'~ quality of the lake And lakeahore view~ of existing homes. The water surface uae of boltt ~ Lake and Meadow Lake is ~ limited and the Mr. Tom Hovey Page 3 overall ~aracter of the shomtine is urban residential. In this regard, the requested 40 foot structure Se~ac~ from the OHWI. will not negatively affect the aesthetic quality of the lake in terms of lake uses. Homes that surround these two lakes were built primarily in the 1960s and are generally valued between $90,000 and $120,000. The 40 foot se~ack allow~ for reinvestment in the City's lake areas through new construction and building additions, wflich is vital to maintain quality and value of these homes and the area. Acce~ory Building Height The State Model Ordinance estadc)iishes a maximum height requirement for water odented accessory structures of 10 feet. Suct'~ height standard is not consistent with the maximum 15 foot height reCluireme~ historically imposed by the City of New Hope. Al a result, the City requests that a maximum of 15 foot height requirement be applied to water-oriented accessory structures. Therefore, the 15 foot height requirement for accessory structures would remain uniform throughout the City. To impose a 10 foot height restriction to accaes~-y structures would unfairly prohibit a person on a dperian lot from conetructing or replacing In existing acceslo~/structure to · be the same heig~ aa the per/on on a non-dperien lot. The ~ of the height , restriction is to be protect the integrity of the like, ~ preserving Iikelhore views of users. of the like, and view~ of the like from existing horace. AA i~de pertinent to smell ur'oan lots is outdoor storage of recreational vehiclel, lawn equipment, etc. In this respect, the City believes ~ the provilk~fl of In ICcallory building for ~torege il aesthetically more "preferable thin the alternative. Due to the fact that all of the City's wltmlxx:lies are fully developed, the continued allowance of 1 15 foot height for acceese~ structures will not have a negative impact on the existing integrity of the lake. CONCLUSION In concl~ we be#eve thai lhe City's I:d'tysical cflerlct~ and filly developed nature represent a unk:lue corm:ilion which make full conformin~e with the DNR Model Ordinance requirements unrealistic. Thil il rl~ to say, however, that the City does not recognize the value of its water ra/ourcel and the need for their protection Ind preservation. In this regard, it is believed the City's Surface Water Management Plan, coupled with the City's Floodplain, Wetland and pending Shoreland Ordinincl~, demon~te tl~ City's commitment to the continued protection and preservation of its valued water resources. Mr. Tom Hovey Page 4 We hol:)e that you look favoral=ly on the City's request f~ flexibility. If you have any questions or comments 131ee~e contact AJen Brixius at $9~9636. you in aclvance for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, CITY OF NEW HOPE Daniel Donal'tue City Manager Thank Alan Brixiue Kirk McDonald Doug San¢latld Steve Sonclrell Ongtrmt. tn¢ D~mnmeat Approved for Ageada Agenda SecUon Development Community Development & Plannin,q 9-14-98 Item No. BY:' Kirk McDonald ~ DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPERTY AT 2751 I.AMPHERE DRIVE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 578) At the June 22 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the property at 2751 Lamphere Ddve, as the City indicated an interest in purchasing the property for potential redevelopment purposes. The updated appraisal states a fair market value of $120,000. The 1998 assessed value of the property is $99,000 ($29,500 land/S69,500 building). The parcel contains approximately 32,500 square feet (.75 acres) and is located in an R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. In 1996 the Council also authorized an appraisal on the property, as the owner was selling the property and a code compliance inspection had indicated a number of code violations. The house was built around 1900 and is one of the oldest homes in the City.. At that time there were two dwelling units located in the single family home. In 1996 the City also indicated a preliminary interest in the property for redevelopment purposes. The 1996 appraisal gave an estimated fair market value of the property of $119,000. Subsequent to the completion of the 1996 appraisal, the Council approved a motion not to purchase the property due to the purchase pdce, the location of the sanitary sewer and because the City would have been required to provide relocation benefits to the tenants of the property. At the August 24 Council meeting, the appraisal was presented to the Council for consideration. A petition was presented to the Council from neighboring property owners requesting that the site be utilized for only single family home purposes. The City had considered potentially subdividing the property and constructing a twinhome on the site. (See attached memo from the Planning Consultant which indicates the property would have to be rezoned to R-2 to accommodate a twinhome. Due to the economics of a sihgle family redevelopment, the City Manager recommended that the Council not purchase the property. The Council referred the matter to the Citizen Advisory Commission to determine if the Commission had any interest in all or a portion of the property for park purposes. The Citizen Advisory Commission met and discussed this issue on August 31. The Commission considered several park options for the property, per the attached minutes. The Commission approved a motion that the idea of purchasing the property at 2751 Lamphere Drive not be pursued for any reason. The Commission stated reasons for not pursuing acquisition of the property including the cost involved, loss of tax dollars, no demonstrated need for additional park property, and the cost to redesign the park if property is added at the north end. Based on the recommendation of the Citizen Advisory Corflmission, staff recommends approval of a motion not to 13ursue the acquisition of the orcoertv at this time. MOTION BY ~i~OND BY' TO:. · RFA-001 ~ Approv~ for,~genda ~enda Development & Ptannin,q 9-~~ Item Ong=mt/ng Del~rlznent Community Development BY'Kirk McDonald / PLANNING CASE 96-27, RESOLUTION APPROVING 1998 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, CITY OF NEW HOPE, PETITIONER Pending City Council comments, staff is requesting approval of a Resolution Approving 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update from the City Council. The Planning Consultant will be making the of the Comprehensive Plan Update to the Council. 