110398 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 2, 1998
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:00 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5.1
5.2
5.3
6.
6.1
7.
7.1
7.2
8,
9.
CALL TO oRDER
ROLL CALL
CONSENT ITEMS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case 98-24
Case 98-25
Case 98-26
Request for Planned Unit Development to Allow Second Building on One Lot
and a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Drive-Through VVindow at a Newly
Constructed Restaurant Building at Midland Shopping Center, 2703-2769
VVinnetka Avenue North, Eng~lsma Limited Partnership/Kraus-Anderson
Realty/Taco Bell - TO BE TABLED
Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval and a Vadance to the Rear
Yard Setback Requirement for Building Expansion, 3401 Nevada Avenue
North, Benson-Orth Associates/Archives Corporation, Petitioners
Request for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow Parking One
Enclosed Boy Scout Equipment Trailer in an Existing Parking Lot, 4800 Boone
Avenue North, House of Hope Lutheran Church/Boy Scout Troup 534,
Petitioners - WITHDRAWN
Case 98-16
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- TO BE TABLED
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: Thursday, November 12 at 8 a.m.
Report of Codes & Standards Committee - Next Meeting: Tuesday, November 24 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 October 6, 1998.
Review of City Council Minutes of September 28 and October 12, 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. The
Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal' based upon the
Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code
and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the
surrounding neighborhood.
The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn,
first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your
questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the
Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission
will utilize the following procedure:
1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal.
2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the
Planning Commission.
3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer
questions from the Planning Commission.
4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by
raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large
number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer
period of time for questions/comments.
5. VVhen recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give
their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your
questions.
7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity
to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal.
8. At the close of the public headng, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
A~ If the Planning' Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the
planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this
meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting.
B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next
Commission meeting.
1999 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE
(The following schedules are the ideal "best case" time lines that applicants can expect to follow if all requested
information is submitted to the City on the appropriate dates.)
* Pre-Appl. Application Development Delivered Design & Published Revised Plan P.C. Public Council Public
Meeting Deadline Review to Paper Review in Post on Deadline Hearing - Hearing -
8:00 a.m. by Noon 8:00 a.m. 7 p.m. 7 pm
Dec. 4, Dec. 11, Dec. 16, Dec. 17, 1997 Dec. 17, 1998 Dee. 23, 1998 Dec. 25, 1998 January 5 January 11
1998 1998 1998
Th.12/31/98 January 8 January 13 January 14 January 14 January 20 January 22 February 2 February 8
January 29, February 5 February 10 February 11 February 11 February 17 February 19 March 2 March 8
March 5 March 12 March 17 March 18 March 18 March 24 March 26 April 6 April 12
April 2 April 9 April 14 April 15 April 15 April 21 April 23 May 4 May 10
April 30 May 7 May 12 May 13 May 13 May 19 May 21 June 1 June 14
June 4 June 11 June 16 June 17 June 17 June 23 June 25 July 6 (if needed) July 26
July 2 July 9 July 14 July 15 July 15 July 21 July 23 August 3 August 9
August 6 August 13 August 18 August 19 August 19 August 25 August 27 September 7 September 13
September 3 September 10 September 15 September 16 September 16 September 23 September 24 October 5 October 11
October 1 October 8 October 13 October 14 October 14 October 20 October 22 November 2 November 8
November 5 November 12 November 17 November 18 November 18 November 24 Weds, Nov. 24 December 7 December 13
TYPE OF REQUEST
BASIC ZONING FEE
ZONING DEPOSIT
*The necessity
of a pre-application
meeting will be
determined by the
City Manager based
on the complexity
of the application.
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (minor residential)
B, VARIANCES (single family residential)
C, REZONING/TEXT AMENDMENT
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (all others)
E. VARIANCES (all others)
F. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
G. SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING
H, SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW
I. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN
875* (3464)
875* (325O)
8250* (3406) 8250**
8225* (3464) 8225**
8175' (3250) 8175'*
8500* (3463) 8500**
8225* (3404) $225**
8150 (3465) 8150'*
8100 (3465) 8100'*
*Published Notice Required
None, or as required by Manager
None, or as required by Manager
**Expenses incurred that
exceed the amount of
deposit will be billed and
are the responsibility of the
applicant. If expenses do
not exceed the deposit, the
deposit may be refunded
upon written request of the
applicant.
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
98-24
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
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)
October 30, 1998
Applicant: Taco Bell
November 2, 1998
UPDATE
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.
At the October 6 Planning Commission meeting, the petitioner requested that this request be tabled so
that revised plans could be developed in response to Hennepin County's concerns about mowng the
curb cut. Since that time, staff have had several phone conversations with the petitioner who indicated
that they were working on revised plans that may utilize the existing vacant bank building for the
restaurant instead of demolishing that portion of the center and constructing a totally new free-standing
restaurant.
No revised plans have been received to date and staff have advised the petitioners that the revised
plans need to be reviewed with the Design & Review Committee prior to presenting the plans to the
Planning Commission. The petitioner also needs to conduct a meeting with the neighborhood on the
revised plans and other concerns.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends tabling this request until the December 1 Planning. Commission meeting. The 120-day
time limit for action expires on January 9, 1999.
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT '
98-25
Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval and a Variance to the Rear Yard
Setback Requirement for Building Expansion
3401 Nevada Avenue North
20-118-21-21-0001
I-1, Limited Industrial Zoning District
Benson-Orth Associates/Archives Corporation
October 30, 1998
November 2, 1998
BACKGROUND'
1. The petitioner is requesting site/building plan review/approval and a variance to the rear yard setback
requirement for building expansion, pursuant to Sections 4.034(3) and (4), 4.039A, and 4.22 of the New
Hope Code of Ordinances.
2. Archives Corporation is proposing to double the size of its existing records storage warehouse facility
on Nevada Avenue. The existing building contains 64,300 square feet and the proposed expansion on
the south side would add .60,700 square feet, which would bring the total building size to 125,000
square feet.
3. The existing building is located on the rear (west) property line, with a rail spur traCk located directly
behind the building. The petitioner is proposing that the new addition match the setback of the existing
building. The rear yard setback requirement for industrial buildings located adjacent to a railroad is 10
feet, therefore, the petitioner is requesting a variance so that the addition can be constructed on/near
the property line similar to the existing building.
4. The parcel contains 260,680 square feet or-5.98 acres. The existing building contains 8,660 square feet
of office and 55,670 square feet of warehouse space. The entire 60,760 square foot addition would be
warehouse space. The building/site ratio with the addition would be 46.3 percent.
5. Surrounding land uses include I-1 Industrial to the north, I-2 General Industrial to the west (across the
railroad tracks), townhouses in the City of Crystal to the south, and a private school, church and
playground in the City of Crystal to the east.
6. The property is located in Planning District #17 of the updated Comprehensive Plah, which encourages
expansion of existing facilities and cautions against outdoor storage.
7. A new NURP pond, new 12-inch storm sewer and 8-inch water service are proposed with the
expansion.
8. The topography of the site is unique, with a 930-foot elevation high point at the south center of the
property, sloping dramatically down within 60 feet to the proposed building slab elevation of 905 feet. A
small quantity of softwood trees, scrub brush and sumac exists on the south hill. The balance of the site
is flat and drains to the northwest.
9. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified, including the City of Crystal, and staff
have received no comments regarding this request.
Variance
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 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 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 cdteda 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, orin any other way be contrary to intent of City Code.
4. Per the Planner's report, the applicant is proposing to construct a building onto an existing building to be
used for additional storage. The placement of the addition would be on the property line to align it with
the existing structure. There is a railroad track that runs the length of this property line. Section 4.034(6)
states that the minimum rear or side yard setback from a railroad right-of-way shall be 10 feet. Because
of this, the application would require a variance for a zero-foot rear yard setback. A variance request
cannot be granted unless the above stated criteria have been satisfied.
5. There is a pre-existing condition surrounding the subject parcel. In 1968 the City approved the existing
building to be constructed on the property line abutting the railroad~ The applicant's request would allow
for the building to maintain a consistent building face for the duration of the structure, existing and
proposed, and match the existing rear wall and building setback.
6. An additional element that restricts the applicant from reasonably utilizing the property is the topography
located at the southern end of the parcel. The slope of the land prevents the applicant from developing
toward the southern property line without major excavation and regrading. Both conditions are believed
to be unique to the property and that they will not to establish a precedent regarding future requests.
7. Staff also suggest that perhaps this section of the code requiring a 10-foot rear setback from industrial
lot line adjacent to a railroad may be outdated. The original intention was to provide space for a rail spur
on private land to serve buildings, but the oversized rail ~ight-of-way (100') is adequate for a spur on
each side of the main line and the majority of the existing rail spurs are within railroad rights-of-way.
This is usually necessary because a spur may serve multiple properties. If the Commission/Council
agree with this reasoning, perhaps the code should be updated to permit a zero setback for industrial
lots abutting a railroad.
8. Additional criteria sited in the Zoning Ordinance for variance requests are outlined in comparison with
this request as follows:
Planning Case 98-25 Page 2 10/30/98
A. Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance as described in
4.221.
o
It is not contrary to the purposes of a variance as described in 4.221, Purpose of Variance.
B. L(qht and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
The additional building will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property.
C. Street Conqestion. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street.
Truck traffic may increase due to the increased storage space, however, the trucks will be standing/
parking off of the public street. Therefore, staff believes the building addition will not unreasonably
increase the congestion in the public street.
D. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
The applicant has indicated that the building will be fully fire sprinklered to comply with State Statute
1305.6905. The proposed addition will not 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 the intent of this code.
The building addition will not reasonably impair established property values within the neighborhood.
A review of the Comprehensive Plan revealed the goals and policies that the City has established to
assist decision makers in determining support or lack thereof toward certain development. The following
goals and policies are applicable to this development request:
CITY-WIDE GENERAL GOALS
Goal 2: Protect property values and maintain strong tax base.
Policies:
A. Promote private reinvestment in New Hope Properties through building renovation, expansion, and
maintenance.
D. Enhance local tax base
building expansions.
INDUSTRIAL GOALS
within the Ci..ty by encouraging high quality
commercial'and industrial
Goal 1:
Policies:
Retain and expand New Hope's industrial land.uses to insure a diverse tax base and local
employment opportunities.
A. Continue to facilitate the in-place expansion of existing industries.
C. Promote the high quality industrial construction to insure building durability and an aesthetically
attractive appearance.
D. Continue to maintain open lines of communication with local industries to stay abreast to their
changing needs.
10. For the above stated reasons, staff is supportive of the variance request.
SitelBuildinq Plan Review
1. The appropriate city staff met to review the plans and the Design & Review Committee met with the
petitioner on the plans. Subsequent to the Design & Review Committee meeting, the petitioner revised
the plans to eliminate the front yard loading dock, which would have required a conditional use permit.
Planning Case 98-25 Page 3 10/30/98
The revised plans include the following details:
A. Parkin,q - Parking requirements follow a formula to determine the r~inimum number of spaces.
Usually, the total square footage minus 10 percent with one space per X amount of square feet
allowed. Here, the minimum number of parking spaces for the office and warehouse area is 98
spaces. The site already contains 44 spaces and has "proof of parking" for an additional 54 spaces
to total 98 spaces and meets code requirements. Existing parking spaces include 36 in the east
front parking lot (north end) and 8 spaces on the north side of the building. The 54 "proof of parking"
spaces are located in the east front parking lot (south side) (42 spaces) and in the north parking lot
(west side) (12 spaces). Staff support the "proof of parking" concept due to the limited number of
employees at this site and the nature of the use (storage of records).
B. ADA Parkin,q - Four handicapped parking spaces are provided in front of the building, which meets
the one per 25 requirement. The spaces will be restrip.ed with the parking lot. The existing sidewalk
and curb in front of the spaces will be modified for the installation of a handicapped access ramp.
C. Interior Disability Upgrades - The site plan indicates that the existing main floor toilet rooms will be
remodeled to meet ADA code and that existing office door hardware will be replaced with lever
handles.
D. Trash Stora,qe - The site plan has a note that "trash dumpster is located inside at interior loading
dock area."
Loadin.q - The plans indicate that the distance from the existing building loading dock area to the
north property line is 67 feet, which is sufficient distance for turning. The applicant indicates that
semi trucks would account for only five percent of total traffic. The remaining 95 percent would be by
van. Semi truck turning radius is shown on the plan.
F. Fire Lane - Per staff recommendation, the applicant indicates plans to remove existing bituminous
surfacing at the northwest corner of the site, which provides 12 spaces and replace it with sod. The
12 spaces would be part of the "proof of parking," which will increase the amount of green space.
The Fire Department has requested that a 24-foot fire lane be maintained to the northwest building
corner. The Fire Department has requested a new fire lane with the appropriate yellow striping and
approved signs, as noted on Exhibit "FL," on the north side of the site, and this will be included as a
condition of approval.
G. Snow Stora,qe - Level snow storage areas have been identified on the east side of the existing
parking lot area.
H. Parkin.q Lot - The City Engineer has stated that 'the building expansion proposes no improvements
to the existing paved areas for driveway and parking. It is recommended when parking lot and
driveway improvements are considered, that concrete curb and gutter constructed."
I. Fence - Property fencing has been shown on the entire perimeter to match existing.
J. Setbacks - All setback requirements are indicated on the plan as follows:
Front Yard 50 feet
Side Yard 20 feet
Rear Yard 35 feet
The actual existing building setback on the north is 67 feet and 61 feet on the south proposed
addition.
