The URL can be used to link to this page

070197 Planning3.1 3.2 4.2* 5.1 5.2 7.1 7.2 7.3 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 1, 1997 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT ITEMS - All items listed under Item 3 are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Planning Commission or a citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda for separate discussion at the end of the meeting. Case 97-13 Recommendation/Response to City of Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment Regarding the Hidden Lakes Development, City of Golden Valley, Petitioner Case 97-15 Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-22, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Convenience Food Establishments as a Permitted Use in the B-4 Zoning District, City of New Hope, Petitioner PUBLIC HEARINGS Case 97-10 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 100-Foot Tall Steel Monopole with Antenna Array for Telecommunications Wireless Service, 2900 Nevada Avenue North, CB Commercial, John Hollenbeck/Northland Mechanical Contractors, Ronald Kocher, Petitioners Case 97-12 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Home Maintenance Business to Operate Out of the Home, 3941 Winnetka Avenue North, Donald and Molly Nix, Petitioners COMMITTEE REPORTS Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: July 17 at 8 a.m. (if necessary) Report of Codes & Standards Committee - Next Meeting: July 16 at 7 a.m. OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 3, 1997. Review of City Council Minutes of May 27 and June 9, 1997. Review of EDA Minutes of April 28 and May 27, 1997. ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT *Petitione~:s 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 Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the 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 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 Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Commission. 3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Commission. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. 1-1 JULY PLANNING CASES ZONIN( DISTRICT MAP R-1 Single Family Residential R-2 Single and Two Family Residential R-3 Medium DensiW Residential R-4 High Den~'y Rasidentia~ R-5 'Senio~ / Disabled' Residential R-O ReeidentiaJ Office R-O(I~JO) Residential Of'fica - PUD 8-1 Limited Neighborhood BusineM B-2 Retail ~usine~ a-3 Auto O~ented Business B-4 CommuniW Busines~ I-1 Limited IndustTiaJ I-2 Genera Indusma~ OI3en Sglce / Public Case 97-12 ;941 Winnetka Avenue Donald & Molly Nix Case 97-10 2900 Nevada Avenue Commercial/Northland Mechanical 1 INCH = 2100 FEET 0 2100 4200 63OO CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 97-13 Request: Recommendation/Response to City of Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment Regarding the Hidden Lakes Development Southeast Quadrant of Highway 100 and Golden Valley Road Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: Semi-Public to Residential Low Density City of Golden Valley June 27, 1997 July 1, 1997 BACKGROUND 1. The City of Golden Valley is considering a development called Hidden Lake. This development proposes to build 65 single family and 110 townhomes. The proposed site is 67.8 acres and is located near Sweeney and Twin lakes in the eastern portion of Golden Valley. The current zoning and land use designation of the proposed site is semi-public. A change in land use and zoning to residential Iow density will be required to allow for the proposed development. Any change in land use requires the city to apply for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and the proPosal to be reviewed by the adjacent cities. 2. In accordance with Metropolitan Council's guidelines for reviewing local Comprehensive Plan amendments, the Metropolitan Council requires adjacent cities, which may be potentially affected by the proposed amendment, be notified. The purpose of this notification is to provide potentially affected communities the opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the proposed amendment. (The City has reviewed similar plan amendments for the cities of Crystal and Plymouth in 1994, 1995, and 1996.) 3. The review process that has been followed in the past is as follows: A. Submit amendment to Planning Consultant and Department Heads for review, comment and recommendations. B. Have Codes & Standards Committee meet with staff and Planning Consultant to review/discuss recommendations. C. Codes & Standards Committee presents recommendations to Planning Commission. D. Planning Commission presents recommendations to City Council. El Staff responds to Metropolitan Council and city proposing amendment, per City Council action. 4. This amendment was submitted to the Planning Consultant and his comments/recommendations are included in this repo.rt. No comments were received from Department Heads. 