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 in 1976. Now, after twenty-two years, the City is nearing the completion of another, updated Comprehensive Plan. The plan, serves as a general guideline for city planning and development and provides goals and plans for the future. The updated plan is intended to provide a detailed vision for the City of New Hope that will assist planning, development, housing, transportation and land use through the year 2020. A Comprehensive Plan Update Committee was established, including the Planning Commission, Citizen Advisory Commission membem and city staff/consultants, and the Committee met ovei' the past 14 months to update the plan. Roger Landy, Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission, chaired the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee and staff exten~ls its thank~ to all that served on the Committee. The process began with a Tactical Study. Through a sede~ of interviews with elected and apl~inted officials,' local busine~ people, and city staff, local concems and need~ were identified by the Planning Consultant. Following the Tactical Study, the next step required a city-wide technical inventory of all social, environmental, and phy~:al fact~ and trends of the community. With the interviews and a city tour, this part of the proce~ wa~ related to the research acquired from the Tactical Study. With the research compiled from the prior step~, the Policy Plan and the formulation of the Development and Framework were then created. Thee phases account for the bulk of the written Comprehensive Plan. The Policy Plan outlinee the de~ired community planning goals that the City wishes to accomplish by (cont'd.) MOTION BY TO: ~:OND BY ':" ' Request for Action Page 2 2020. The Development and Framework outlines sbecifid plans for improving housing, land use, transportation, infrastructure, and the natural environment. 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 'can'ying out the goals and visions of the Comprehensive Plan. With each phase of the Update, the Comprehensive Plan Committee met to review the developments and make comments as to the direction of the Plan. The Committee conducted a work session with the City Council midway through the update to seek Council feedback. At this point, the Comprehensive Plan Update is almost complete. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the plan and took public comment on the plan at its September 2 meeting. Due to the commente made at the public healing (please refer to meeting minutee), the Commiuion recommended approval of the plan with one modification: re-designating three proper'dee in the Lamphere Drive neighborhood aa Iow density reeidential, aa opposed to medium and Iow deneity m_-.~dentla_!= The Council should discuea this prop~med change and any other modiflcationa that the Council deema appropriate. After approval of the plan, the comprehensive Plan Update will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council and neighboring cities for review and comment. Three-ring bindare of the Comprehenaiva Plan Update were dlatributed laat month for your review. Please bring the bindare to the Council meeting for referenge. Pending approval, thia Comprehensive Plan will serve as a guide for programs and actions that will be taken to a~ure the accomplishment of the outlined goals and visions. It will serVe as a model for the elected~ o~ltcials, appointed officials, and city staff in their continuing proce~ of making the City of New Hope a better place to work and live. Staff recommends approval of the re~olution. I?.Y tT T I OR ACTION Ongmau.,tg Depa~Lu~e~t Community Development BY'Kirk McDonald Approved for,~emia ,~genda Sect. ton Development ,~.~ & Planning 9 Item No. MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO QUOTES FOR AN APPRAISAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6113 WEST BROADWAY AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBTAIN AN APPRAISAL FROM THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER It has come to staff's attention that the gas station/convenience store property located at 6113 West Broadway is for sale. The property is located at the southwest intersection of 62'~ Avenue and WeSt Broadway and is adjacent to the three four-plex properties the City recently purchased. The property could be utilized for future redevelopment purposes on 62~ Avenue. The property is currently zoned B-3, Automobile Oriented. The 1998 tax valuation of the property is $186,000 ($140,000 land/S46,000 building). The property is being advertised for sale in the amount of $330,000. The property is located in an area where tax increment funds can be utilized. If the Council has an interest in potentially acquiring this property for potential, future redevelopment purposes, staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing staff to obtain quotes for an appraisal of the property and proceed with an appraisal based on the lowest, responsible bid. MOTION BY' TO:. COUNCE., FOR ACTION Approved for Agenda Agenda Section /_ 9-14-98 Development & Planning Item No. Originating Department Public Works Jeannine Clancy / DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED 49a AVENUE/TH 169 RAMP SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND MEDICINE LAKE ROAD/TH 169 RAMP SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT 620) In the Fall of 1997, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) informed staff that it intends to construct traffic signals on the east and west ramps of Trunk Highway 169 and 49~ Avenue. Since that time, the City Engineer and staff have worked with MnDOT engineers to resolve design concerns that staff has relative to pedestrian crossing and accessibility over the bndge, and the impact that the signals will have on the Highway 169 Service Road and 49"~ Avenue. In June, the City Engineer presented the project to the City COuncil along with the request from MnDOT to participate financially in the project. During the City Engineer's presentation he noted that MnDOT would also be making a request for the City to participate in the construction of a signal on the ramp at Medicine Lake Road/TH 169. The City Council directed staff to inform MnDOT that while the City ia supportive of the project, the City declined to partiCipate in funding the project. .The Director of Public Works informed MnDOT of the Council's direction. After the conversation with MnDOT staff, the City received a letter from MnDOT which said: MnDOT requires local governments to participate in the coat of signal projects such as these since MnDOT believes that the local community receives a benefit from the projects, and because it maximizes the use of State fund~. MOTION BY TO: $~COND BY RFA-O01 Request for Action Ramp Signal Improvement~ (Project $20). September 14, lgg8 Page 2 MnDOT has reviewed the projects to determine if they would be competitive for Federal funding. At this time, neither location appears to be competitive for Federal funds. In the event that Federal funds were received for the projects, local participation would be required albeit at a lower amount. 