K. Sidewalk - New sidewalk will be installed in front of the new addition.
Planning Case 98-25 Page 4 10/30/98
L. Exterior Li.qhtin.q - Exterior illumination details and contours were requested and details have been
submitted on new lights. A wall pak is shown on the front (east side)-of the new addition and two
wall bracket down light fixtures are shown on the south side of the new addition.
M. Roof-top Units/Screeninq - Two new roof-top mechanical units are shown on the new addition and
the plan states that they will be painted to match the building wall color.
N. Sprinklers - The site plan states that the building is fully fire sprinkled.
O. Landscaping - The landscaped area/site ratio is 41.2 percent and meets the I-1 20 percent green
area requirement. The following landscaping schedule was provided:
Quantit Common Name Size Root
y Botanical Name
2 Japanese Lilac Tree 2 @ 2 %"
Syringa Amurensis Japonica
8 Spruce Black Hills 5 @ 6' B&B
Picea Glauca Densata
11 Maple Norway 2 @ 3" B&B
Acer Platanoides 1 @ 2 ~"
3 Maple Crimson King 9 @ 2 %" B&B
Acer Platanoides 'Crimson King'
Existing to remain
15 Taunton Spreading, Yew #5 Pot
Taxus X Media
Po
The plan shows that 11 Norway Maples will be planted' on the south property line near the addition.
Five Black Hills Spruce will also be planted near the southeast corner of the new buildings.
The plan shows that three' Maple Crimson King will be planted in the front of the new building
addition. Two Japanese Lilac trees will be planted in front of the existing building. Fifteen Spreading
Yew shrubs will be planted in front of the building.
The plan shows a number of existing trees on the site to remain in front of the property, near the
entrance drive, and on the southeast property line.
There is a minor discrepancy between the landscape plan and schedule, as eight Black Hills Spruce
Ere shown on the schedule and only five are shown on the plan, so this should be clarified.. There
are discrepancies as well regarding quantities and size of plantings for Maple Norway and Maple
Crimson King that need to be clarified. Wetland-type aquatic plants were also requested around the
NURP pond and the petitioner has not responded to that recommendation.
Pondin,q - Per the City Engineer, the building expansion provides for constructing a ponding area for
storm water retention and water quality. It would be desirable from a storm water management
perspective that all storm water runoff from the existing building and site areas be directed to the
storm water pond (e.g., existing roof, parking lot/driveway to the extent possible). Roof drainage
from the new expansion has been clearly illustrated. The storm water pond must be constructed in
accordance with Bassett Creek Watershed.
Water Service - A new eight-inch water service is prolSosed. The new water main connection shall
be reviewed by Public Works and may require a sleeved-in "'1'" tiffing (cut-in) versus a "wet tap," as
shown on the plan.
Buildinq Hei.qht - The height of the majority of the new addition will be 38'-8" tall and complies with
the Zoning Code requirements. The portion of the new addition adjacent to the existing building will
Planning Case 98-25 Page 5 10/30/98
be the same height as the existing building for Building Code/snow load purposes, and then
increase to the above-stated height.
S. Building Materials - Building materials on the new addition will be random rib pre-cast concrete wall
panels with painted color bands with a prefinished metal roof cap. Concrete block will match the
existing building. Note that the south elevation of the building will be bermed eight feet into the side
of the hill.
T. Interior - The Building Official has indicated that the illustrated "ships ladders" inside the building are
not acceptable to exterior doors. Conventional stairways must be provided to doors. A single ships
ladder is required to the high roof, because it will have mechanical equipment. The west stairs have
been removed from the railroad property, as requested.
U. Si.qnaee - Any new building, ground or traffic signage should be identified on the plan.
¥. Other En.qineerin.q Comments -
1. Drainage along the north property line is directed in some areas onto the property to the north.
Driveway and parking lot improvements shall contain all drainage on this property and direct all
surface water runoff west to the CP Rail right-of-way or east to Nevada Avenue (not onto the
adjacent property to the north). It would be desirable if the existing driveway and parking lot
were reconstructed to an elevation to direct storm water runoff to the ponding area.
2. The existing paved surface'to be removed north of the building shall be done in such a way to
contain all storm water runoff on the property directing storm water runoff west to CP Rail right-
of-way.
3. The southwest corner of the property directs storm water runoff east to west from the center of
the site. The building expansion proposes to construct the building on the property line adjacent
to the railroad spur. The drainage in this area must be done to direct drainage away from the
building, which may require a culvert beneath the railroad spur at the southwest corner of the
building.
W. Removal of Front Loading - With the removal of the front loading dock that was shown on the
original submittal, a number of previous recommendations have been eliminated.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the rear yard setback variance request and site/building plan review
approval for the building addition, subject to the following recommendations:
1. Ships ladders to be replaced with conventional stairways, per Building Official's recommendations.
2. Landscape plan clarification on Black Hills Spruce numbers, the quantities and size of plantings in the
plant schedule (Black Hills Spruce, Maple Norway, and Maple Crimson King), and wetland plantings.
3. Fire lane to be installed, per Fire Department recommendations.
4. Compliance with City Engineer recommendations on water connection and grading/drainage.
5. Approval by Bassett Creek Watershed.
6. Development Agreement to be executed with City and performance bond to be submitted (amount to be
determined by City Engineer and Building Official).
Planning Case 98-25. Page 6 10/30/98
Attachments:
Address/Zoning/Topo Maps
Site Plan
Site Data
Landscape Plan
Landscape Schedule
Grading/Drainage/Utility Plan
Drainage Plan Details
Floor Plans
Elevations
Engineer's Comments
Planner's Report
Building Official Attachment
Application Log
Planning Case 98-25 Page 7 10/30/98
ME5 CEMETERY :· i :: .....
~ : : 3717 ! i t~"~!~ I1'"
-- ~. ·
:~ ' 3701
............................................................... ; · ; ~ .........
~ I i : ..........~ ] 3~: ~ ' ,--
'-- ! ' ~ '
/ ~ / ~"- : ..........
/ '"~ .,,'"' Ii ·;, ............ ! ...... .~
~ /_ /., · i 7=. i i ........ i i =' :: .......... ! --..'"
............................................................... j · .............. ~ .................. ......... : ...................... ~ --'. ....
3610 7710
J
.~¥Ol
N
CIT
HC
6-2 Retail Business
B-3 Auto Oriented Busines:
B-4 Community Business
I-1 Limited Industrial
I-2 General Industrial
Open Space / Public
1 INCH = 1000 FEET
0 1~0 2~0
kLLEY
VICINITY PI,AN
SCAI,E: 1". = 200' 1991 Topo
x ~o0.7
m4
X 913'3.1
X
o
0
L .... _1
I I
-I
A~mON
rOTN..
HEIGHT- .T~'-8" +/-
BU&D~N~/SrI'E ~1"K) ~.~X
8,4.,~,.~ S.F.
~,7~
~ 25,0~0
20' SlOE & 3,5'B~K
t O'-O" SlOE & E~K PARt(Ihl~ SETBACK
(UlNN. 1..t40.0,.~10 SI. lite e.) ~TEO ~ ON 0C'CUPED ~
i-SP.~T,E/50 SPACES I, lUST BE HIXO. .4C'CESSlI~
OFF1C[ 8,680 SO.FT.-iI~ . 7,794~ 5SP+1/500 S~.FT.= 29 SPACES
WAREH(XJS[ 116,430 SI). F1'-10~ = 104,787~ 1/1500 SO. FT.= 70 SP/IC~
DISABI~ UPI3R,,U)ES TO EXISTINg OFFICE AREA:
Ill
O 8 O
Z
COItiON
KEY QUAN1TP¢ BOTANICAL N,~IE SIZE RCC:
c/b°ANESE UL~ TR~ 25 2 '
A 2 ~1~ ~URENS~ J~ON~A
SPRUCE BLACK HILL5 j
PICEA GLAUCA DENSATA F~ 6'
~ UOI~VAY 2~ 3'
ACER PLATANOtDES 1 ~ 2 1//2" j
~ ¢~tI.~t KI~ ~$ 2 i/2' 8&8
· CRII, ISON ~
EX~llNG TO RE)Z~N
TAUNTON SPREADING. YEV~ it§ I POT
TAXUS X I~EDIA .
MINNEAPOLIS, NORTHFIELD &: SOUTHERN RAILROAD
................... ~;;..=;..,~ ........... ~ ........................................... ~, .- ..1 ,~,.-. ;~.~.
\., ",., '-\ ,,
NEVADA
IUE NORTH
MINNEAPOLIS, NORTHFIELC, & SOUTHERN RAILROAD
NEVADA UE NORTH
0 rn
0 x
I
I'
DRIVE POLE 24'
FABRI~ ~ILTATION ~
SKIIIIIER tTTIUCTIJItB
DETAIL
'1.7
2.3
3.0
3.8
4.7
4.7
14.3
17.4
20.8
27.2
30.7
35.2
38.4
40.0
50.5
2.$
2.9
3.8
I'ILI f..N
SIP.. B-B
~re gh~ off Sial. pl.
3122 & 3123
2'
A
A
RIP IMP DETAIL IIrOR R(~ APRONt
GALVANIZED GRATE (split)
4,' x 4,*
CONCRETE
STRUCTURE
PLACE 3000 PSI CONCRETE
8KBIMER 8TRU~~
DETAIL
Z
II
Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
MEMORANDUM
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Actton/Ectual Opportunity Employer
Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, PE. · Joseph C. ^nderlik, P.E. · Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. ·
Richard E. Turner, P.E. · Glenn R. Cook, P.E. · Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. · Jerry A. Bourdon, PE. ·
Robert ~'. Rosene, RE. and Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A., Senior Consultants
Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford, P.E. · Keith A. Gordon, P.E. · Robert
Richard W. Foster, P.E. · Oavid O. Loskota, RE. · Robelt C. Russek, A.I.A. · Mark A. Hanson, P.E. ·
Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. · Ted K.Field, P.E. · Kenneth P. A~lerson. RE. · Mark R. Rolls, P.E. ·
Sidney R gdilliamson, PE., L.S. · Robert E K0tsmith · Agnes M Ring · Michael R Rau, RE. ·
Allan Rick Schrnidt. F~E.
Offices; St. Paul, Rochester, Willrnar and St. Cloud, MN · Milwaukee,
~/ebsite: www. bonestroo,corn
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Mark Hanson
SUBJECT:
Archives Corp. Building Expansion
3401 Nevada AVenue
BRA File No. 34-Gen (E98-32)
DATE:
October 28, 1998
We have reviewed the revised site plans for the above building expansion dated October 22, 1998 and
recommend the following:
The building expansion provides for constructing a ponding area for storm water retention
and water quality. It would be desirable from a storm water management perspective that
ail storm water runoff from the existing building and site areas be directed to the storm
water pond (e.g. existing roof, parking lot/driveway to the extent possible). The storm
water pond must be constructed in accordance with Bassett Creek Watershed.
The building expansion proposes no improvements to the existing paved areas for
driveway and parking. It's recommended when parking lot and driveway improvements
are considered, that concrete curb and gutter be constructed.
Drainage along the north property line is directed in some areas onto the property to the
north. Driveway and parking lot improvements shail contain all drainage on this property
and direct ail surface water runoff west to the CP Rail right-of-way or east to Nevada
Avenue (not onto the adjacent property to the north). It would be desirable if the existing
driveway and parking lot were reconstructed to an elevation to direct storm water runoff
to the ponding area.
The existing paved surface to be removed north of the building shail be done in such a
way to contain all storm water runoff on the property directing storm water runoff west to
CP Rail right-of-way.
The southwest comer of the property directs storm water runoff east to west from the
center of the site. The building expansion proposes to construct the building on the
property line adjacent to the railroad spur. The drainage in this area must be done to
direct drainage away from the building, which may require a culvert beneath the railroad
spur at the southwest comer of the building.
The new water main connection shail be reviewed by Public Works and may require a cut-
in verses wet tap.
2335 gffest Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 · Fax: 612-636-1311
0CT-2'3'-lCJ'::J~ 14:3'7
6i2 5'95 c:JI3:37 P.1~./12
NOiqTHWI='ST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY IIICANNING ' IDE~ION - MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
New Hope Planning Commission
Troy D. Hagen I Alan Brixius
28 October 1998
New Hope - Amllivea, Inc. - Addition and Remodeling
131.01 -98.16
BACKGROUND
Ar~ives, Inc~ has submitted a request for a Site Plan Review, which ~uld include a rear
yard selt3ack vadarx:e. The applicant Intends to construct an additional building onto the
existing building located at 3401 Nevada Avenue North. The property is currently zoned
I-1: Limited Industrial. The pmpceed 60,760 square foot building would be a permitted use
within the I-1 Dislrict. There would be no additional office space in the proposed building.