5. The Codes & Standards Committee considered this request at its June 18 meeting and are in agreement with the Planner's recommendations, which are outlined in the attached resolution. ANALYSIS The Planner has indicated that the change in land use of the proposed site from semi-public to Iow density residential use is compatible with land use of the area. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public utilities and will not overburden the City's utilities capacity. 2. Golden Valley has indicated that the planned amendment would potentially increase existing traffic generation. However, the Planning Consultant has indicated that the location of the site in relation to the local and regional road network has the capacity to accommodate the proposed land use. 3. Based on the project location in the City of Golden Valley, the Planning Consultant and the Codes & Standards Committee believe that the proposed amendment will not negatively affect the land use, public utilities or transportation system in the City of New Hope. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Codes & Standards Committee recommend approval of the attached Resolution Regarding Comments on the City of Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which indicates that the amendment will not have a negative impact on New Hope. Attachments: Resolution 613 Planner's Report Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment Correspondence CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION'97-1 RESOLUTION REGARDING COMMENTS ON CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Be it resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope as follows: Procedural Background WHEREAS, on April 15, 1997, the Golden Valley City Council granted preliminary approval to an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for the City and authorized submission of the Plan to the Metropolitan Council and adjacent communities; and WHEREAS, the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposes the ~evelopment of a 67.8 acre site near Sweeney and Twin Lakes in the eastern portion of Golden Valley with the construction of 65 single family and 110 townhomes, to be known as Hidden Lake; and WHEREAS, the current zoning and land use designation of the site is currently semi-public and a change in land use and zoning to residential Iow density is required to allow for the proposed development; and WHEREAS, adjacent communities and governmental units have the opportunity to comment on the amendment and comments will be considered by the Metropolitan Council as advisory; and WHEREAS, due to the project's proximity to areas of New Hope, the City has been provided a copy of the application for its review and comment related to any potential impacts to New Hope; and WHEREAS, the City of New Hope desires to submit comments on the amendment and said comments are contained within this resolution; and WHEREAS, the New Hope City staff, the Planning Consultant, and the Codes & Standards Committee of the New Hope Planning Commission have reviewed the amendment and formulated comments regarding the amendment, and these comments were reviewed by the full New Hope Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting on July 1, 1997. WHEREAS, Comments on Amendment/Findings of Fact based on the procedural background referenced herein, the New Hope Planning Commission hereby makes the following comments on the amendment/findings of fact in connection with the proposed City of Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment: 1. The change in land use of the proposed site from semi-public to Iow density residential use is compatible with land use of the area. 2. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public utilities and will not overburden the City's utility's capacity. The applicant has indicated that the planned amendment would potentially increase existing traffic generation, however, the location of the site in relation to the local and regional road network has the capacity to accommodate the proposed land use. Based on the project location in the City of Golden Valley, the proposed amendment will not negatively affect the land use, public utilities or transportation system in the City of New Hope. RECOMMENDATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council of New Hope approve the amendment to the Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan. Adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, this 1" day of July, 1997. Bill Sonsin, Chairman Attest: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Coordinator IIoc IATED CO N S U LTANTS MARKET R ES EA~C ~ PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Madhulika Singh / Alan Brixius 03 June 1997 New Hope - Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment 131.00 - 97.05 BACKGROUND The City of Golden Valley is considering a development called Hidden Lake. This development proposes to build 65 single family and- 110 townhomes. The proposed site is 67.8 acres and is located near Sweeney and Twin lakes in the eastern portion of Golden Valley. The current zoning and land use designation of the proposed site is semi- public. A