3. If the City does not participate at this time in the projects, any future project would have to be completed at the City's expense in total. Staff's position on these projects is as follows: The Signal Justification Reports (SJR) for the intersections of Medicine Lake Road/TH 169 nd 49' Ave. nue/TH .1.69 have been received and reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer. ive warrants are satisfied ~ each location suggesting that signalization would improve the efficiency of the intersections. The City has expended its Municipal State Aid (MSA) fund~ for 199~, and is planning to utilize this funding source for the next several years for the proposed 36* Avenue (VVinnetka Avenue to TH 169) project. 3. New Hope's proposed contribution to the projec~ i $100,750. The City's Capital Improvement Program identified $100,000 for signsi~ at ~ locations. Adequate funds exist in the Road and Bridge fund to pay for the City's portion of the project. Given the issue~ related to thi project, staff recommend~ conce~ approval of the Project. If Council agrees to concept approval, the agraement~ for theee projects would be presented to Council for consideration at a later date. Staff request~ that the f~ motion be considered by Council, "Motion approving th~ concept plans for pmpoeed ~ at Medicine Lake Roed/TH 160 and 49a Avenue/TH 169.' COUNCIL RF UEST FOR ACTION Approved for Agenda P4enda Section / ~ 9-14-98 Development & Planning Item No. 8.8 ~attr~ DepaxLmeat Public Works BT:. Jeannine Clancy DISCUSSION REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS / PROPOSED 4cJ~ AVENUE/WINNETKA AVENUE SIGNAL Background In the Spdng of 1998, Hennepin County staff informed the City that it was interested in upgrading the signal at the intersection of 49"~ Avenue/Winnetka Avenue. The existing signal is approximately 21 years old, and many of the elements do not meet current design standards. The intersection was approved for Federal funding through the Hazard Elimination Program. The intersection was selected for this program because of the current accident rate coupled with the anticipated reduction in accidents that would occur because of the pmpossd project. The accident rate for intersections throughout the County that are similar to the intersection of 49"~ Avenue/Winnetka Avenue is .87. The accident rate at the intersection of Avenue/Winnetka Avenue is 2.27. · Sc°oe of Prooosed Prole~ The scope of the pmpoeed project includes removal and replacement of the entire signal system, including the poi~ and cabinets. The new signals would utilize LED technology. The indicators (signal buil~) are much brighter with this type of signal system and are therefore more visible. In addition, LED technology utilizes less power. Since the City pays a portion of the electricity bill for thil signal, the estimated annual operating cost seving~ to the City is $1,200. The total capital co~t of the project is $125,000. The City's share is $14,000 and the remaining porliorm would be paid by Federal and County government. MOTION BY TO: SECOND BY RFA-O01 Request for Action Winnetkm/49m. Signal September 14, 1998 Page 2 Altemata Project Staff asked the County to review this intersection to determine if, given the accident rate, an altemata project could be considered. An alternate project would include dedicated left turn lanes on Winnetka Avenue. The County has reviewed this alternate project and found that: An alternate project would cost approximately $800,000, plus dght of way acquisition. It is estimated that the City's share of this project would be approximately $120,000 plus the cost of dght of way. An altemata project would have to be scheduled in the County's Capital Improvement Program. County staff believes that the earliest this intersection would be approved for funding is in five to seven years. 3. Federal funds available for the proposed project would be Io~t if an alternate project was substituted. Recommendation Staff recommends that the project to recon~-uct the ex[sting aignel~, without adding left turn lanes on Winnetka Avenue, be approved for the following reesona: 1. Funding is not available at either the City or County level to add left turn lanes on Winnetka Avenue. 2. County staff believes that the project, a~ pmpceed with no leR turn lano~, will reduce the ' number of eccident~ by 25 to 35 percent. Thi~ ia due to. the mom visible indicators. 3. With the estimated reduction in operating costs, the City would recover its contribution in about 10 yearn. Staff recommend~ that the foloMng motion be mede: 'Motion aplXoving the ~ signal reconae~tion on 4~ Avlnue/Wlnne~a Avenue and ~!dng the County to continue to monitor the int~ for ~ and eervice Funding is available in the Road and Bridge Fund for the City's portion of the project, ff Council approves the project, a coopemlNe agrmm~nt will be presented to the Council at a future date. The County currently plarm to construct the project in Spring, 1999. cou c RF b'E T FOR ACTION for ~enda ,~genda Sect/on Ordinances & Resolution~ 9-14-98 Item No. 10.3 Or~tnarJz~ Depa~l.,~ent Community Development By:. Kirk McDonald / SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO 98-17, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING A SHORELAND PERMIT OVERLAY DISTRICT The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed Summary of Ordinance No. 98-17, which is being placed on the agenda after the public hearing considering the actual ordinance. The adoption of this summary permits the City to publish the summary in place of the full text of the ordinance, which is a significant savings of publication costs to the City. The summary ordinance must be adopted by a 415ths vote of the CounciI to permit its publication. Also, the Council must conclude that the summary clearly conveys to the pUblic the intent and effect of Ordinance No. 98-17. If the Council believes the summary (~rdinance does not satisfy this requirement, the Council should not adopt the summary as written. Staff recommends approval of the summary ordinance. MOTION BY' SLTMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 98-17 