The variance request is due to bulk:ling ermmachrnent into the rear yard along the railroad
tracks. The intenti~ of the applicant is to to align the proposed building ~ the existing
building, which is built on the property line.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exllibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exllib~ F:
Exhibit G:
Site Location
Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plan
Floor Plan
Firet and Second Floor
Exterior Elevations
5'~?~ WAYZATA BOULEVARD,
PHONE l~ I 2-595-cJ636 P'AX
SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS ]=ARK. MINNESOTA 55~.1 6
612-595-9837 E;-MAIL. NACI~-~iNTERNET,COM
OCT-29-19E:J~ 14:::~ ~ ~12 595: ~ P.~3/12,
ANAI.YSI~
Variance. TI~ applicant is proposing to construct a building onto ar~ existing building to
be used for additional storage. The placement of the addition would be on the property
line to align it with the existing structure. There is a railroad track that runs the length of
this property line. Section 4.034(6) states that the minimum rear or side yard setback from
a railroad right-of-way shall be ten feet. Because of this, the applicant would require a
variance for a zero foot rear yard setback. A variance request cannot be granted unless
the following criteria have been satisfied:
Undue Hardship. '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 allowed by the of Sciel controls, the plight of the
landowner is due to drc, umsfances unique to his propedy not created by the
landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character
of the locality. Econom~ 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.
Them is a pre-existing condition surrounding the subject pa-cci. The existing building was
~Xlstru~t~l on the Fopely line axllting the railroad. The applicanfs request would allow
for the building to maintain a consistent building face for the duration of the structure,
existing and proposed.
An additional element that restricts the applicant from reasonably utilizing the pmpeity is
the topography located at the southern end of the parcel. The Slope of the land prevents
the applicant from developing toward the southern property line without major excavation
and regrading.
Both c~:~l~ am i~elieved to be unique to the property and that they will not to establish
a precedent regarding future requests.
Planning Commisek~ and Council. The Planning Commi, en, based upon
a report and recommendation by the City Manager, shall have the power to
advise and recommend such conditions related to a variance ragard/ng the
location, character end other features of a proposed building, structure or
use es it may deem advisebie consistent with the intent and purpose of this
Code. ~ the City Council find that all or part of the conditions outlined
apply to the pmpoMd [ct or parcal #?e Council rnay grant a variance from the
sblct e~ of ~ Code so as to relieve such difilDulties or hardships to
the degree considered reasonable.
-. 2
OCT-L~cJ-I~ 14:5"? HRC 612 ~ 9~5"? P.i;~4/12
Usa Com~. The board of appeals snd adjustments of the governing body as
the casa may be, may not permit as a va#ance any use that i~ not permitted un,er
~ ordinance for property in the zone where the afl~ed person's land is Iocate~.
The additional storage building is a permiffed use within the I-I District.
The Zoning Ordinance site~ additional criteria for variance requests. The additional
requirements are that the proposed variance will not:
1. Cons/stent Wff. h Pu~.rpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a
variance as descdbecl in 4.221.
It is not contrary to the purposes of a variance as described in 4.221, Purpose of Variance.
2. ~ ~mpalr an adequate supply of ~ht and air to adjacent property.
The additional building will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent
pmparty,
3. Street Congestion. Unreasonably increase the-congestion in the public
street.
Truck traffic may increase due to the increase storage space, however, the trucks will be
standing/parking off of the public ~ Therefore, we believe the building addition will not
unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streaL
4. ~ Increase the danger of fire or endanger the pub£= safety.
The applicant has indicated that lyre building will be fully fire sprinklered to comply with
State Statute 1305.6905. The proposed addition will not increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety.
5. l~ooert¥ Value~ . Unreasonably diminish or impair established property
values ~ ~e neighS; or in any other way be contrary to the intent
of th~s Code.
The building addition will not unreasonably impair established property values within the
neighborhood.
3
OCT-2~-lgcj~ 14:3'? HRC 612 595 91~5"7 P.EIS/12
Comprehensive Plan. A review of the Comprehensive Plan revealed the goals and
policies that City ha~ established to assist decision makers in deterrr~ning support or lack
thereof toward certain development. The following goals and policies are applicable to
the development reque~
CITY-WIDE GENERAL GOALS
GoM 2:
Protect property values and maintain strong tax base.
Policies:
Promote pdvate reinvestment in New Hope properties through building renovation,
expansion, and maintenance.
Enhance local tax base within the City by encouraging high quality commercial and
industrial building expansions.
INDUSTRIAL GOALS
Goal t:
Retain and expand New Hope's industrial land uses to insure a diverse tax
base and local employment opportunities.
Policies:
Continue to facilitate the in-place expansion of existing industries.
Prorra3te the high quality industrial construction to insure building durability and an
aesthetically attractive appeared.
Continue to maintain open lines of c~nmunication with local industries to stay
abreast to their changing needs.
~h, the variance request does nc, meet the true letter of the va, lance criteria. It can
be supported by Ihs urdquenesa of the property and that it will not establish a precedence
Parldng. Parking requirement~ follow a formula to determine the minimum number of
~3ecee. Usually, the total square footage minus ten percent with one space per X amount
of square feet allowed. Here, the minimum number of parking spaces for the office and
warehouse area is 99 ,pace~. The site already contairm 44 spaco~ and ha, proof of
parking for an additiortai 54 spaces to total 98 spaces. The applicant would be short one
space, but current demand for parking at the site is very Iow and would not likely be a
problem. Handioapped parking follows a simple formula of one space per fifty spaces to
4
,CX3T-29-19cJEt 14:38 ~ 61~ ~ c3t~3'?
P.
be designated as "handicapped parking'. The applicant is providing four spaces for the
handicapped. ..
Per staff recommendation, the applicant indicates plans to remove existing bituminous
surfacing, which provides 12 spaces and replace it with sod. The 12 spaces would be part
of the "proof of parking", which will increase the amount of greenspace.
Loading. The plans indicate that the distance from the building to the north property line
is 67 feet, which should be sufficient distance for turning. The applicant indicates that
semi trucks would account for only five percent of total traffic~ The remaining 95 percent
would be by van.
~3rading and Drainage. A Grading and Drainage Plan has been submitted and shall be
subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
Landscape Plan. The applicant has submitted a Landscape Plan and shall be subject to
staff review and approval. Near the point of entry to the loading area, two or three
additional trees should be planted to offer screening of the loading area.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the preceding review, our office recommends the approval of the variance for
zero foot rear yard setback and the Site Plan for the Archives, Inc. Addition and
Remodeling based on the following conditions:
The Planning Commi~sion finds that there ls a hardship regarding the rear yard
The Planning Commission finds that the result of the vadance would be conSistent
with the Compreheneive Plan goals and policies outlined herein.
The applicant comply with all other provisions established in the I-1: Limited
Industrial District.
The applicant shall extend the landscaping to Include plantings along the southern
border to provide additional screening near the loading area.
4. The Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan meets the approval of the City Engineer.
5
'~¢E
~NG
S.F.
,300'
_n..EV. 905.0'
BUILDING
;
il
;
CUR~ FO~ HANDICAt~PED ~ ~
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
98-26 House of Hope Luth Church 10112198 12/11/98 2~9~99
4800 Boone Avenue N.
New Hope 55428
533-3341
Tony Bangasser
Boy Scout Troup 534
8500 Wyoming Avenue N.
Mpls 55445
493-7300-work
Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application.
A. Assign each application a number.
B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
C. List the date the City received the application.
D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within l0 business days after the
date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line.
E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
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:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT .
98-26
Request for Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow Parking One-Enclosed Boy
Scout Equipment Trailer in an Existing Parking Lot
4800 Boone Avenue North
07-118-21-42-0036
R-l, Single Family Residential
House of Hope Lutheran Church/Boy Scout Troup 534
October 30, 1998
November 2, 1998
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit amendment to allow parking one enclosed Boy
Scout equipment trailer in an existing parking lot, pursuant to Sections 4.054(1) and 4.21 of ~he New
Hope Code of Ordinances.
In 1992 the Planning Commission and City Council approved a CUP amendment to allow the exterior
Storage of a bus in the parking lot at House of Hope Lutheran Church, subject to conditions.
Boy Scout Troup 534 recently approached the church about parking a storage trailer at the site. Another
amendment to the existing CUP is necessary for the storage of another vehicle at the site, therefore,
the Boy Scout Troup completed the necessary application, submitted plans and met with the Design &
Review Committee. The Committee did not have a problem with the request.
Subsequent to the Design & Review Committee meeting, the petitioner questioned whether a CUP
amendment would be necessary if the bus was removed from the parking lot, as the church was
thinking of selling the bus. Staff discussed this question with the Planning Consultant and it is the
Planning Consultant's opinion that if the bus is removed from the property that the Boy Scout trailer
could replace the bus and an additional CUP amendment would not be necessary.
Staff recently received a verbal message from the petitioner requesting the withdrawal of his CUP
amendment, since the church has decided to sell its bus within the next two months.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission approve a motion accepting the petitioner's request to withdraw the
application.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 98-16
Request: Consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035(2) by
Reducing the Lot Area Size for Two Family Dwellings
Location: City-Wide
Zoning: R-2, Single and Two Family Residential Zoning Districts
Petitioner: City of New Hope
Report Date: October 30, 1998
Meeting Date: November 2, 1998
UPDATE
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 several members of
the Committee indicated that they wanted to discuss this ordinance amendment further before it was
presented to the full Commission.
3. The ordinance amendment was placed on the October 6 Planning Commission agenda because a legal
notice was published for a public hearing at that meeting. The item was tabled without discussion until
the November 2 Planning Commission meeting.
4. Staff recommended that the October Codes & Standards Committee meeting be canceled due to the
fact that several items were not ready for discussion, therefore, the R-2 lot size reduction ordinance
amendment was not discussed.
5. Staff recommends that the Commission table this am. endment until the December 1 Planning
Commission meeting, so that the Committee can further discuss the amendment at the November
Codes & Standards meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends tabling discussion on the ordinance until the December I Planning Commission meeting.
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Planning Commission Members
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
October 30,1998
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. October 12 Council Meetin~ - At the October 12 Council meeting, the Council took action on the
following planning/development/housing issues:
A. Resolution Supporting and Encouraging L'Esl~erance Owner's Association to Apply for a,,
Environmental Assistance Grant from the Minnesota Office of Environmental Ass;s~ance !..
o
Improve Its Land Use and Landscapin.n: Approved, see attached Council request.
B. project ~613 and ~641, Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for Dei~olifion Qr
City-Owned Four-Plex Properties at 7601/7621/7641 62"~ Avenue North and Authorizintj
Advertisement for Bids: Approved, see attached Council request.
C. Resolution Confirming Non-Conservation Cl_=_~sification and Requesting Conveyance of Ta.~'
Forfeited Land at 78t9 Angeline Drive to the City of New Hol:c: Approved, see attached
Council request.
D. Planninq Case 98-18, Request for Final Plat Approval of Brandell Fourth Additioi-: Approved,
see attached Council request.
E. planning Case 98-22, Request for a Variance to Allow an Air Conditioning Unit in the Sid,~,
Yard, 9209 40 % Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request.
F. Planning Case 98-23, Request for a Variance in the Fence He~;Iht Requirement to Allot;'
Construction of a 10-Foot Sound Barrier/Fence, 8201 64~ Aven,'c; Petitioners requested
postponement until November 9 Council meeting. Subsequent to meeting with them, they will be
requesting a further continuance - see attached letter.
G. Ordinance 98-18/Planning Case 98-17, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by
Establishing Measurement Procedures to Determine Maximum Curb Cut Width:-: Adopted.
October 26 Council Mestin? - At the October 26 Council meeting, the Council took action on the
following planning/development/housing issues:
A. Planninq Case 98-14, Resolution Authorizing Release of Financial Guarantee for Pipe
Fabricators, Inc., 2720 Nevada Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request.
B. Project #613 and ~:~41, Resolution Awarding Contract for Demolition of City-Owned Four
_P. lex ProPerties at 7601/7621/7641 62"" Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request.
Codes & Standards Commi~_e~_ - The Committee did not meet in October.
4. Design & Review Committee - Design & Review met in October to review plans for Archives
expansion and the HouSe of Hope CUP amendment.
5. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - The Committee will remain in tact to review plan updates
for neighboring, cities.
6., 1999 Planning Commission Schedule: Attached (separately) is the tentative 1999 Planning
Commission schedule. Please review and contact Kirk or pam if you have any questions about the
schedule,
7. Project Bulletin - Enclosed is a project bulletin regarding the apartments at 7601/7621/7641 62~
Avenue.
Miscellaneous Articles:
Zoning News.
Miscellaneous Issues:
A.
Enclosed are several miscellaneous articles from the Zoning Bulletin and
The City has received the enclosed correspondence from Avtec Finishing Systems requesting that
their application be kept open while they continue to work on storm water quality issues.
City staff continue to work on the following potential developments:
1) CareBreak building and plat on Boone Avenue
2) Navarre building expansion
Attachments:
L'Esperance Owner's Association
62r~ Avenue Apartments Demo Plans & Specs
7819 Angeline Drive
Brandell Fourth Addition
9209 40 % Avenue
54~ Avenue Distribution Center Letter
Ordinance No. 98-18
Pipe Fabricators Release of Financial Guarantee
62~ Avenue Apartments - Award Demo Contract
1999 Planning Commission Schedule
Project Bulletin
Miscellaneous Articles
Avtec Finishing Systems Correspondence
FOR ACTION
Or~lna~ Depa~t~uent App~ for
/
/~ 10-12-98
ENCOURAGING L'ESl
Consent
10-12-98
Item No.
Community Development
Kirk McDonald
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AND RAGING L'ESPERANCE OWNER'S ASSOCIATION TO
APPLY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE GRANT FROM THE MINNESOTA OFFICE .OF
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE TO IMPROVE ITS LAND USE AND LANDSCAPING.