change in land use and zoning to residential Iow density will be required to allow for the proposed development. Any change in land use requires the city to apply for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and the proposal to be reviewed by the adjacent cities. ISSUE ANALYSIS The change in land use of the proposed site from semi-public to Iow density residential use is compatible with land use of the area. The proposed use can be accommodated With existing public utilities and will not overburden the City's utilities capacity. The applicant has indicated that the planned amendment would potentially increase existing traffic generation. However, the location of the site in relation to the local and regional road network has the capacity to accommodate the proposed land use. CONCLUSION Based on the project location in the City of Golden Valley the proposed amendment Will not negatively effect the land use, public utilities or transportation system in the City of New Hope. CC: Doug Sandstad Dan Donahue 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 r ~ PHONE 6 I ;~-595-963~ FAX 8 I :~-595-9837 Police 593-8O79 Fue 593-8080 Fax 593-8098 593-803O 593-8092 Motor Vehide 593-8101 Plan.j.§ and Zoning 593-8095 593-8013 593~8020 p~ and Recu~don 200 Brook'vi~e Pa&w'a7 Go~ V,~ ~ 55426.]~ (612) 544.5218 FAX (612) 544-0398 TDD (612) 593-396g May 16, 1997 Mr. Kirk McDonald Community Development Coordinator City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope MN 55428-4898 Dear Kirk: The Golden Valley City Council recently approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map. As required.by state statute, I am now forwarding a copy to you in order to begin the revieW and comment process by your " City. The City of Golden Valley would like to receive your comments back as soon as possible in order that the Plan may be fully implemented. Please address your responses to: Planning Department City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley MN 55427 or fax your comments to: Planning Department 593-8109 Thanks in advance for your prompt response. Planning and Development encl. Information Summary for Comprehensive Plan Revisions and Plan Amendments This form summarizes key information about your comprehensive plan revision or amendment that the Metropolitan Council needs for its review. Please complete the form as directed below and submit it to the Metropolitan Council with each comprehensive plan revision or amendment. (See item C, page A2 for a list of the information to be included with your submittal.) NOTE: If your plan amendment is a simple "housekeeping" change, you need to complete only Part I of this form ("General Information," pages Al-A2). Please be as specific as possible in your answers. If the staff of your local governmental unit prepared a report for your Planning Commission or City Council regarding this plan revision or amendment, please attach it as well. IMPORTANT: Provide complete answers. This form is used to enable staff to determine completeness within 10 days. If the response on the form references an attached plan, the reference must include the appropriate page, paragraph(s), tables, maps or figures. If you do not clearly reference where information can be found and Council review staff cannot find it, your plan may mistakenly be considered incomplete. Please send plan revision or amendment to: Lynda Voge, Referrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council Meats Park Centre 230 E. Fifth Street; St. Paul, MN $$101-1634 I. General Information A. Sponsoring governmental unit CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY Name of local contact person HARK W. GRIMES, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ~ DEVELOPMENT Address 7800 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD, GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55427 Telephone number 59~-8095 FAX number $93-8109 Internet address (if applicable) MGRIMES~CI.GOLDEN,VALLEY.MN.LIq Name of preparer (if different from contact person) Date of preparation May 1 S, 1997 B. Check all that apply and fill in requested information: Name of document Land Use Plan HaD Amendment for Hidden Lakes Develooment X __ Overall plan revision ~ Revision of a plan chapter or element ~ "Housekeeping" text change (if so, complete only Part [ of this form) __ Land use change (describe) From Semi-Public to Residential Low Density Size of affected area in acres 67.8 ~ Urban service area expansion (applies only to amendments processed before submittal of revised comprehensive plan due in 1998. Page 4.1 outlines data on development staging and timing) Size of expansion in acres ~ Other (please describe) if you are submitting an amendment, briefly describe the amendment: The amendment will chan~e_ a portion of the Com0rehensive Plan Land Use Nla_n from its oresent designation of semi-_public to a Drooose~l designation of Iow density_ residential use. C. Please attach seven copies of the following: 2. 3. 4. 