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING A SHORELAND PERMIT OVERLAY DISTRICT The following summary of Ordinance No. 98-17 is hereby approved by the New Hope City Council for official publication, this 14th day of September, 1998. The Council hereby determines this summary ordinance clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of Ordinance No. 98-17. The title of Ordinance No. 98-17 is "An Ordinance Amendin_sz The New Hooe City Code By Establishing a Shorel_an_d_ Permit Overlay District." Section One of the ordinance establishes new definitions in New Hope Code Section 4.022 as follows: (9D) "Bluff', (9E) "Bluff Impact Zone", (12A) "Building Line", (23A) "Commercial Use", (24C) "Commissioner", (33A) "Deck", (7lA)"Hardship", (74B) "Ordinary High Water Level", (l 12A)"Public Waters", (122B)"Semi-Public Use", (122C) "Sensitive Resource Management", (124B)"Shore Impact Zone", (12:5F) "Steep Slope", (128C) "Toe of the Bluff', (128D) "Top of the Blufl~, and (132A) "Water-Oriented Accessory Structure or Facility". These definitions are all specific to the Shoreland Permit Overly District established 'by this ordinance. Section Two of the ordinance mends the definition of"~" ~ out at Section 4.022 (123) oft. he New Hope City Code. The amendment provides for a setback from shorelines and bluffs as well aa buildings, streets and lot lines. It also indicates setbacks will be measured from tops of bluffs and lakes' ordinary high water levels. Section Three of the ordinance establishes a zoning district known as the "Shoreland Permit ~ s~t out at Section 4.16 of the New Hop~ Zoning Code. Section 4.161 of this new zoning district establishes policy and application procedures. Section 4.16~ provides for a shor~land classification system. Basically, it. defines Northwood and Meadow Lakes as smmral ck'velopm~nt lakes. Bass Creek and Bassett Creek - North Branch are established as tributary streams. Section 4.163 deals with the administration of shoreland constm~on and/or building permits. This section also includes related activities revolving deck consmiction, grading and filling activities~ It requir~ a Certificate of Zoning Complianc~ involvill$ procedures for variances and conditional us~ permits. Section 4.164 controls allowed ~ within land use districts. Section 4.16:~ governs lot area and width standards. Said stalldards apply to all resick, ntial, commercial and industrial properties.- Section 4.166 regulates placement, design and height of struc~ This Section is significant in that it r~'~ulates such things including, but not limited to, placement of structur~ on lots, design criteria for structures, shoreland alterations of vegsemtion and topography and storm water management. Section 4.167 permits the continuation of non- conformities legally established before the effective dat~ of the ordinance and further indicates when said non-conformities must be brought into conformance with the provision of this ordinance. Section 4 of the ordinance establishes its effective date upon passage and publication. This summary was adopted by at least a 4/Sths vote of the Council as required by Minn. Stat. §412.191. Also, a printed copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for review during regular business hours at the office of the New Hope City Clerk and it will also be posted at the New Hope Ice Arena. W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk ltI VJ gT I OR ACTION ongma~ D~t Appn~,d f~ Development -- 8 98 Approml for Agenda Agenda Section Consent L'8 -98 Item No. ~ 6.6 Community Development BY'Kirk McDonald RESOLUTION DECLARING OCTOBER 12-16, 1998, "MINNESOTA MANUFACTURERS WEEK" IN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE. Governor Ame Cadson has declared October 12-16, 1998, "Minnesota Manufacturers Week' throughout the State. In addition, the Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) is working with cities all across Minnesota to recognize this week as well. The Governor and DTED have made this declaration in an effort to raise the general public awareness of manufactudng's importance in providing high-wage, high-skill jobe and a stable tax base for our communities. New Hope is one of these communities that has benefited from the high-skill jobs and a strong tax base thanks to our manufacturers. Statewide, manufacturers are responsible for the largest single portion of Minnesota's gross product, and have the largest payroll of any business sector. We believe is it is an important step to recognize the importance of our manufacturers in New Hope. Staff recommends approval of this resolution declaring October 12-16, 1998, *Minnesota Manufacturers Week" in the City of New Hope. MO11ON BY COUN~ Or~mat. tr~ D~t ~p~ ~r ~ ~ ~on Commun~ Development ~ ~nn~nt ~ lt~ No. ~cDonald MOTION A~ROVINO QUOT~ ~UBMI BY ~R ~RONM~NTAL ~ ~NOIN~RING RESOURCES, IN~. IN THE AMOUNT O~ $q4,5~2.50 ~OR OVERS~INO TH~ R~MOVAL OF UND~ROROUND STO~O~ TANKS AT 7300 BASS ~K~ ROAD (IM~ROV~NT PRODUCT NO. In or, er to me~t tho r~uimm~nts of th~ Minnesota Housing Finan~ Agency and th~ National ~qui~ ~und, P~L is r~qu~Ung that ~ ~r~ und~mund ~tomgo ~1 ~nk~ ~ removed ~om tho Spur oas station Oro~ at 73~ ~ass Lak~ Road ~for~ ~L takes ~ to ~ Om~. ~ ~ of N~w Ho~ ou~ntly owns th~ oro~. A~ing to P~L, tho MH~A a~ N~ do not wa~ ~ir ~on of th~ proj~t fun~s invo~ ~h Om~ that ~ains und~mu~ ~n~ and ~11 only ~o~ on th~ tanks ar~ r~mov~. 8~usa the und~roround stomgo tanks' ramoval is ~ of th~ ~PL ~v~lopm~nt oroje~, PPL is assuming resoonsibili~ for managi~ th~ tank ~moval. PPL ~11 ~ffo~ th~ followin~ a~iviti~s ~aining to th~ r~mowl of th~ ~to~g~ tank~. . monRor tho wo~ ~ ~ ~ntm~or PPL has hir~ P~R ~n~mnm~l to soli~ quot~s ~m ~n~o~ for tho removal of the underground sto~ ~ a~ ~ ovo~ ~ wo~, ~r tho a~ d~mo~on. P~L and th~ Gi~ Request for Action Page 2 however, the soonest they could complete the work would be November. The second lowest bidder, Gdggs Contracting, can complete the work the week of October 5. The quote by PEER Environmental, which includes the tank removal by Gdggs Contracting, is in the amount of $14,512.50 This quote includes the removal and disposal of three 10,000-gallon underground storage tanks, previously containing gasoline, and one dispensing island, backfilling the excavated voids, removal monitoring and soil sampling, and reporting and documentation to the MPCA. The costs for services associated with the excavation of contaminated soil including excavation monitoring, soil sampling, laboratory analysis, soil treatment, permitting, and report preparation are not included in the proposal. The cost for the tank removal is being paid for out of the projects funds. No additional costs are being incurred by the City above and beyond the funding that was previously committed. The City simply needs to approve the contract because the City is the official property owner. The Building Official and Fire Marshall have reviewed the specifications and find them to be routine. PEER Environmental was retained by PPL to perform a limited Phase II subsurface investigation at the project site eadier this year in preparation for a property transfer. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate potential impacts to soil and groundwater beneath the site from present and/or past land use activities, with emphasis around the former 'underground storage tanks and dispenser pumps. A petroleum release at the site was reported to the MPCA in 1991, following underground storage tank activities at the site. The file wes closed in 1993 by the MPCA. The conclusion of the Phase II investigation states that it appears the contaminants identified in the groundwater within the gas station portion of the property are from the 1991 reported release and that there does not appear to have been any subsequent leaks or releases of petroleum since the site was dosed by the MPCA in 1993. The report also states that the concentrations of the detected contaminants appear to have decreased since 1993, suggesting that natural attenuation is still occurring. The work is scheduled to proceed immediately after approval by the City Council. As soon as the tanks are removed, the gas station building will be demolished. Staff is coordinating with PPL to get both the gas station and the office building demolished the first part of October. Staff recommends approval of a motion by the City Council approving the quote submitted by PEER Environmental and Engineering Resources, Inc. in the amount of $14,512.50 for overseeing the removal of the underground storage tanks at 7300 Bes~ Lake Road. _ COOTVCff., REQUEST FOR ACTION Approv~ for Agenda Agenda $ecUon Consent Item No. 9-28-98 6.12 Or~mat. m~ Depa~ b~e~t Community Development BY'Kirk McDonald MOTION APPROVING BID SUBMITTED BY ANGSTROM ANALYTICAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $860.00 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY AT 62N° AVENUE APARTMENT PROPERTIES (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 613 AND 641) Staff is gearing up for the demolition of the three four-plex properties located at 7601, 7621 and 7641 62'~ Avenue North this fall. The first step is to have an environmental survey completed of the buildings for asbestos and PCBs. Northern Environmental has solicited quotes for the City and received the folloWing quotes: Company Hourly Rate ~!]IJY. P.J.~ Estimated Total Cost Angstrom Analytical $40.00 $12.00 $860.00 Env. Property Audits 45.00 17.50 1,425.00 Applied Environmental 50.00 20.00 2,000.00 Legend Technical 45.00 18.00 1,350.00 Envirobate did not respond Staff is recommending approval of a motion accepting the Iow quote from Angstrom Analytical for this work in the amount of $860.00..~m has performed previous work of this type for the City and has don· an excellent job. MOTION BY' RFA-OOI ~2~, I~ (CNH. O~-120=~ e off the same iXen~ in the tete 19~0'n m' ee~ lgeO'l. The ~ have cm~xn~e blc~k coo ,c R]g UEST FOR ACTION Ongmactng Depml==~t Community Development BY'Kirk McDonald App~ for Afenda ,~4enda SecUon Development & Planning 9- rtem No. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STREET AND STORM SEWER PRO, PROJECT) OF ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR NO. 547 (NEW HOPE CITY CENTER STREETSCAPE The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed Resolution Authorizing Preparation of Engineering Feasibility Report for Street and Storm Sewer Project No. 547 (New Hope City Center Strestscape Improvements). Outlined below is a summary of the aCtivities that have taken.place on this project over the past year:. September 1997 A concept report for 42~ Avenue street and intersection improvements was presented. That report recommended street and storm sewer improvements for 42"~ Avenue between Winnetka Avenue and Boone Avenue. In addition, pond improvements were proposed for land owned by Gethsemane Cemetery, and the budal of overhead electric lines was recommended. September 1997 October 1997 The City Council instructed staff to solicit proposals from design firms that would develop a master plan for the project area, which was expanded to include 45= Avenue, Xylon Avenue, Winnetka Avenue, and portions of 42~ Avenue east of Winnetka Avenue. The project was viewed as an opportunity to give New Hope an "identity' as similar projects have done for their cities in araas such as Highway 55 and Winnetka in Golden Valley, or the West Broadway area of Robbinsdale. Staff reviewed proposals from five different design firms, and the selection proces~ included evaluation of written proposals, interviews, and tours of local project. The firm of Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uben, Inc. was selected and Geoff Mmtin wa~ selected as the designer that would be working on the 42~ Avenue Streetscepa project. (cont'd.) MOTION BY RFA-O01 Request for Action December 1997 Page 2 9-28-98 Authorization was given by the City Council to proceed with the streetscape design. January 1998 February 1998 A task force of residents, property owners/managers, City Council, Citizen Advisory Commission and Planning Commission members, and city staff was assembled to help in the planning process. This task force met four times, once each month, from January through Apdi. An Issues Workshop was held in conjunction with the February Task Force meeting. An invitation to the issues work shop was mailed to every residence and business in the project area along 42= Avenue from Boone Avenue to Louisiana Avenue. May 1998 June 1998 July 1998 An open house was held to inform residents of the progress of the planning for the project. All parties invited to the Issues Workshop were again invited to the open house. The Sun Post ran a short article inviting people to the open house. The streetscape master plan was completed and presented to the City Council. The Council established a work session date to further discuss the master plan. While the master plan addressed areas along and east of Winnetka Avenue, the first phase of the project to be constructed in 1999, was redefined as 42'~ Avenue from Boone to Winnetka, Xyicn Avenue from 42m~ to 46"~ Avenues, and 45"~ Avenue from Xylon to Winnetka. A Council work session was held to discuss the project and the Council asked staff to: * redefine the projected project costs. · to meet with Hennepin County to ensure that the plan met their guidelines * to meet with the Catholic Cemetery to confirm that they were willing to .participate., in the project by selling additional of right-of-way · to meet with as many affected property owners as possible · host another open house to allow residents and property owners the opportunity to review the plan and to ask questions and give comments house and mvi---~ --- ~-~~ ~ ~ WOUla ~a~ f~ ~e ~j~ pdor to ~e o~n --~ -= ~ a~ ~ ~ ea~ ~o~ ~ in detail. NI ~~ ownem were generally sup~iVe of ~e pro~. S~ also mVi~ the ~oj~ w~ an i~e~ndent appraiser to dete~ine the appmpd~e a~ment pammetem. Lssfly, an o~n hou~ was ~ndu~ on Septem~r ~.