The L'Esperance Owner's Association is an organization of owners from the townhome complex located
at 7924 - 8020 51' Avenue North. This organization is looking to improve the extedor appearance of
their properties by making improvements to the existing landscaping and land use. The renovations are
intended to incorporate sustainable landscape design into the site, making an effort to create a more
sustainable environment. Such improvements would include landscaping with native plants to create
more green space, reduce noise, make their homes more energy efficient, and reduce stormwater run-
off. They will be using landscaping ideas drawn from the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
(MnOEA) as well as sustainable landscape design elements from the University of Minnesota Extension
service.
The City was approached by Catherine Zimmer, the Treasurer of this organization, for assistance with
this project. Initially, Ms. Zimmer inquired if the City was able to offer any financial assistance to their
improvements. We informed her that at this point, the City was not in a position to offer any form of
financial assistance for their landscape improvements, but we would be more willing to support the
organization through the procese of a state grant application. She than informed the City that the
L'Esperance Owner's Association was planning to apply for a grant from the MnOEA to assist with the
landscaping improvements. ~ grants are designed to promote redevelopment for sustainability
purposes, and are intended to encourage sustainability and environmentally friendly practices, which
many times are much more costly to homeowners than aitematives which have a negative impact on the
environment.
Ms. Zimmer has asked the City to formally declare its support for her organization and the idea of
sustainable land use. It would enhance the quality of their application if the City was to support and
encourage their action. Staff is recommending approval of this resolution.
MOTION BY
TO:
RFA-O01
VJ gT I OR ACTION
Community Development
BY'Kirk McDonald
Item No.
10-12-98 6.8
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AN[
FOUR-PLEX PROPERTIES AT 7601/7621/7641 62"0 AVENUE NORTH
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 613 AND 641)
SPECIFICATIONS FOR DEMOLITION OF CITY-OWNED
AND AUTHORIZING
City staff have been coordinating with the City Engineer on the preparation of plans and specifications
for the demolition of the city-owned four-plex properties at 7601, 7621 and 7641 62"a Avenue North. The
City acquired these properties with the intent of relocating the tenants, demolishing the buildings and
land banking the property for future'redevelopment purposes. One of the buildings is curranfly vacant
and it is anticipated that the tenants remaining in the other buildings will be relocated by the end of
October. The attached resolution approves the plans and specifications and authorizes advertisement
for bids. Bids would be opened on October 21 and the results would be presented to the Council at the
October 26 Council meeting. The goal is to have the buildings demolished by the end of November.
Demolition costs will be paid for with TIF fund~. The plans call for the demolition of all three buildings
and the respective parking arees associated with each building. The contractor will also be responsible
for the removal of any materials identified in the environmental survey and for the disconnection of
utilities.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
MOTION BY ,,, ~:OND BY "
RFA-00!
I
R]I U ST FOR ACTION ..
Community Development
Consent
10-12'98 Item No.
B~.cSusan Henry
ommunity Development SpeC-ie!ist
i RESOLUTION cONFIRMING NON-CONSERVATION CLASSIFICATION AND REQUESTING
CONVEYANCE OF TAX FORFEITED LAND AT 7819 ANGELINE DRIVE TO THE CITY OF NEW
HOPE. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 603)
On June 9, 1997, the City Council authorized staff to complete an al:~raisal for the properties at
7813/7819 Angeline Drive. The appraisals were completed by BCL Appraisals, the Iow bidder.
The first property, 7813 Angeline Drive, is located at the southeast comer of Winnetka Avenue and
Angeline Drive. The property has an assessed value of $2,000 and a fair market value of $17, 700. The
area of the property is approximately 10,220 square feet. The second property, 7819 Angeline Drive, is
adjacent to the first property. This property has an aasass~ value of $1,000 and a fair market value of
$13,700. The two properties have a combined fair market value of $31,400. It is the opinion of City staff
and the City Attorney that the appraisals accurately reflect the value of the properties. In August 1997,
City staff negotiated with the property owners, but were not successful in acquiring the property due to a
high asking pdco.
Recently, the property at 7819 Angeline Drive, has been forfeited to the State of Minnesota for
nonpayment of taxes. It is anticipated the adjacent property at 7813 Angeline Drive will also be forfeited
in the near future. City staff considers 7819 and 7813 good candidates for Iow to moderate income
housing, after the two lots would be combined.
The attached resolution requests the Co~ not place the property for' public auction, but instead
convey the property at 7819 Angalins Drive to. the.City ? no charge..T~. Resolution also relates the
planned future [me in Iow to moderate income hOUSing, with ttte propem/to be returned to the tax roles
after the City constmc~ a dwelling on the site.
Staff recommends approving the attached resolution to proceed with obtaining the title to 7819 Angeline
Drive.
MOTION BY
TO:
RFA-O01
FOR ACTION
Ai~ t'or.~eada .*4ends SecUon
· Development
& Planning
1~=!~ Item No.
oncmau,-~
Community Development
BY'Kirk McDonald
PLANNING CASE 98-1R, REQUEST FOR
ADDITION, LIBERTY PROPERTY LIMITED
PETITIONERS
PLAT APPROVAL OF BRANDELL FOURTH
PARTNERSHIP AND MARBELL REALTY LLC,
.The petitioner ia requesting final plat approval of Brandell Fourth Addition, pursuant to Chapter 13 of the
New Hope Code. At the September 14 City Council meeting., the Council approved the preliminary plat
and a side yard setback vadanCe to allow a perking lot five feet from the property line at 9401-9443 and
9449 Science Center Ddve, subject to the following conditions:
1. Final plat to incorporate corrections recommerx:led by City Attorney, City Engineer and NSP.
2. Landscape schedule to be Submitted indicating exact number/type of plantings.
3. Parking lot expaneion to comply with recommendation~ from City Engineer.
4. iSo~e.!~m,p_r_ov~.em__e_..nt__A..g_r~___m.~nt ~.~b~. enterS., i.n~ ~ City and _p?rfl:xmance bond I:X:lsted for parking
=.u ,=._u~.~ng ,m.provemer~ {amount to I:)e cletermined by City E ineer and Buildin Offici
5. Planning [.;ommisoion to w~ve review of final plat. ng g al).
The petitioner has incorporated the recomrnendatione of the City Attomey and City Engineer, has
submitted revised landscape plan/~:hedule, ha~ extertded the concrete cuNert in the parking lot to
comply with the City Engineer's request, and is in the proceso of entering into a Site Improvement
Agreement with the City. The Planning Commi~lon waived it~ review of the final plat, due to the simple
nature of the plat, so the plat i~ p~ directly to the City Council.
A~ the Council is aware, th~ ~ i requesting the plat approval in ord~ to purchase 23 f~t of
property from the adjacent owner and ~ the property line for the purpm~ of creating additional parking
for employees. The two pmpertlea involved in the property line ~hift and land purchase am located at
9401 .and 9449 Science Center DrNe. Both are office/warehouse uee~. Both pmpediea am located at
the southeast intemeotlon of Science Center Drive and the Highway 169 frontage road and are located
in an I-1 Umiled Industrial Zoning Distri~. The re-plat of the property invoivee a small strip of land,
currently under contract with and to be purchased from Marbell Realty, ownem of 9449 Science Center
Drive and Liberty Property Umited Partnemhip, owners of 9401 Science Center Drive. The land to be
exchanged between properties i~ approximately 23 feet wide and 415 feet long.
(cont'd)
Request for Action Page 2
The lot/building coverage calculations for the proposed new lots are as follows:
Proposed Lot ~. Building 24,754 square feet
Paving 61,326 square feet
Green Area 67,035 square feet
Total 153,115 square feet
16.17%
40.05%
43.78%
100%
Proposed Lot 2 Building
Paving
Green Area
Total
The proposal meets the I*t 20~ green
74,334 square feet 26.36%
118,551 square'feet 42.05%
89,087 square feet 31.59%
281,972 square feet 100%
area requiremeet. Both sites are generally fiat, although
elevated about 12 feet above Highway 169 and the frontage road. Them are two storm water runoff
ponds on the site that were created in 1989 when the property was developed.
As per routine policy, the final plat wes submitted to City Department Heade, City Attorney, City
Engineer, utility companiee and Hennepin County for review and ¢ommenL The existing legal description
of the plat ia Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 1, Brandeil Third Addition. The site area information for the
existing plat is as follows:
Existing Lot 1 Total Area = 162,661 square feet, 3.73 acr~
Existing Lot 2 Total Area = 272,427 square feet, 6.25 acres
The proposed legal description of the ~ plat is Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 2, Block 1, Brandell Fourth
Addition. The site area information for the revised ~ ia a~ follow~:
Proposed Lot 1 Total Ama = 153,115 square feet, 3.52 acre~
Proposed Lot 2 Total Area = 281,972 square feet, 6.47 acres
Per the petitioner, the Vicom, Inc. land area Io~t and the Liberty Trust land area gained, per the
proposed re-platting, is 9,545 square feet or .22 aoree. The lot area and width requirements for the I-1
Zoning District are compared to the plat below:.
I-1 Reauimment P_I]Ilm~II:Y..E~
Minimum Lot Ama: 1 acre 9.99 acree
Minimum LotWIdlh: 100 feet 578 feet.
The pro~ eubdlvl~km meet~ the City'e I-1 zoning ~tandarde.
The City Attorney reviewed the firml plat and made the following comrner~:
1. The notarization language for Uherty Property and 'Marbell Realty is not standards, and should be
changed to the .randall Imguage for thoee types of antitkm.
2. T~le evidence showing ownemhip of the real estate included in the plat will be necessary before the
final plat can be approved. (Staff have received the title evidence.)
~ City Engineer reviewed the final plat and made the following comments:
1. We have reviewed the final plat. The drainage and utility easements along all property lines are
preperly shown on the plat. However, pond eaeement~ are not shown over the existing ponding
area~. Recent requirement~ assodatad with water quality improventents for Shingle Creek and
Bassett Creek Watershed have required pond easements be shown over all ixivate ponding areas
and all maintenance responsibilities are defined by agreement which are the responsibility of the
- /
i~/_'eqTst for Action-- "---- Page3 .. 10-12-98
/ The ~Ry Cou,.ncil will ~ to cletermine if it i~ going to require the petitionsr to IxOvide the easements
/r ~vrern,t.l~.' _po .nd} n.g~ ~. .m. _as .1~.~..m~. ueated by the ?y Engineer. The easements were nm required with the
~lr ~na_.e, ?nlm .~..~x~ .1~ WhiCh was ..apl~. vea ,n 1987. The easements were also not discussed by the
· ~7 .=.ng~neer ,n nl.s rev~w .of .the I~.!m~nary plat. Within the pe~ ~ral years, the City has started
~r r_ ~eq~u..~.nng e.a..semen?.over private .l~.a;ng areas to. ?ote?. the future integrity of the ponding areas. The
The Building Official has reviewed the final plat, revised site plans and landscaping plans and finds the
plans to be acceptable.
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution, which approves the plat, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Revision of plat notarization language, per City Attorney recommendation.
2. Council makes determination on ponding easements.
3. Petitioner to submit two mylam to City Clerk for signatures and record plat with Hennepin County
within 100 days of approval.
Attachments: Topo Map
Final Plat
City Attorney Comments
City Engineer Comments
Petitioner Correspondence
Revised Preliminary Plat
Revised Landscape Plan/Schedule
Community Development
BY'Kirk McDonald
i UEST FOR ACTION
Development
& Plannin,q
10['1~8 ]tea3 No.
By:.,// 8.2
PLANNING CASE 98-22, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN AIR CONDITIONING UNIT IN
THE SIDE YARD, 9209 40 ½ AVENUE NORTH, DUANE & MARY JO RUSS, PETITIONERS
The petitioner is requesting a vadance to ~ 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. The petitioners had a new air
conditioner installed this summer on the rear yard patio of their home alter their old air conditioner quit
working. The old unit was located in the rear yard on a wood deck. 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 wa~ approved, as city code
prohibits air conditioners in the side yard, therefore, the contractor placed the unit on the new patio while
the petitioners were on vacation. The petitioner wants to have lite 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.
The petitioners state 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. The petitioner indicatse that the neighbom, on the east have an existing
fence and that they would have an enck~ure built to contain the unit so that it would blend with the
existing privacy fence. They ~ 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.
The property is located on the south ~le of 40 ½ Avenue North between Gettysburg and Jordan
Avenues and the rear yard abutl Northwood Park pond. The property is kx=ated in an R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning ~ ~1 il Itm'mmded by R-1 properties. The property is 76 feet in width, has a
depth of 126 feet, and hal a lot area of approximately 9,500 squire feet. The existing home on the
property meets the required M~backl with a five.foot side yard setback on the west/garage side of the
property and a 10-fo~ ~le yard selblck on the east side ~f the property where the air conditioner is
proposed to be located. 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.
(cont'd.)
MOTION BY
RFA'O01
Request for Action Page 2 10-1..
Section 4.032(3)(i) of the Zoning Code, *Accessory Buildings, Uses and ~quipment - 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 does not allow air conditioning units to be located in the required side yard setback. In 1992
the City Council approved an ordinance amendment to the city code regUlating air conditioner setbacks.
The amendment addressed the replacement of air conditioning condensem 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 masons for the ordinance are:
1. Noise: The noise ordinance severely restricts nighttime noise levels in residential areas between the
hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. W'rth 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 can be a source of conflict.
2. ~ 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.