5. Completed Information Summary for Plan Revisions and Plan Amendments form. Your proposed plan revision or amendment. A ci ,tywide map showing the location of the proposed change. The current plan map, indicating areas affected by the revision or amendment. The proposed plan map, indicating areas affected by the revision or amendment. NOTE: If your community has access to a geographic information system (GIS) or other automated mapping technology, the Council would appreciate it if you would submit your land use map and staging boundaries in digital form (one copy), in addition to t,~ hard copies you send. The "Arc Export" format is preferred, but we can also use the "DXF" format. Putting this information in digital form will help minimize map discrepancies between your data and data maintained by the Council. D. What is the official local status of the proposed plan revision or amendment? (Check all that apply.) X X .. Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on March 1 0, 1997 .. Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council Revie~v on ADril 15, 1997 Considered, but not approved by governing body on (date) Other (Please describe) E. List adjacent local governmental units and other jurisdictions (school districts, watershed districts, etc.) affected by the change that have been sent copies of the plan revision or amendment, if any, and the date the copies were sent to them (required by Minn. Stat. 473.858, Subd. 2). CITIES OF: NEW HOPE, CRYSTAL, ROBBINSDALE: MINNEAPOLIS, ST. LOUIS PARK, AND PLYMOUTH. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS: 270 (HOPKINS} AND 281 (ROBBINSDALE). ALL COPIES SENT OUT ON: May 16, 1997 Note: Please review the information ~equests in the following handbook sections for a complete description of information to accompany or to be included in your comprehensive plan revision or amendment: Wastewater, page 5'.8 Transportation, page 5.1 Aviation, page 5.7 Recreation Open Space, page 5.10 Land Use, page 4.1 Housing, page 4.8 Water Resources, page 4.20 Implementation Program, page 6.1 Water Supply, page 5. I2 ~2 II. Impact on Regional Systems A. Wastewater Treatment 1. Total flow for community, based on existing plan: 3.92 million gallons/day (mgd) year 2000; 4.01 mgd year 2010 2. Will the proposed plan revision or amendment change projected sewer flows for the community? No - If not, skip to question 7. Yes - Indicate the expected change: 3. Total flow for community based on plan revision or amendment: mgd year 2000; mgd year 2010 4. If your community discharges to more than one metropolitan interceptor, indicate which interceptor will be affected by the revision or amendment. 5. Will flows be diverted from one interceptor service area to another? No Yes - Describe the change and volumes involved in mgd: 6. Is any wastewater flow an intercommunity flow to an adjoining community's sanita~ sewer system? No ,, Yes - If yes, enclose a copy of the inter-community agreement. 7. Has your community adopted a comprehensive program for the management of on-site septic systems including biennial inspections? No Yes X Not applicable- Please explain: New on-site systems have not been allowed for many years: few old ones remain. B. Transportation I. Does this plan revision or amendment potentially increase existing trip generation (use Institute of Transportation Engineers trip-generation manual)? No - If not, skip to question 3. Yes - If yes, how much average daily traffic? 1 700 How much peak hour traffic? 2. Does the existing local and regional road network (including metropolitan interchanges) have the capacity, to accommodate planned land use(s)? No X Yes a. If not, will this plan revision or amendment require improvements to local or regional roads or interchanges? No Yes Specify: ' Explain who will pay for these improvements: Will these improvements be in place to accommodate the proposed development? No Yes Are these improvements included in a capital Improvement program? No Yes b. If not, will this plan revision or amendment require implementing traffic demand management (TDM) strategies or land use and urban design measures? No Yes - If yes, How? (For example, park & rides, flexible work hours, mixed land uses.) 3. Does this plan amendment impact transit service or facilities? X No Yes - How? 4. Does the proposed plan revision or amendment affect pedestrian or bike systems? X No Yes - How? C. Aviation 1. Do your community's plan or codes/ordinances include a "notification" element to protect regional airspace? X No Yes 2. Do the proposed changes in the plan revision or amendment involve areas within an airport influence area or airport search area? No - If no, skip to "D," "Recreation Open Space." Yes 3. Are the proposed changes in the plan revision or amendment consistent with guidelines for land use compatibility and aircraft noise guidelines and approved airport Long-term Comprehensive Plan7 No Yes }{ Not applicable D. Recreation Open Space 1. Does the plan revision or amendment affect existing or future federal, state or regional parks, park reserves or trails7 X No Yes - If