~.~i~ ~b~_on_~ ~roj~ and .11 residents ~ un.stag, to .ttend through the -,~ ,.a~. m~mns m xy~ Avenue, ~e u~ ~ ~F ~ f~ ~e ~j~, general maiNena~ issues, sho~i~ ~nt~ ~evelopment, and ~ ~u~nan~ng f~ Pha~ II of the pro~. Request for Action Page 3 9-2~9-9,8 The City Engineer has prepared the attached information, which was presented at the open house, for the Council: · Street Improvement- Phase I (drawing) · Preliminary Cost Estimate/Revenue · Street Assessment Area (drawing) · Preliminary Assessment Roll · Preliminary Annual Maintenance Charge · Project SChedule Staff is recommending that the project, as proposed, be reviewed at this Council meeting and that a determination be made if the project should proceed as presented at the open house or be modified. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Authorizing Preparation of the Engineering Feasibility Report. C Bonestroo Rosene HAnderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Prtnc~pals: Otto Richard E. Turner, PE. · Glenn R Cool(. RE. · Robert G. Schun,cht, RE. · Jerry ^. ~mourdon. PE. · Robert L[/ Rosene. RE. and Susan M, Eberlin, C.EA, Semor Consultants ~ichard ~. Fo~ter, ~E. · Dawa 0 Loskota, Pt. · ~oOet~ C. Rus~e~, AJ A. · Mark A. Hanson. ~E · M~c~ael T Rau:man~, Pt. Sidney R ~iUiamson, Pt.. L.S. · A~lan Rick Sc~m~dt, Offices: St Paul Rochester ~illmar and St. C~o~d, MN · MHw~ukee. ~'1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Kirk McDonald Mark Hanson 42"0 Avenue - Project 547 BRA File No. 34-98-186 September 23, 1998 Tuesday, September 22nd was the Open House for the above project. Attached is the following information, which was presented at the Open House. Street Improvement - Phase I (drawing) Preliminary Cost Estimate/Revenue · Street Assessment Area (drawing) · Preliminary Assessment Roll · Preliminary Annual Maintenance Charge · Project Schedule In addition, staff individually met with the follow agencies and property owners to specifically review the scope of work, estimated project cost, revenue, and schedule: · Northern'States Power · Hennepin County · Gethsemane Cemetary Representatives · Winnetka Center- Robert Rappapart · K-Mart- Store Manager · New Hope Center - Gary Lidstone · Marquette Bank · Golden Oaks Apartment · Winnetka West · North Park Plaza It is recommended the project as proposed be reviewed at the September 28, 1998 council meeting. A determination should be made if the project should proceed as presented at the Open House or be modified. 2335 1~/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 · Fax: 612-636-1311 ~Z ~ ~f~u~¥ tmlXx Z · .<~'d cz PRELh~tL-NARY COST ESTIMATE/REVENUE 42nd/Xylon/45th Avenue Street/Streetscape Improvements Project No. 547 Our File No. 34-98-186 Preliminary Cost Estimate Description Street/Signal Utility (Sanitary Sewer) Storm Sewer Pond Landscape-Streetscape Lands~apc-Medianscap~ Subtotal +10% Contingency Subtotal +25% Indirect Cost Subtotal Bury Overhead Electric Right-of-way Subtotal 42nd Xylon 45th Avenue Avenue Avenue (Boone to (42nd to (XyIon to Winnetka) 46th) Winnetka) Total S710,000 $250,000 $120.000 S 1.080,000 40,000 40,000 80,000 110,000 190,000 110,000 50,000 160,000 250,000 260,000 335,000 845,000 50,000 50,000 25,000 125,000 $1,240,000 $560,000 $640,000 2,440,000 124,000 56,000 64,000 244.000 $1,364,000 $616,000 $704,000 2,684,000 340,000 150,000 176,000 666,000 $1,704,000 $766,000 $880,000 3,350,000 100,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 125,000 25,000 150,000 $1,929,000 $791,000 $930,000 $3,650,000 Preliminary Revenue Item Special Assessment Bond Water/Sewer Fund Storm Sewer Utility Fund Tax Increment Financing Hennepin County Participation Joint Water Commission Gethsemane Cemetery Driveway Relocation Total Revenue $1,300,000~ 20,000 300,0002 1,400,000 500,000 30,000 100.000 $3,6~0,000 Cost Breakdown: ~m~m $ 504,000 City As,sesament 168,000 City tloudinI 628.000 $ ! ,300,000 Amount included in Stormwa~r Ci~ ba.~l on proposed inczease 2 ~lar d A~ I~u~ N PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL 42~a/Xylon/45~ Avenue Street Improvements Project No. 547 Our File No. 34-98-186 Leeal Description Section 7 44-0055 New Hope 44-0056 New Hope 44-0059 Trade Winds Section 8 11-0003 McDonalds I 1-0005 New Hope 11-0012 Marquette Bank 11-0013 K-Man 11-0014 Winnetka Center 11-0015 North Park Plaza I 1-0016 New Hope Center ' Winnetka West Lot 1, Block I Winnetka West 12-0003 Norwest Bank 12-0005 New Hope I2-0006 Golden Oaks 12-0007 Dental Building TOTAL Residential Commercial Assessable Assessable Ass~sable Number of Front Footage Units Footage {FF} {Front foot 60 6302 106 1,1132 26 2732 12 1262 248.4 518.7 145.2 82.5 327.9 1,245.5 699.1 445.5 471.7 786.9 135.7 Rated~ $102.s4' 102.84 68.56~ 102.84 102.84 102.84 102.84 102.84 68.56 102.84 68.56 102.84 102.84'. 68.56 102.84 Total Assessment $25,545.46 53,343.11 43,192.80 14,932.37 8,484.30 33,721.24 128,087.22 71,895.44 76,307.28 45,815.22 18,716.88 48,447.92 80,924.80 8,638.56 13,955.39 $672,007.99 42''d Avenue (5 lanes) Xylon Avenue (3 lanes) 45a Avenue (2 lanes) $680,000 350,000 $1,195,000' Assess~ Cost f2-1am EnuivalenO $272,000 (2/5 of total) 235,000 (% of total) 165.000 $672,000 Residential assessablo foota~ equals 10.:$ IF/unit Cost does not include traffic sisaai/cemetery driveways Cost in~lud~ 10% conrlnfencT, 25% indirect cos~ '~ Rate equals $$,106.5(x) + 2,142(~,x) = $672,000, x+$102.i4/FF Ra~ equals % S 102.84/FF = $68_~6/FF PRELIM]NARY ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CHARGE 42~/Xyion/45'~ Avenue Project No. $47 Our File No. 34-98-186 Le~ml Description Section 7 44-0055 New Hope 44-0056 New Hope 44-0059 Trade Winds Section 8 11-0003 McDonald~ 11-0005 New Hope I 1-0012 Marquette Bank I 1-0013 K-Man 11-0014 Winnetka Center 11-0015 North Park Plaza 11-0016 New Hope Center Winnetka W~t Lot 1, Block 1 Winnetka West 12-0003 Norw~t Bank 12-0005 New Hope 12-0006 Golden Oalm 12-0007 Dental Buflding~ TOTAL R~idenfial Commercial Maintenance. Annual Number Front Foo~ge ~____a_a_a_a_a_a_a_~ Maintenance of nit 60 6301 106 11131 26 2731 12 126~ 248.4 518.7 145.2 82.5 327.9 1,245.5 699.1 445.5 471.7 786.9 135.7 S4.59~ 4.59 3.063 1,140.16 2,380.83 1,927.80 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.59 3.06 4.59 666.47 378.68 1,505.06 5,716.85 3,208.87 3,405.78 2,0d,~.85 3.06 4.59 4.59 3.06 4.59 '835.38 2,162.35 3,611.87 385.56 622.86 $29,993.37 ~ Residential assessable footn~ equals 10.5 FFAmit "Rate equals 5,106.