The city code allows replacement air conditionem to be located in the side yard if three conditions are
met:
1. Noise code violations may not result
2. Unit to be visually s~:~'eened from adjacent property
3. Unit may not be within an easement
Staff and the Planning Commission do not have an objection to the approvat of the vadanca for the
following reasons:
1. The topographY of ltm property would screen the att conditioner from the front street view.
2. The air conditioner woulcl be mxl~ewhat screened from the neighbom on the east side because there
is an existing four-foot wood fence between the propertle~.
3. 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.
4. The petitioners have agreed to ecreen the unit by constructing an enclosure around it with materials
similar to the privacy fence.
5. A number of theae reqcm,~ have been approved in the past if adequate screening is provided.
6. The neighboring property owner on the e~t ha~ submitted a letter indicating that they do not object
to the placement of the unit in the e~t side yard if the unit is screened to avoid additional sounds.
The neighboring property owner on the west spoke in suplxxt of the vadance request at the Planning
Commission meeting.
The planning Commission cormldemd this request at its October 8 meeting and recommended approval,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Adequate screening ls provided around the unit, including an enciosure conMructed of materials
similar to the privacy fence and edditionat landscaping is added, with screening plan to be submitted
to tl'm C'"~/~ Due to the fact that the air conditioner will not be utilized during the winter months and
the fact that it may be difllcuit for the screening to be installed this fall, staff recommends that the
petitioner be given until May 1999 to install the enclosure and m:reening.
Staff recommends approval of the re~lutlon.
JAMES R. WALSTON
ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.E.
October 23, 1998
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
and FIRST CLASS I~L4IL
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Community Dev. Director
City of New Hope
4401 Zylon Avenue North
New. Hope, MN 55428
Re:
City of New Hope Planning Case No. 98-23 Variance
54th Avenue Distribution Center
Our File No. 315-005'
Dear Mr. McDonald:
The New Hope City Council tabled the above-referenced variance request to allow
construction of a ten foot noise barrier at the 54u~ Avenue Distribution Center. The matter was
rescheduled to November 9th to allow the applicant time to re-evaluate the feasibility of existing
construction plans in relation to engineering studies and City ordinances. On behalf of the
property owner, we request further tabling of this matter consistent with our discussion with you
October 19, 1998. We anticipate that this matter can move forward with a modified proposal
which would enhance the noise mitigation as soon as:
1. Additional engineering studies are finalized;
2. We meet with City staffand consultants regarding a noise ordinance variance;
An application requesting City approval of the Amended Proposal is submitted;
4. A neighborhood meeting prior to any City meetings is noticed and conducted.
It is anticipated that the items referenced above could be accomplished within four to six
weeks. Thereafter, a modified proposal could be submitted for Planning Commission review.
Please' advise the City Council accordingly on the status of this matter. Let me know if
you need a representative to attend the November 9~ City Council meeting.
Suite 200, Dakota Financial Center
1060 Dakota Drive · Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120
Telephone 651.905.7000 , Facsimile 651.405.3775 · E-mail walstonlaw~mn.state.net
Mr. Kirk McDonald
October 23, 1998
Page 2
Finally, be advised that with respect to applicants pending height variance application
(Case No. 98-23), the requirements of Minn. Stat. Sec. 15.99 are waived for the pending
application only, and for a time period equal to the time the applicant has requested this matter to
be tabled.
We look forward to formulating an equitable long-term resolution of this matter.
JR.W:rlt
cc via fax:
Sincerely,
JAMES IL WALSTON
Mr. Ron Shuster, Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co.
Mr. Jeff Larson, JBL Companies
Mr. Quinn S. Hutson, CNH Architects
c'ouvc
( asea? for AC'nON
Ordinan~s &
Commun~ ~velopme~ Resol~ons
1~98 It~ No.
~ Ki~ Mc~nald ~~ 10.2
ORDINAN E No. 9~I~P~NNI~~ ~ 17, ~ ORDI~NCE ~ENDING ~E NEW HOPE
CI~ CODE BY ESTABLISHING M~SUREMENT PROCEDURES TO DE~RMINE M~IMUM CURB
CUT WIDTHS, CI~ OF NEW HOPE, PE~TIONER
~e Ci~ is r~ting ~ns~e~on of ~ O~inan~ ~i~ ~ ~ =Ho~ C~ Code by
Es~blishing Measurement Pr~u~ to ~te~i~ M~imum Cu~ C~ ~, ~muant to S~ion
4.03~(4)(h)(vi) - N~ Ho~ C~ ~ O~inan~.
At ~e Ju~ 7 Planning Commi~i~ m~fi~, Pi~ Fa~om ~ ~ a v~ ~ a ~ ~ ~at
exes ~e all~an~ ~ ~e ~ ~. ~y ~m ~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ to a~mm~ate
semi-~ and ~i~r ~ entedng ~ e~ ~ s~e ~ 2720 ~v~a Avant. Dud~ ~e ~ of
· is ~u~t, ~ C~ E~i~ a~ ~ n~ ~ ~ i~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ was
not s~. ~amin~ ~ ~ Pi~ Fa~ s~e a~ ~ni~ i~us~al
~ ~ ~s in ~ i~u~l ~ ~ ~ A~ I~ ~~ ~ a~ ~mi~ ~ius to
a~mm~e ~ir I~ ~. ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~n~ ~ ~ ~, a~ ~us s~ff is
r~mmendi~ a zoni~ ~ te~ ~~ ~ ~ m~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ in
i~ustdal z~.
S~on 4.0~(~(h)(vi), ~ul~es ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ e~ ~ m~ as ~11~: ~ion
4.036(4)(h)(vi) 'Cu~ C~ M~imum. No ~ ~ ~ sh~l ex~ ~ ~1~ ~ dimensions at
· e pro~ line: R~~ - 24 ~ ~ ~~;~~ - ~ ~ NI m~ ~ ~all ~ install~
to ~mply w~ ~e C~'s ~ ~ ~n ~a~. ~ ~ ~ n~ ex~i~ 32 ~t may
~iff~ subj~ to mv~ a~ ~mme~afion ~ ~ C~ E~i~r a~ a~val of ~e C~ Coun~l.
Before the C~ Engin~r ~m~ a ~ ~ ex~i~ ~ m~imum ~s ~t o~ heroin, he shall
consid~ ~e ~ of la~ u~ ~ ~ ~ ~11 ~we, ~ e~eN a~ n~m ~ ~e vehi~lar ~ffic
anticipate, and the ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ s~t s~i~ ~ ~o~'~ t~ ~ ~ ~11 ~ Io~t~.
~e Ci~ Engin~ ~ ~ ~~ ~y ~ul~ons pmmu~ by ~ Minn~ Commissioner of
Trans~afion ml~e ~ d~ ~ ~ ~ dim~ns ~ ma~ a ~mme~on to ex~
the 2~foot m~m~ ~.' ~ ~ al~ ~ C~ to a~ a 32~ ~ ~ ~ ~em t~
land u~ a~ mi~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~
line, even ~e 32-~ ~ ~ ~ it i~N to ~ ~ ~i~ ~ii for la~ ~ due to
· e shall~ ~u~v~ ~ in~ in ~ C~~ ind~ ~. ~ a ~u~, vadan~ n~ to
pr~s~ to mso~e a ~m~ ~ ~in N~ Ho~'s i~~ ~.
Request for Action Page 2 10-12-98
The term *curb cut width" ts defined in the Zoning Code as 'curb cut width will be meesured at the
Property line on a curb face to curb face basis.' While the petitioner in the Pipe Fabricators case was
requesting a 32-foot wide driveway with a 35-fcot radius, the distance from curb face to curb face at the
property line wa~ 38 feet. If the Zoning Code definition of 'curb cut width' was to be applied as it is
wdtten, 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.
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 CommerciaFIndustrlei 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-fcot wide curb cut approval be
subject to just staff review.
The Codes & Standards Committee of the Planning Commission agreed with this recommendation and
the City Attorney prepared the attached ordinance amendment containing the recommendations. The
proposed ordinance amends the measurement procedure~ to determine curb cut widths by establishing
a maximum 35foot curb radius and by me~uring the curb width at a point 20 feet behind the property
line. The City Engineer support~ the ~ ordinance amendment and the attached 'Exhibit A'
prepared by the Planning Consultant illustrates graphically how the ordinance would be applied.
The Planning Commission considered this ordinance amendment at the October 6 Planning Commission
meeting and recommended appmvM of the ordinance.
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
RI UE T FOR ACTION
~ttr~ Del~l~uent Approved for Agenda A~enda Section
Commun~ Development ~ ~nn~nt ~
lt~ No.
~Ki~ McDonald ~ 1~2~98 6.5
RESOLUTION AU~ORIZlNG REL~SE OF FI~NClAL GUA~E FOR PIPE FABRICATORS,
INC., 2720 NEVADA A~NUE NOR~, P~NNING CASE 9~14
~e Ci~ has held a financial guamnt~ in the amount of ~,~ on the Pi~ Fabd~tom cum cut
expansion and relat~ see improvements. ~e Ci~ Engineer a~ Building ~dal have ins~ed the
pro~ for completion of the improvements and am r~mmendi~ ~at the financial guarantee ~
released, as all improvements have ~n ~mplet~. NI adminis~e ~nsu~ ex~nses have also
~en paid.
~e endos~ msol~on a~o~es mlea~ of ~ finandal guam~ a~ s~ff ~mme~s approval of
the resol~ion.
~ON ~ ~~ ~
~:.
COUNCIL
RI UE T FOR ACTION -
Orlg~,at. lz~ D~t
Community Development
Approved for,~genda ,~genda Secuon
/~ Consent
lt~ No.
~Ki~ McDonald ~ 10-2~98 6.6
RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTACT FOR DEMOLITION OF CI~-O~ED FOUR-PLEX
PROPERTIES AT 7601~621~1 62~ AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 613 AND
At the October 12 Council meeting, the City Council passed a resolution approving plans and
specifications for the demolition of the city-owned, four-plex properties at 7601, 7621 and 7641 62n~
Avenue North and authorized advertisement for bids. Bids were opened on October 21 and will be
;nted to the Council on October 26. The following bids were received:
Contractor
Veit & Company
FW Gartner
Land Recycling Services
Economy Dirt & Landscaping
Don Zappa & Son Excavating
Kevitt Excavating
Wickenhauser Excavating
Bid Amount
$27,00O
$32,370
$32,781
$34,086
$36,314
$36,355
$39,850
The Building Official and City Engineer have reviewed the bids and have found that Veit & Company is
the lowest responsible bidder.
The City acquired these properties with the intent of relocating the tenants, demolishing the buildings,
and land banking the property for future redevelopment purposes. One of the buildings is currently
vacant and it is anticipated that the tenants remaining in the other buildings will be relocated by mid-
November. The goal is to have the three buildings demolished by Mid-December. Demolition costs will
be paid. for with TIF funds. The plans call for the demolition of all three buildings and the respective
parking areas associated with each building. The contractor will also be responsible for the removal of
any materials identified in the environmental survey and for the disconnection of utilities. Project bulletins
have been sent to the neighboring properties to keep them informed about the status of this project.
The attached resolufi'on awards the contract for the demolition to Veit & Company, the lowest
responsible bidder, in the amount of $27,000.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
MOTION BY
TO:
RFA-O01
PROJECT NO. 613 & 641
Bulletin ~
7601, 7621, and 7641 62nd.Avenue North
Overview
In the fall of 1997, the City of New Hope acquired the four-plex located at 7621 62nd
Avenue North. Recently, the tenants living in the building were relocated. The building
is now empty and locked. In late May, the City acquired the buildings located at 7601
and 7641 62na Avenue North. The tenants living in the buildings were given relocation
notices, and it is anticipated that these buildings will be vacant by the end of October.
By the end of November, City staff plans to have the vacated 7601, 7621, and 7641
62nd Avenue North. buildings demolished.
The City purchased the apartment buildings with the intent of demolishing the
structures and land banking the sites for combination with other adjacent parcels for
future housing redevelopment purposes. The future redevelopment plans for this site
have yet to be determined. The City intends to include neighborhood input in
developing these plans. You will be notified when the planning process begins.
In addition, the City is working on acquiring the. fourth building, 766.1, along 62"
Avenue. The City is still having discussions with the current property owner.
Project Schedule
The City has initiated the demolition process for the three acquired properties at 7601,
7621, and 7641 62"~ Avenue North. The following steps have taken place or will take
place to prepare the site for demolition:
· During the final week of September - An environmental study was conducted and no
major concerns were found.
· October 12, 1998 - The City Council approved the demolition specifications and bids
.were solicited from demolition contractors for 7601, 7621, and 7641 62~ Avenue
North.
· October 22, 1998 - The Fire Department will be running some small training
operations in the 7621 building. The training sessions will consist of small, contained
fires inside the structure 'at 8:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m.
· October 26, 1998 - The City Council will consider demolition bids and it is
anticipated the lowest responsible bidder will be selected.
· November 1, 1998 - All residents are expected to be relocated. The 7621 building is
currently vacated, and the 7601 and 7641 buildings are expected to be vacated.
· November 1, 1998 - All utilities will be disconnected and appliances will be removed.
'Following the steps outlined above, the site will be ready for demolition. Demolition is
expected to be completed by the end of November.
10/19/98
Site Management
Throughout this fall and the seasons after, the City will maintain the site. The Police
Department and other city staff will be monitoring the site on a regular basis. However,
if you see something unusual, please contact the Police Department directly at
531-5170.
Contact Persons
If you have questions or concerns during the demolition project, please contact Susan
Henry, Community Development Specialist, at 531-5137, or Kirk McDonald, Director of
Community Development, at 531-5119.
The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents in the area that may be impacted
during this project. The City will keep you informed about any future activities that are to
take place on the site. Thank you for your cooperation.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
1991
Zoning, New Urbanist
DevelOpment, and the
Fort Collins Plan
By Edward Ziegler and Greg Byrne
The potential design benefits of new urbanist or traditional
neighborhood development (TND) have been touted at
land-use conferences throughout the country and in the
increasing body of literature devoted m the subject. The TND
design concept, which is usually characterized by a more
compact, higher-density mixed-use design, with a range of
housing types and a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood, is
thought m have the potential to affect a major shift away from
conventional low-density sprawl.
Whether the TND design concept will actually have any
significant impact on our automobile-dominated landscape and
the existing sprawl pattern of development, however, still
remains to be seen. According to a January 1998 report in New
Urban News, for evezy dollar invested in TND projects, an
estimated $1,400 is still invested in conventional
development. For these numbers to change
dramatically, communities across the country
will need to take a hard look at how zoning and
development codes either frustrate or
accommodate WND-designed projects,
Interviews with developers and planners related
to a survey of new urbanist projects undertaken by
the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute in late 1997
and early 1998 provide a general indication that
existing zoning and development codes still prohibit
new urbanist development or strongly favor
approval process leaves much to be desired as a vehicle for
integrated community planning. TND 15menfield projects
approved under this type of PUD rezuning are likely to be
isolated and unintegrated pods of TND development
surrounded by a sea of
conventional sprawl.
The Graham
Company's experience with
its Jordon Tract TND
project in Mt. Pleasant,
near ~eston, illustrates
the pitf~ts developers can
facein this type of PUD
rezoning process. After
having been ~mhroiled for
several years in a PUD
rezoning fight with
opponents to its TNT)
project, the company finally
Even in communities
that encourage TND
development through
PUD rezoning, few TND
projects have been
initiated and
conventional suburban
development still
dominates the landscape.
for a scaled-hack version of its project, only to face litigation with
respect to the approved project
conventional low-density development in the
regulatory approval procedures of the code.
Exdusive-use zoning districts typically prevent a
mix of housing types and neighborhood ~ l
uses and continue to require conventional fonm
of specialized and unintegrated pod and strip
development. In communities that allow new uthanist
projecu, interviews disdo~ that TND projem usually '",..x.~ ~ developmmt come.ons:
have to be approved through a planned unit development
(PUD) ~-~.~ ~' Fort Collins City Plan and Code. Convert
rezoning, while conventional low4emity development
is allowed by right throughout the community, commerdal developramu by adding rmv shops at the comers so
Reports suggest that developers perceive the PUD re'zoning pedestrians can reach the store safily, adding second-floor uses,
process as highly politicized, ad hoc, unpredictable, cosdY, and and constructing sidewalks.
time consuming. The PUD process was described as embodying
.all the integrity and coherence of Olympic judging in the In Florida, which is considered a hotbed of new urbanist
former Soviet bloc countries. Given this perception of the PUD development, a number of communities have revised their
approval process, there should be little surprise in the fact that zoning codes to encourage TND projects by adopting specific
even in communities that en~ourage TND development TND-oriented PUD districts. Intezviews revealed that codes in
through this type of PUD rezuning, such as Mt. Pleasant, South Dade County, Orange County, and Jupiter still require
Carolina, and Gainesville, Florida, few TND projects have been rezoning for TND devdoproent. In these areas, conventional
initiated and conventional suburban development still development reigns over the landscape and few TND proposals
dominates the landscape. Interviews also indicate that the PUD have been submitted for rezoning approval. As recendy as early
1998, ordinanc.~ in Dade County, Orange County, and Jupiter
(enacted in 1991,- 1993, and 1995 respectively) had yet to
complete a single residential unit in a TND project.
This type of PUD zoning system easendally penalizes developers
ofTND projec~ and encoura~ conventional sprawl. New
urbanist architect Andres Duany say~ it is "madne~" for a profit-
driven builder to open himself to these kinds of bureaucratic delays
and scrutiny when conventional development is an available
option. IfTND projects continue to be accommodated by a PUD
rezoning process that may involve any number of variances, and
take as long as three or four years for final devdopment approval,
conventional suburban development will remain unchanged. The
current zoning and development approval proc,~ may have m be
changed radically--perhaps through simplification--to fully realize
the potential design benefit~ of new urbanist devdopment.
Mixed-use ~ .
building design: ~...
Fort Collins City Plan
and Code. Rela~vely divene ' -
mix of uses in structure, ad&'ni'
second-floor uses, creating ~edestrian-
friendly en~,n~
Fort Collim, Colorado, 1~ ,~l~-n a giant ~ep in that ditecxiom
Late last year, the dty, long a pioneer in plann~ deedop~t
to accommoda~, but m actually mqul~ TND dmign and
development within tim city. TND de~toptmmt i~ mbj~x only to
site plan adminkm'at~ aglntnai under ~ but fai~ fl~ibl~
peff'ormanc~ standarda A PUD r~oning is rmt requited for TND
development, and conwntional low-dmsity dm, dopment is no
longeI' an availah~ option-
The Fort Collim zoning code contaim mandamty urban d~gn
dements relating to block si~ streets, sidmnlks, boild4o linm,
and homing mix. It providm for neighborhood centers in each
quart~-s~-tion of land, promotes multimodal tramponation
oppommifi~, and ~ all otber zoning ctx~ pmvid~
Edward Zieglev is Profeuer o/Law and President o/the Rocky
Mountain Land Use Institute at the' ~lnivenity of Denver College
of Law. Greg Byrne is Director of Corara#nity Planning &
Environmental Services for the City of Ft. Collins, Colorado.
'minimum~ density requirenaents for residential devdopment. To
promote compact, orderly, and sequential development, and to
avoid the sprawl of leapfrog devdopment, the devdopmenr code
also requires that new development be confignous with existing
development and that adequate public facilities exist (or be
provided) conremporaneomly with new development
Many new systems acquire some sort of motto or slogan, a
quick shorthand way to express the heart of a complex strategy.
In Fort Collins, city officials often find themselves saying,
"We're building a city, not a suburb." Somehow, it helps to
clarify issues and offer solutions to thorny problems.
Listed below are a few of the many issues debated during the
adoption of City Plan, the new comprehensive plan for the
community. The solutions reflect what people believe will help
"build a city."
· Neighborhoods~They are the building blocks of all
communities and cover more land area than any other type
of land me. They are more than single-family homes, and are
· not isolated from one another, or from other parts of the
city. They incorporate many land uses and are tied together
by a complete transportation system.
· Density~A significant component of sprawl is low
residential density. Fort Collins's code requires minimum
densities higher than typical sprawl development--about five
dwelling units per acre in low-density zones and 12 dwelling
units per acre in medium-density zones.
· Single-family Design---Auto domination tends to result in
the 'gatagescape~ so many people find objectionable.
Although many new urbanist projects have rigid architectural
controls, design standards are limited to the garage, which
must be recessed from the front facade. It can be attached,
detached, street accessed, or approached from an alley. The
home may have a front porch that extends. Many solutions
are possible. The garage simply cannot protrude. This tends
to emphasiz~ the human scale elements of the facade.
· Multifamily Design--These housing types are critical to the
mix and variety in the neighborhood. For them to be
accepted, design standards had to be raised. Entries should
face the street, blank walls should not. Residents must be
able to use the sidewalk system without competing with cars.
In low-density areas, buildinge ar~ limited to six units,
· Gated Entries--Residential developments with gated entries
are prohibited.
· Blocks~In the older parts of Fort Collins, like most dries,
blocks ar~ set off by surrounding public streets. They
typically contain sev~n to 10 ac~s. Throughout the '70s,
'80s, and '9Os, block size inc. mu~ to huge proportions,
often hundreds of acres oflabyrinthi,¢ streets impenetrable
to thro~ movement In Fort Collins, block size is limited
to 12 acres in low-density ar~as. In commercial areas, blocks
will be smallen four to raven acres.
· Streets--This is the most prevalent form of public land. The
design tak~ into account both the street amenities (detached
sidewalks, street trees, etc.) as well as the effect that private
development bas on the public space.
· Commercial Buildings--Placement of commercial buildings
is critical to the creation of effective pedestrian zones. The
code requires 'build-to' lines, bringing the facade to the
street, and mandates direct pedestrian connections from
sidewalk to building enr_,y. Corporate architecture such as
stripped down big boxes behind acres of parking are
unacceptable splits in the urban fabric.
· Zoning--All new districts are mixed use, allowing for
various combinations of residential and nonresidential
development.
II
Mixed-use neighborhood concept: Fort Collins City
Plan and Code. Provides fbr neighborhood centen in
each quarter-section of lantL
Under the Fort Collins zoning code, new udoanist
development is the preferred vision, and TND projects are
unlikely to consist of isolated and unintegrated pods of
development. The code itself establishes TND design as the
city's basic urban fabric. Herein perhaps lies the future of TND
development. The Fort Collins experience bears watching.
Mixed-Use,
Barrow Style
The story of a recent zoning dilemma in a small northern
town seemed at first glance very ordinary. In fact, it raised an
issue not uncommon to communities everywhere. What set
this particular story apart, however, was its setting: nearly
350 miles north of the Arctic Circle, in Barrow, Alaska--
population 4,400. There is more to contend with in Barrow
than the midnight sun. Zoning remains an issue even at the
71st parallel.
The Barrow Zoning Commisrfion issued a conditional use
permit for a commercial business to open shop in the growing
Browerviile neighbothoo(L The l~xm-ily residential character of
this oudying section of'town came into question over concern that
a video game store might congest traffic and disrupt Browerville's
quietude. Residents from other areas of Barrow have flocked to
Browerdlle in search ora more tranquil ~subtuban-like" setfin~
says Earl Finlder, deputy director of the North Slope Borough
Planning Department. The Browerville ndghborhood is composed
mostly of wooden single-family homes and duplexes on 120-by-70-
foot lots. Each dwelling rests atop pilir~ to prevent the warmth of
the homes from malting the arctic permafrost into slush~the
region is essentially a frozen lagoon.
The commission was ultimately swayed in favor of the video
game store in part by 14-year-old Browerville resident Taktuk
E. Miller. Miller, a part-rime employee and neighbor of the
store, wrote a letter to the commission staring, ~I see his [store
owner Terry Jones] attempt to start an honest business in this
area as an admirable idea, and I do not feel that his gaining a
Permit for the operation of his rental outlet will have a negative
impact on the neighborhood. His store will provide a dose of
healthy competition for this area. The service that he provides,
while not immediately useful, provides a means of
entertainment often healthier than some that are currendy used
in this town, which I shall not glori~t with a description. His
business would not congest the traffic in this area, since many of
his patrons are not licensed drivers, and do not use the normal
means of transportation. He does not tolerate any foolish or
juvenile behavior, and his business would not become a haunt
for local hooligans. I feel granting Mr. Jones this permit would
not harm this neighborhood.'
Finkler admits that traffic between Barrow and Browerville
can be heavy, but getting an accurate vehicle count is difficult
given that the area's 28 miles of roads are not part of the state
system, and thus, no vehicle licenses are required. It is estimated
that the number of new automobiles has tripled in recent years
despite having to barge cars into this otherwise inaccessible
location. Still, there are Other forces that vimlally guarantee
measurable growth in Browerville. A small business incubatOr
and the local Arctic Development council have facilitated more
small businesses, and the North Slope Borough and local banks
have encouraged more home ownership among residents.
According to Finlder, this will increase the grow-th of
Broweawille and invariably pull commercial development in
from other areas of Barrow. Hence, the concerns over the video
game store.
The Barrow zoning code is quite liberal in some aspects of its
regulations. In fact, just about any use is permitted through
conditional use permits in this northernmost town in the
United States, especially with respect to the appearance and
character of residents' propelXy. In a place where temperatures
often plunge to minus-60 Fahrenheit (windchill minus-90), and
snow in June surprises nobody, concerns about property
aesthetics tend to reflect the unique environment. Shipping
inoperable vehicles, old appliances, and other household debris
out of Barrow is expensive and time consuming, so outdoor
storage is almost a necessity for residents. Incidentally, there are
no trees or heavy vegetation to serve as a buffer or screen for any
materials lying on the premises.
The video game store was unanimously approved under two
conditions: Signs for the business were limited to a maximum of
six square feet to "preserve the residential character of the
neighborhood," and user~ of the store must meet the curfew
requirements of 10 p.m. when schoo| is in session and midnight
on the weekends. Finkler say~ the store is operating with no
apparent complaints from Browen411e residents.
Michael Davidaon
Surveying _
American Communiti®s
Beginning in 2008, data that were previously available every 10
years from the Census Bureau will become available annually.
The bureau is the main provider ofsta~tical information about
the American public. This information is used by scare and local
governments to formulate public policy. Today, many analysu
feel that the informition obtained through the decennial census
is outdated quickly. Because billions of federal dollars are
allocated m cities and organizations based on these data, the
bureau opted to implement a yearly survey, the American
Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a monthly household
survey that uses independent sarnple~ m produce annual average
estimates. The ACS will collect the same information gathered
with the census long form, including demographics, housing,
and socioeconomic conditions. It is projected that by 2010, the
ACS will replace the long form.