$(x) + 2,142 (% x) = $30,000, x=$4.59/~F 3 Rate equals % $4.59/FF -- $3.06'FP September 22, 1998 September 28, 1998 October 26, 1998 November 23, 1998 January 11, 1999 February 2, 1999 February 2, 1999 March 8, 1999 March 22, 1999 May 1, 1999 October 15, 1999 PROJECT SCI:IEDULE · Open House · Modify Project Scope from Open House ff Required · Authorize Preliminary Report · Prepare Plans/Specification · Present Feasibility Report · Order Public Hearing for November 23, 1998 · Public Hearing · Close Public Hearing Order Project · Approve Plans/Specifications for Bidding · Project Bid Date · Present Bids to City Council · Establish Assessment Rate · Schedule Assessment Hearing for March. 8, 1999 · Assessment Hearing · Award Contract · Construction Start · Substantial Completion . ~ EDA mm T 'oR ACTmN Community Development By:. Kirk McDonald : By:.~9~ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FuNDING~FO BASS LAKE ROAD BY PROJECT FOR P~ Approved ror Afenda Afenda SectJon , EDA 9~8~- 8 Item No. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7332 FOR BASS LAKE TOWNHOMES ACQUISITION OF )E IN LIVING, INC. PROJECT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N~. 614) The City Attomey has prepared the enclosed resolution authorizing EDA funding for the acquisition of the office building property at 7332 Bass Lake Road by Project for Pdde in Living. The City has committed to a redevelopment project with PPL at this site as the City's goal is to allow PPL to acquire the property at this time so that the office building can be razed as soon as possible and in conjunction with the acquisitions and razing of the Spur station at 7300 Bass Lake Road adjacent to the site. The EDA entered into a Redevelopment Contract with PPL on February 11, 1998. The contract does not permit any funding from the EDA for the project at this time because Section 5.1 of the agreement indicates the EDA will advance funds only for reimbursement after title has been acquired. PPL has a signed purchase agreement with the fee owners of the property to acquire it for a purchase pdce of $235,000. However, PPL has not yet secured and finalized the necessary commitments for all project financing, and as a result PPL has not been able to close on its acquisition of the 7332 Bass Lake. Road property. Section 5.1 of the contract provides that the EDA will fund for PPL up to $1,400,000 for, amOng other things, reimbursement for PPL's land acquisition costs, but only after PPL has acquired title to the "under contract' land. This resolution states that, not withstanding the funding restriction of the Redevelopment Contract, the Executive Director is hereby authorized to advance and disburse to PPL the amount of $235,000 for the purpose of acquiring fee title to the property at 7332 Bass Lake Road to facilitate PPL's acquisition of the property and demolition of the building. The action will assist the development and construction of the Bass Lake Townhomes Project in a cost effective and timely manner. The payment would be considered as part of the EDA's funding commitment under the Redevelopment Contract and not in addition thereto. Staff recommend approval of the resolution. MOTION BY ~X)ND BY TO: EDA FOR ACTION Or~taatln~ Department Community Development Byt(irk McDonald Approved for A~end~ A~nd~ Section EDA By:.]~.8- 8 Item No. 5 DISCUSSION REGARDING RELEASE O Si~ECURITY ON MORTGAGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7709 42"° AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 407) As the EDA is aware, there have been on-going discussions with the owner of the Autohaus property at 7709 42"" Avenue North over the past years regarding incompleted site improvements connected to the !991 Development Contract. The outstanding issues are identified in the attached correspondence. The City has held a secudty on the mortgage of the property as a final guarantee that all improvements would be completed. The owner of the property now desires to make additional improvements to the building and site. In order to receive financing for the improvements, he is requesting a release on the mortgage from the City. He has indicated to city staff that some of the outstanding issues would be completed with the new phase of improvements, however, the property owner is not willing to provide any substitute financial guarantee. The property owner is also requesting that several of the outstanding issues, including replacement landscaping and the retaining wall location, be accepted in their present condition. While staff is supportive of additional improvements to the property, the City's dght to have certain improvements completed needs to be secured. The City Attorney and Community Development Director met with the property owner on September 25 and reviewed the outstanding issues on the property and discussed the proposed new improvements. The property owner has indicated that he wants to resolve the outstanding issues with the City. Staff indicated that only the EDA has the authority to release the current security on the mortgage. Staff requests to discuss these issues with the EDA and requests that the EDA provide direction to staff on how.to proceed. Additional information will be provided at the EDA meeting. MOTION BY TO.'