The ACS calculates an annual population average, whereas
the census performs a population count Residence rules also
differ for each survey. Unlike the census, which ~ a 'usual'
residence approach, the ACS use, 'current" residence. For
example, people residing at a temporary location---students
living away from home--for two or more montlu will be
included at that location, although ~ phce will not n~y
be the person's legal or voting residence. The bureau adopted
the current residence approach becanse of its more accurate
depiction of an area. Under ~ new cla~itlcarion, it is
projected that there will be fewer owner-occupied units and
more renter-occupied units. Also, the vacancy rate may be
somewhat lower. Results from the ACS collected from 1999-
2002 will be compared with the Censns 2000 long form m
measure how change, in survey methodology might yield
different results.
The ACS is being implemented in four pha.,~, with full
implementation expected nationwide in 2003. At that point, it
is estimated that three million households will be mrveyed each.
year. However, beginning in 2001, t~ Im~au will be able to
provide social and economic profilea to ~ cider, counties,
and metropolitan anma with populadona e~e__,2ea_ing 250,000.
Data will be available for m and population grOUl~ of 65,000
or more beginning in 2004. For smaller population areas, it wiU
take approximately five yexr~ to get a large enough sample to
report results with accuracy. Information for these area~,
including census tracts and tleighbethoods, will be available
annually beginning in 2008.*
Currendy, the ACS is in the demonstration period. In 1997,
the survey was conducted in eight jurisdictions to evaluate costs,
procedures, and new way~ to use the information. 'Test locations
included: Portland/Mulmomah County, Oregon; Brevard
County, Florida; Rockland County, New York Fulton County,
Pennsylvania; Omaha/Douglas County, Nebraska;.Otero
County, New Mexico; Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio; and
Houston/Fort Bend and Harris Counties, Texas.
In 1999-2001, the number of sites in the sample will be
increased to 37 pilot, or "comparison" sitesl The pilot sites were
chosen to represent a broad mix of geographic locations, diverse
socioeconomic conditions, and rapidly changing areas. The
locations must meet specified cost and data collection criteria
outlined by the bureau; at each site, there must also be local
experts who will use the data and make comparisons with the
Census 2000.
An ACS goal is to provide data to the usen within six
months of the end ora collection or calendar year. The
timeline.t, of the dam will impact all level, of government. For
the federal government, ~ information will allow for more
equitable funding for programs. The data collected from the
ACS will be useful not only to federal agencies, but also to state,
local, and tribal governments for planning, administering, and
evaluating progra~m. With yearly data, local governments will
be able to identify rapid changes in population and adapt their
policies to reflect these change~. A~ with censu~ data, it is hoped
that communitie~ will use this information to plan for economic
development, make decisions about locating public facilities and
roach, and compare aspects of the local economy with
communities of similar size and socioeconomic scatm.
Brevard County, Florida, Planning and Zoning Director Mci
Scott, hopes that an annual censns will increase the po~ibility of
retaining a land-u~ map that has relevance and meaning.
Currendy, the maps are based on outdated information which
jeopardizes the community's ability to accommodate future
growth in the area.
Profe~or Bill Riev~, of Franklin Unive.~ity in Ohio, say~
once censur data become~ obsolete, some communities hire
cosdy private companies to update demographic and
socioeconomic data. Annual daca will essentially eradicate this
problem. It is aho hoped that demand for different typ~ of land
me can be identified with ~ data, roy,.Dennis Sandquist, a
principal planner for Lake County, Illinois. A~ demand changes,
hnd-use maps can be adjusted to accommodate the fluctuations.
Other goah of the ACS program include:.
· Meeting federal dam need~ for distributing fund~, ewaluating
program~, and enforcing regulations.
· Aiding state and local officiah in meeting new responsibilities
under devolution.
· Supporting sound decision making by improving the quality
of the nation's information ~cture.
For more information on the American Community Survey,
contact the Census Bureau ar 8884567215, or visit the website
at www.censns.gov/cms/www. I~mber~y Gester
g.a.
October' 10, 1998 ~ Pal~e 3
to ensure wireless networks were interference-free and had procedures to
resolve interference issues, if a ca,tier created interference, the FCC had a
wide range of remedial options, ranging from fines to forced shutdowns. The
county had to follow the FCC's procedures if it believed a permit holder was
interfering with public safety communications. If local zoning authorities could
adopt interference regulations, licensees would be subject to conflicting legal
obligations -- and the FCC's compliance divisions would be powerless.
see also: Cipollone v. Liggett G~oup Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 112 S. Ct. 2608, 120
L.E&2d 407 (1992).
Adult store claims licensing ordinance violates First
Citation: Baby Tarn & Co. Inc. v. City of Las Vegas, PtA U.S. Circuit Court o[
Appeals, No. 98-15004 (1998)
The 9t.h Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Guan~
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
Baby Tam Co. Inc. sold sexual novelties, adult videos, general videos,
T-shirts, and gag gifts. It wanted to open an adult bookstore in Las Vegas and
applied to the city for a business license. A city ordinance required all bnsi-
nesscs to get a license before opening.
Baby Tam's proposed location was in a commercial district that didn't
allow adult bookstores, which the city code defined as businesses that had at
least 51 percent of their stock in books, film, magazines, and other periodicals
that emphasized or depicted "sexual conduct or specified anatomical areas."
On its license application, Baby Tam stated that 30 percent of its m~rchandize
would be adult videos.
The city issued Baby Tam four consecutive temporary licenses. Before the
last temporary license expired, the city audited the store to determine the exact
pereentage of its inventory that was adult material. The audit showed the adult
inventory exceeded the 51 percent threshold, and the city ordered Baby Tam to
shut down the store.
Baby Tam sued the city, seeking a court order preventing the city from
enforcing its adult bookstore ordinance, According to the company, the ordi-
nance was an unconstitutional "prior restraint" on free speech. A prior restraint
existed when the right to make protected free speech was contingent upon the
approval of government officials. A licensing scheme involving prior restraint
wasn't unconstitutional, so long as it provided for "prompt judicial
review" in the event an applicant was denied a license.
The city ordinance provided that if the city denied a bookstore license, the
applicant could seek a court order directing the city to issue a license. State law
provided that the court had discretion regarding whether to hold a hearing on a
request for such a court order.
Page 4 -- October 10, 1998 Z.B. Z.B.
The court denied Baby Tam's requested order, finding the ordinance wasn't
an unconstitutional prior restraint. Baby Tam appealed.
DECISION: Reversed, and returned to the trial court.
The trial court had to issue an order permanently preventing the city from
enforcing the bookstore ordinance so long as the ordinance failed to provide
for a prompt hearing and decision by a court in the event the city denied a
license.
Even though the ordinance didn't completely ignore an applicant's right to
have a court review a license denial, the ordinance was still an unconstitutional
prior restraint. The ordinance allowed Baby Tam to apply for a court order, but
it didn't require a hearing or a decision on the appeal within a prescribed
period. Without such provisions, thc licensing ordinance failed to provide for
prompt judicial review of denied applications.
The appeals court determined that "prompt judicial review" meant "the
opportunity for a prompt hearing and a prompt decision by a judicial officer."
The city's ordinance didn'l require a hearing; whether to hold a hearing was at
the court's discretion.-Without the right to a hearing, an applicant had no right
to have a license denial "reviewed." And without the right to a decision, the
most exhaustive review by a court would be worthless. "In baseball terms it
would be like throwing a pitch and not getting a call."
see also: Graff ~. City of Chicago, 9 E3d 130~ (1~93).
Taking-- Owners seek compensation for six-month closure of their motel
Citation: City of Miami v. Keshbro Inc., Court of Appeal of Florida, 3rd
Dist., No. 98-1151 (1998)
In 1988, Keshbro Inc. and Gihwala (owners) bought the 57-unit Sthrdust
Motel in Miami. The property had a long history of drug and prostitution activ-
ity, and in 1992, the city's nuisance abatement board ordered the motel closed.
The motel reopened in 1993, after the owners agreed to keep the premises
drug- and prostitution-free.
The city's efforts to stop the drugs and prostitution failed, and in 1996, the
board held a hearing to determine whether the motel constituted a public
nuisance. The owners agreed not to contest a finding that the motel was a
nuisance, and the board agreed to order only ,nix rooms temporarily closed.
Despite the agreement, the drug and prostitution problems continued, and
the board ordered seven more rooms closed for six months. This didn't resolve
the problem, and the list of illegal incidents grew longer. Eventually, the board
ordered the entire property closed for six months. The city got a court order to
enforce lhe board's closure order.
The owners sued the city for damage~, claiming the complete closure of
their motel was a taking because it temporarily deprived them of all economic
use of their property. The owners claimed a total regulatory taking of property
required compensation so long as the property was being used in a legal lash-
October 10, 1998 -- Page 5
ion, and they claimed they were using the property ns a motel -- a legal use.
The city claimed it didn't have to compensate the owners because it was
simply exercising its power to abate nuisances. To avoid paying compensation
for depriving the owners of all beneficial use of the motel, the city had to prove
nuisance laws prohibited the owners from using the property for the purpose
for which they bought lt..According to the city, the board's order was aimed at
terminating the continuation of activities that had long been considered
nuisances -- drug use and prostitution.
The court awarded the owners judgment without a trial, finding the city
had to pay the owners for the temporary taking of their property. The city
appealed.
DECISION: Reversed.
Even though the board denied the owners of all economically beneficial
use of the property, the city didn't have to compensate the owners. The owners
weren't using the property ns a motel, they were using it as a brothel-and-drug
house -- which wasn't a legal use.
By ordering the entire motel closed, the city denied the owners of all eco-
nomically beneficial use of the property -- a 57-unit motel. The evidence,
however, showed that the motel was in reality not a motel, but rather a brothel
and drug house that the owners -- for whatever reason -- failed to stop oper-
ating. The prostitution and drug-related activities were "inextricably inter-
twined" with the motel. The only way the city could stop these illegal activities
was to bar access to the base of operations, which could be done only by com-
pletely closing the motel.
Although denying an owner of all beneficial use of his or her properly
generally was a talcing, no compensation was required when the taking was
done solely to prevent an activity the owner had no right to continue on the
property.
see also: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 120 L.Ed.2d
798, 112 $.Ct. 2886 (1992).
Code Viulation-- Court fines owners $147,~00 for storing 10junk vehicles
Citation: Ritz v. Area Pldnning Commission of Franklin County, Court of
Appeals of Indiana, 4th Dist., Alo. 24AO4-970P-CV-379 (1998)
The Franklin County, Ind., planning commission sued the Ritzes, claiming
they were storing automobiles and buses on their property in violation of the
zoning code. The code. prohibited storing in residential districts any vehicles
that didn't have current license plates or that didn't operate.
The commission sought a court order prohibiting the Ritzes from storing
the vehicles on their property. The commission also asked the court to fine the
Ritzes. The county planning code stated that owners could be fined up to $2,500
for an ordinance violation.
The court fined the Ritzes $2,500 and ordered them to bring their property
Page 4 .--- September 25, 1998 ' Z.B. (
Z.B. September 25, 1998 -- Page 3
discretion to select a minimuTM ratio that it thought would achieve ill
Nor did the federal manufactured housing statute preempt the onfiosnce.
BecauSe the purpose of the federal standards was to protect consumers,
only type of constroction and safety standards the federal standards Inee~
were those protecting consumers from various hazards associated with mane-
factured housing. The federal statute didn't preempt zoning requiremenll
relating to aesthetics. The county designed the 4:12 requirement mercly to
impose an aesthetic condition for the placement of manufactured Imme~ in
certain ·re·s within the county.
see also!~curlock v. City of Lynn Haven, 8158 E2d I1521 (1988).
see also: Grant v. County of Seminole, 817 E2d 731 (1987).
~ls noneommeedal kennel a hame et, t~lmli~?
Citation: Matthews v. City of Jennings, Court of Appeals of Miasma'i,
Eastern Dist., Div. Four, lgo. 73010 (1998)
Matthews owned a residential lot in the city of Sennings, Mo. Her ~
was surrounded by commercial property.
Matthews owned eight dogs, all of which were vaccinated. Her pmpmly
had a large tennis court encloSed by a 9-foot-high fence, which she mod aa ·
dog pen. The pen was attached to her house, so the dogs never ran Iome. ~
city received one complaint about the dogs, but the city never subs~nfialed it
and never contacted Matthews about it.
in 1995, the city told Matthews to get rid of all but three of her do~
because the city code allowed no more than three dogs withont · kennel
license. When Matthews asked to keep her dogs, a city councilman told her to
apply for · kennel license.
Matthews applied for a noncommercial kennel license. She said all ~
wanted was to keep her current dogs as family members, and said she didn't
intend to breed, sell, or in any way "conduct a business involving [her] pets or
any other animals."
Matthews claimed her proposed kennel fell within the definition of permit-
ted "home occupations" because a kennel could be classified as a dorm~ic
activity and because the definition of"home occupation" wasn't limited solely
to business activities.
The city code defined "home occupation" as a domestic activity carried on
by no more than two members of the family residing on the premises. The
definition excluded beauty shops, barber shops, music schools, nursing homes,
and other establishments offering services to the general public, and stated
there could be no signs and no ~lling of"tmde or commodity" on the premises.
The city denied Matthews' request, stating a kennel wasn't a permitted use
in a residential zone. Matthews put all but three of her dogs in a commercial
kennel, which cost about $800 per month. She then appealed the denial of her
kennel license to courl.
The court ordered the city lo allow Matthews to keep her dogs pending a
trial. After trial, the court issued a permanent order prohibiting the city from
taking any action against Matthews, her property, or her dogs. The court found
a kennel was allowed ns a home occupation in a residential zone, issuing
Matthews a license wouldn't harm anyone, the city had issued a non-<x)mmercial
kennel license for another residential owner, and the city's decision was arbitrary.
The city appealed.
DECISION: Reversed.
Matthews wasn't entitled to a kennel license. A noncommercial kennel
wasn't a permitted use in a residential district.
In some respects, Matthews'. keeping of eight do~ wasn't at odds with the
definition of"home occupation." Maintaining a kennel was arguably a domes-
tic activity. There Were no signs indicating business was being conducted at
the home. She sold no products, and wasn't offering services to the general
public. In fact, her application for a kennel license stated she didn't intend to
operate a business of any kind in connection with keeping her eight dogs.
However, it was Matthews' assertion that she wasn't going to operate a
business that defeated her claim. Although Ihe city code'defined "home occu-
pation" as "a domestic activity," the code clearly meant a domestic activity
conducted for a business purpose. M~iintaining a kennel could be a domestic
activity and allowed as a home occupation if Matthews operated the kennel for
a business purpose, but maintaining a kennel for purelY private use wasn't a
home occupation.
That the city may have, in the past, issued a nonc~n~mercial kennel license to a
resident in a residential zone didn't bar the cily from denying Matthews' request.
see idso: Citizens for Safe Waste Management v. St. Louis County, 810 S. w.2d
635 (1991).
see also: City of'St. Ann v. Elam, 661S.W..2d632 (1983).
Ordinance m Board says methadone clink isn't permitted use In hospital
district
Citation: Discovery House Inc. v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals of
Marion County, Ind, Court of Appeals of Indiana, 2nd Dist., No. 49AO2-
9711-CV-739 (1998)
Discovery House Inc. wanted to operate a methadone treatment clinic in a
medical building in Indianapolis. The property was in a hospital district zone,
which allowed offices "for physicians, dentists, and other professionals deal-
ing with public health."
Discovery House asked thc city development department for its opinion as
to whether a methadone clinic would be a permitted use. The department
responded that it would, characterizing the proposed clinic as a medical outpa-
tient facility. A community group asked the zoning appeals board to review the
department's conclusion.
Page 2 -- September 10, 1998
~lt E~tertainmen~t~t )State bans
z.a.
nude entertainment at all bu~
Citatk~. Farlats v. Miller, 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 98-1089 (1998)
The 8th Circuit has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota
Iowa amended a state statute, making it a serious misdemeanor for any
owner or manager of any business needing a sales tax permit to allow the
actual or simulated public performance of any sex act, the exposure of genitals
or buttoc~ of waitstaff, or the exposure of the "female breast nipple of any
person who acts as an entertainer."
The statute essentially required erotic dancers to wear G-strings and pasties
during their performances. Before the amendment, the statute directed its pro-
hibitions only at businesses that held liquor licenses. By applying the prohibi-
tions to any business that needed a sales tax permit, the statute closed a loop-
hole in the old version for so~called "juice bars."
Farkas, Bryson, and Washington owned three of the four juice bars in the
state. All the clubs offered nude dancing without violating the original statute
because none served alcohol. The club owners sued the state, arguing the
amended statute violated thc First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
According to an earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision, a regulation burden-
ing expressive activity such as public nudity was justified if the regulation was
within the constitutional power of the government and furthered an important
or substantial government interest, the government interest was unrelated to
the suppression of free expression, and the incidental restriction on alleged
First Amendment rights was no greater than necessary to further that interest.
The clubs claimed that the Supreme Court's decision didn't apply to them
because the Supreme Court was referring to a general law prohibiting public
nudity, while lowa's law specifically targeted nude dancing in juice bars. They
also claimed the new statute was unconstitutionally vague because it didn't
clearly define the statute's "theater" exception or the meaning of "simulated
sex act" or "public performance."
The court found the statute was constitutional, and the club owners appealed.
DECISION:. Affirmed.
The amendment didn't violate the First Amendment.
The law was clearly within the state's power, and furthered a substantial
state interest in preventing the harmful secondary effects of nudity in adult
entertainment. Furthermore, the state's interest in reducing the secondary
effects associated with nude dancing was unrelated to the suppression of free
expression. Likewise, lhe requirement that dancers in juice bars wear G-strings
and pasties restricted the dancers' expression no more than necessary to achieve
the state's purpose. This applied equally to the statutory ban on public perfor-
mances of actual or simulated sex acts.
The amendment wasn't too vague, it was clear enough to provide a person
Z.B.
Sep. tember !0, 1,998 -- Pal~,e 3
of ordinary intelligence with notice of what conduct was prohibited, and pro-
vided standards for those who enforced those prohibitions. Persons of ordinary
intelligence wouldn't be confused as to the coverage of the statute's theater excep-
tion, or by the meaning of "s'nnulated sex act." Although there may be issues of
interpretation, it didn't mean the amendment was unconstitutionally vague. "it
will always be true that the fertile legal 'imagination can conjure up hypotheti-
cal cases in which the meaning of [disputed] terms will be in nice question.'"
see also: Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 115 L. Ed.2d $04, 111S. Ct.
2456
Zonin~ Violation--Town dtes mmer. f~r sellln[ bison meat lin ~rleultm'nl
district
Citation: Town of Jackson v. O'Hearn, Court of Appeals of Wlsconsi~ Dist.
Two, No. 98-0237 (1998)
O'Hearn owned property in the toWn of Jackson, Wis. It was zoned agri-
cultural/rural residential. He applied f0t a permit to build a pole barn to store
hay for his bison, and got another permit to build facilities for clean storage.
Instead of using the barn for storage, ~)'Hearn installed a counter, countertop,
and a showcase freezer. He then opened a retail store that sold biSOn meat.
The town investigated after residents complained about O'Heam's prop-
erty. After determining its zoning ordinance didn't allow the retail sale of meat
in the agricultural district, the town gave O'Hearn a grace period to apply for a
conditional use permit. O'Heam neither applied for the permit nor shut down
the store, and the town cited him for zoning violations. Over the next few
months, the town issued O'Heam several additional citations.
When the town investigated O'Henm's property, it also investigated other
properties in the district and discovered zoning violations. The town gave the
other owners the same grace period it gave O'Heam, and the other violators
either stopped their illegal activities or applied for a conditional use permit.
The town didn't cite anybody except O'Heam.
The town sought to prosecute O'Hearn for violating the zoning ordinance.
O'Hearn claimed the zoning ordinance allowed him to sell farm products. One
of the listed uses in the district was the '[k]eeping and raising of domestic
stock for agribusiness, breeding, recreation or show." The ordinance didn't
define "agribusiness," but O'Hearn said it wasthe same as farming, which was
defined by another statute as "distributing directly to consumers or marketing
... commodities" grown on the property.
The COurt convicted O'Hearn Of zoning violations, and he appealed. He
claimed the town violated his equal protection rights by enforcing the
ordinance against him while ignoring other violators.
DECISION: Affirmed.
O'Hearn was properly convicted. He violated the town's zoning ordin · .-
by selling bison meat from his barn.
Page 4 -- September 10, 1998 Z.B. (
The zoning ordinance was clear and unambiguous, and didn't authorize
agribusiness as a separate land use, as O'Heam claimed. The term "agribusiness"
in the language the "[k]eeping and raising of domestic stock for agribusiness,
' breeding, recreation or show" simply provided the context in which domestic
stock could be raised. The ordinance allowed the "keeping of stock," not all
types of agribusiness.
The town didn't violate O'Hearn's equal protection rights by prosecuting
only O'Hearn. The town primarily enforced its ordinances by conducting an
investigation whenever it received a complaint about a possible zoning viola-
tion. When the town investigated O'Hearn's property it investigated others as
well, and all investigations were conducted in the same manner. The reason
O'Hearn was the only landowner prosecuted was because he was the only one
who didn't take advantage of the town's grace period and apply for a condi-
tional use permit; the other owners either shut down or sought a permit, so they
weren't cited. O'Hearn failed to prove the town intentionally or arbitrarily
discriminated against him.
see also: Village of Menomonee Falls v. Michelson, 311N. W.2d 658 (1981).
Owner wants to run engineering business in residential
Citation: Allegheny West Civil Council Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of
the City of Pittsburgh, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, No. 70 WD. Appeal
Docket 1996 (1998)
Youchak owned a building in a multiple-family district in Pittsburgh. The
building had been vacant for more than 20 years, even though in 1984 the city
had issued variances allowing the owner to change it from a two-family to a
seven-family building·
In 1994, Youchak sought to convert the property to a single-family build-
ing with an engineering business on the first floor. He also asked for a variance
allowing him to hire employees, because the zoning ordinance didn't allow
home businesses to have employees.
The city's zoning ordinance allowed home businesses as a special excep-
tion in a residential district provided the use was "customary and accessory" to
residential use.
The city zoning board of adjustment granted Youchak a special exception
to run an engineering business as a home occupation and a variance allowing
him to hire employees. The board found the proposed use would be consistent
with the neighborhood, noting there were commercial and industrial -- but
minimal residential -- uses on the street.
According to the board, Youchak met ali but one of the requirements for a
special exception: that there be no employees. The board said Youchak was
entitled to a variance because the property was surrounded by commercial and
industrial uses that made it virtually impossible to use it for residential purposes.
Z.B. ,. September 10, 1998 m Page 5
A civic association challenged the board's decision to grant the special
exception and variance. The court affirmed the board's decision, and the asso-
ciation appealed.
The appeals court reversed, concluding Youchak wasn't entitled to the
special exception or the variance because an engineering business wasn't a
"customary or accessory" use in a residential dwelling, as required by the
ordinance. The appeals court also found the variance was unwarranted because
Yonchak failed to prove unnecessary hardship unique to his property.
Youchak appealed to the state's highest court.
DECISION: Affirmed.
Youchak's proposed use wasn't i customary home occupation. However,
the town could always amend its ~oning ordinance to allow professional
offices as home businesses.
Youchak wasn't entitled to a special exception allowing him to run an
engineering business from his building because the proposed use wasn't one
that was customarily carried on in a residential dwelling. Nor could it be con-
sidered an "accessory use." An accessory use had to be clearly incidental and
related to the property's main use -- in this case, residential.
There was no need to address whether Yonchak was entitled to the variance
that allowed him to hire employees, because he couldn't operate his engineer-
ing business as a home occupation. The board's decision to grant the variance
was based on its grant of the special exception.
The court noted that owners like Youchak who sought to improve impover-
ished and dilapidated areas should be commended, but such improvements
could be accomplished only within the parameters of the applicable zoning
ordinances. The court also said the city could amend the zoning ordinance to
allow "professional offices" as home occupations.
see also: Valley V'tew Civic Association v. Zoning Board of Adiustment, 462
A.2d 637 (1983).
Spedal Exception -- Can board consider aesthetics in denying permission
fOF mini-storage facility?
CiMtion: Metropolitan Dade County v. Section 11 Property Corporation,
Court of Appeat of FIorida, 3rd Dist., No. 98-761 (1998)
Section 11 Property Corporation and Waycar Commercial Properties Inc.
(developers) owned a 3-acre parcel in a "limited business district" in Dade
County, Fla. The developers applied for a special exception allowing them to
build a mini self-storage facility.
At a county commission hearing, the developers pre~ented a site plan,
elevation drawings, and an aerial photograph. The proposed development,
located in a mostly residential area, included six single-story buildings and a
large two-story storage building connected to a small two-story office build-
in? ~: .....r ,~,,. ~,-ven long, rectangular buildings were longer than a football
FINIBHINC~
S~fX~fEMB, INC.
AVI'EC FINISHING SYSTEMS, INC.
9101 Science Center Drive · Minneapolia, MN 55428
Phone (612) 533-4822 · Fax (6.1.2) 533-8576
October 16, 1998
Plar~ning Commission and City Council
City of New Hope
Atto: Kirk McDonald
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Application for CUP-PUD/Subdivision/Site and Plan Review
Dear Mr. McDonald:
As you are well aware, Avtec Finishing Systems, Inc. has submitted an application to the City of
New Hope for a CUP/Subdivision/Site and Plan Review with regard to property which the
Applicant leases and is located at 9101 Science Center Drive in New Hope. Avtec's desire was
to expand its'operations upon the properties which are the subject of the Application. As you are
also aware, in the course of the City's review of the Application and preparation for hearing on
the matter, certain additional requirements were disclosed to Avtec, including, without
limitation, the need for the construction of a wetland/holding pond on the property. At the
present time, Artec Finishing Systems, Inc. has not been able to determine a financially and
practically feasible manner in which to satisfy the requirements of the City and complete the
proposed expansion.
Notwithstanding the fact that Artec is currently unable to determine an approach to this problem,
Avtec remains willing to work on this matter to allow the expansion project to continue in the
year 1999. Accordingly, Artec Finishing Systems, Inc. hereby requests that the City hold the.
Application until further research can be done and a final determination made as to the feasibility
of this matter. If there is a limitation as to the time period on which the City can hold the
Application in abeyance, please let me know the same. Otherwise, I will assume, that we can
revisit this matter again at some later date in the future. Please be advised that notwithstanding
Avtec's request that the City hold the Application without further action, Artec reserves the right
to later withdraw the Application, should a determination be made that the project cannot
feasibly proceed.
Should you have any further questions in connection with this request, please call me.
Very truly yours,
Its