. RFA-O01 PROJECT NO. 612 Bulletin No. 2 PROJECT BULLETIN 5629 Wisconsin Avenue North Overview In late December lggT, the City of New Hope purchased the property at 582g Wisconsin Avenue North as part of the City's scattered site housing program. The City purchased the property with the intent to demolish the house due to its deteriorating condition. Pre-demolition activities occurred this summer. Demolition Activities The City Council awarded the demolition contract at its August 24, 1998, meeting. Demolition will occur in early September. Once demolition is complete, the site will be prepared for constrUction of a new home. New Hope City Code states that demolition can occur on the site between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends or holidays. Site Upkeep The site will be mowed as needed during the late summer and fall months. Contact Persons If you have questions or concerns, please call Susan Henry, Community Development Specialist, at 531-5137, or Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at 531-5119. City staff will be coordinating a meeting with the property owners adjacent to this site to discuss housing options in the near future. The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents in the area that may be impacted by the construction 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 9/2/98 PROJECT NO. 618 Bulletin No. 1 DOROTHY-MARY PARK SITE IMPROVEMENTS STORM SEWER AND PARK STRUCTURES Overview The City of New Hope is proceeding with improvements at Dorothy Mary Park. The New Hope City Council awarded contracts for the site improvements at the August 24, 1998, Council meeting. The work that will take place this fall includes the repair of the storm sewer inlet on the south end of the park and extending the storm sewer entering the park from Xylon Avenue to discharge into the pond. Also included is the cOnstruction of new timber stairs on the south end of the park, as well as a new dock and new boardwalks. This work has been awarded to two separate contractors. The extension of the storm sewer from Xylon Avenue to the pond will require cleadng and removal of trees and shrubs from the area. While the disturbance is expected to be about ten to twelve feet wide for the length of the pipe, approximately 200 feet, no trees larger than six inches in diameter will be removed. The contractors wi'Il access the park primarily off of the Xylon Avenue side. Proiect Schedul® Work in the park-is expected to begin the week of September 14, 1998. The work this fall should be completed by the end of October. There will be additional work done in the park next spdng. That work will involve landscaping of the park entrances and restoration of the areas disturbed by this year's construction. This will be done under a contract to be awarded dudng the winter. Additional planting, with volunteer help, is also anticipated in the spdng. The removal of buckthorn from the park is still planned for.this fall. Construction Hours Construction may occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 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 pedods. Contact Persons' If you have questions or concerns during the improvement 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 ext. 13. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 9/11/98 PROJECT NO. 614 Bulletin #3 Project for Pride in Living (PPL) Bass Lake Court Housing Redevelopment Overview The purpose of this Project Bulletin is to inform you about the progress of the Project for Pdde in Living (PPL) Bass Lake Court housing redevelopment. The development preparation is on schedule and the demolition and redevelopment stages will occur this fail. On September 14 the New Hope City Council approved the rezoning and the final development plans for the project. PPL will be renovating the existing four-plexes into two-unit, two-story buildings, for a total of 14 four-bedroom units. The Breckenddge Group Home will remain as the occupant of the eighth four-plex. New garages will be built between each of the rehabilitated duplexes. A total of 20 newly constructed three-bedroom townhouses will be built on the north and south ends of the site, where the additional property from the School Distdct will be acquired and where the commercial properties currently exist. Final Site Plan There have been many improvements to the site plan throughout the planning process, and two major changes were made to the plans prior to approval by the Council, as diScussed at the August neighborhood meeting. First, all of the buildings will be two-story townhomes with attached garages, rather than the odginal proposal of three-story structures with tuck-under garages. Also, the driveway around the complex has been redirected giving access to every building, including the two structures located near the c,~nter of the property. The odginal plans had the two center buildings isolated, as the driveway extended around the perimeter of the property. These two changes were recommended by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and supported by the City. Throughout the process of developing plans for this project, the City has also been insistent that the drainage on the site and adjoining properties be improved. PPL's cooperation in modifying their plans to address these and other issues has been welcomed by the City. A site plan is attached to this bulletin for your information. Timeline Pre-construction activity at the site will start around the first part of October and listed below is a tentative schedule of events that will occur: First part of October - The underground storage tanks and dispensing island of the vacant Spur station will be removed. First part to mid-October - The engineers will continue to meet with residents on backyard drainage issues to finalize plans. Area residents will be contacted regarding temporary and permanent easements. Mid to end of October - The office building at 7332 Bass Lake Road and the Spur station at 7300 Bass Lake Road will be demolished.. 9/24/98 Mid-November - Mid-December - Construction will begin. Final relocation of all tenants in buildings. Breckenddge Group Home will remain occupied throughout the construction. Construction Hours Standard construction hours will be between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Saturday. All work, including mobilization of equipment, will take place during these time periods. Contacts Once construction starts, a full-time job superintendent will be located on the site t° address neighborhood concerns. Neighbors will be offered the opportunity to meet the job superintendent. The superintendent's name and phone number will be communicated to you in the near future. Other persons that you may contact with questions or concerns during the project include: Lisa Kugler, PPL Development Consultant Chris Wilson, PPL Project Manager Steve Cramer, PPL Executive Director 827-2189 874-3314 874-8511 If you want to speak with someone from the City of Ne~ Hope, please contact Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at 531-5119. Future Project Bulletins will be mailed to you dudng the course of this project to keep you updated on this redevelopment effort. The City of New Hope extends its thanks to the Crystal residents adjacent to the site, to the City of Crystal, and to the School Distdct for helping to make this project possible. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428