yes, describe: 2. Does the plan revision or amendment include a trail segment or connection to a regional trail or park? X No Yes . III. Impact on Land Use A. Plan Revision If you are submitting a plan revision and you are using your own community's land use data, please attach copies of the land use tables you completed on pages Al7, Al8, A25-A27 in the handbook appendix. B. Plan Amendment Questions 1, 2 and 3 below apply only to plan amendments involving a land use change and urban service area expansion. Describe the following, as applicable: I. For the area in the amendment: a. Existing land uses in acres: b. Proposed land uses in acres: 2. For residential use amendments: a. Number of residential dwelling units and types (single, multi-family) involved under existing plan 0 Under proposed revision/amendment 65 s.f.: 110 townhomes b. Density under existing plan 0 Under proposed revision/amendment _2~ 3. For commercial/industrial/institutional use amendments: a. Square footage of commercial structures under existing plan Under proposed revision/amendment -' b. Square footage of industrial structures under existing plan Under proposed revision/amendment c. Square footage of institutional structures under'existing plan Under proposed revision/amendment d. Number of employees under existing plan Under proposed revision/amendment IV. Impact on Housing I. Will the plan revision or amendment affect the availability of affordable or life-cycle housing in your community.? No - If no, skip to "V," "Environmental Resources." Yes If this change favorably affects your community's ability to achieve housing goals under the Livable Communities Act or goals stated in the housing element of your comprehensive plan, please describe: It will allow an increase in life cycle housing bv nrovidin~ more varied units If this change negatively affects your community's ability to meet your housing goals, what provision has your community made to compensate for this impact? V. Environmental Resources I. Will × an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared for the plan revision or amendment? No Yes - If yes, what is the schedule for completion of the EAW? Last Year 2. Does × the plan revision or amendment affect a state, federal or locally protected wetland? No ~- Yes - If yes, please include a map showing the location of the wetland. Describe the type of wetland affected and tell how it will be protected or how impacts will be mitigated. 3. Will the plan revision or amendment potentially affect the quality of any surface water body? No Yes - [f yes, identify which ones and describe the impacts: Indicate how any negative impacts will be mitigated: 4. Has the community adopted the Council's Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to All Metropolitan Prater Bodies? No X Yes - If yes, has the community implemented the strategy? No X Yes 5. Does the plan revision or amendment affect the Mississippi River Critical Area planning standards and the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan? Not Applicable No Yes. Describe: 6. Does your community have an adopted water supply plan that meets the requirements of Chapter 186 9f 1993 Session Laws? Not Applicable X No (nlan is comolete: review and hearin~ nrocess to be scheduled) Yes - If yes, will the proposed plan revision or plan amendment affect your water supply plan? No Yes - If yes, how? 7. Has your community adopted a local surface water management plan? No (_alan is Daftly done; one watershed area remainin~ for comoletion) Yes - If yes, will the proposed plan revision or plan amendment affect your local surface water management plan? No Yes - If yes, how? VI. Implementation Program 1. Will the plan revision or amendment require changes in zoning, subdivision, on-site sewer ordinances or other official controls? No Yes - If yes, when? In Process Describe proposed changes: Rezonin~ from Institutional to Residential 2. Has your community adopted a capital improvements program? No Yes - If yes, what changes will be needed in your community's capital improvement program to implement the plan revision or .a. rnendment? None IIII IIII I I I I IIIII II III J i i i jillliilllii CItY OF CITY OF I 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 City Hall: 612-531-5100 Police: 612-531-5170 Public Works: 612-533-4823 TDD: 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: 612-531-5136 Police Fax: 612.531-5~"% Public Works Fax: 612-533-7~v Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531-5175 May 29,1997 Mr. Alan Brixius Northwest Associated Consultants 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Subject: Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan Dear Al: The City of New Hope recently received the enclosed proposed amendment to the Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan dealing with the Hidden Lakes development. As usual, State Statute allows the City to review and comment on the amendment. As in the past, I want the Codes & Standards Committee to review this and pass on a recommendation to the Planning Commission, then the Planning Commission to pass on a recommendation to the City Council. Would you please review the enclosed amendment and prepare a report so that we could discuss it at the June 18 Codes & Standards meeting. I will be sending the packet out on June 13, so I would appreciate receiving your report several days before that time. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ Community Development Coordinator Enclosure: Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Family Styled City ~ For Family I. ivinl[ Memorandum TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Dan Donahue, City Manager Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Shari French, Director of Parks & Recreation Colin Kastanos, Director of Police Doug Smith, Director of Fire & Safety Larry Watts, Director of Finance & Administration Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator May 29, 1997 Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment The City of New Hope has received the enclosed Comprehensive Plan Amendment from the C~ty of Golden Valley regarding the Hidden Lakes Development. State Statute allows all surrounding communities to review and make comments on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. I have forwarded this amendment to the Planning Consultant for review and he will be preparing a report that will be reviewed by the Codes & Standards Committee, Planning Commission, and, ultimately, the City Council. I am passing this on to you for your information only and will make the Planner's report available to you when it is completed. If you have any comments or concerns about the amendment, please let me know. Enclosures: Correspondence to Planning Consultant Amendment CC: Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 97-15 Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-22, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Convenience Food Establishments as a Permitted Use in the B-4 Zoning District City-Wide B-4, Community Business Districts City of New Hope June 27, 1997 July 1, 1997 BACKGROUND 1. City staff are requesting consideration/approval of Ordinance No. 97-22, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Convenience Food Establishments as a Permitted Use',in the B-4 Zoning District, pursuant to Section 4.132(42) of the New Hope Code. 2. In 1995 (Planning Case 95-21), substantial revisions were made to the permitted/conditional uses sections of the Zoning Code for the B-1 through B-4 commercial properties in an effort to streamline and clarify the uses. 3. It recently came to staff's attention that there may be a minor adjustment needed in the Zoning Code text regarding conve, nience food/restaurant uses, and this ordinance amendment is intended to address that issue. 4. Per the enclosed memo from the Building Official, staff was surprised to learn that the Code does not specify "convenience food" in the B-4 District as a permitted or conditional use. This came to staff's attention when a convenience food restaurant inquired about opening at City Center and staff referred to the Zoning Code. 5. "Convenience Food Take Out/Delivery Establishments" are allowed as a permitted use in the B-l, B-2 and B-3 Zoning Districts. Restaurants are allowed as a conditional use in the B-1 District and as a permitted use in the B-2, B-3 and B-4 Districts. However, "convenience food establishment" is not allowed either as a permitted or conditional use in the B-4 Zoning District. (Drive-thru establishments require a conditional use permit in all Zoning Districts.) 6. Staff feels that this was an omission from the 1995 amendment and supports allowing convenience food establishments in a B-4 Zoning' District as a permitted use. 7. This matter was referred to the Planning Consultant, Codes & Standards Committee, the City Attorney and staff for review and comment. 8. This is an amendment to the Zoning Code and public notice has been published; no notification of property owners is required. ANALYSIS The Planning Consultant reviewed this matter with City staff and agrees that this was an inadvertent omission from the 1995 Zoning Code Amendment addressing permitted/conditional uses in the B-1 through B-4 Zoning Districts. 2. The matter was then referred to the City Attorney for review. The City Attorney agrees with the staff and Planner's opinion and has prepared the enclosed ordinance amendment for consideration. 3. The City Attorney indiCates that this is a housekeeping item since it was always the City's intention to allow convenience food establishments as a permitted use in the B-4 Zoning District. 4. The amendment simply amends Section 4.132 "Permitted Uses, B-4" (42) of the Zoning Code from "Restaurant" to "Restaurant and Convenience Food Establishment." 5. The Codes & Standards Committee reviewed this ordinance amendment at its June meeting and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 97-22. Attachments: Ordinance No. 97-22 6/18 City Attorney Correspondence Building Official Memo Code Excerpts 1995 Planning Case ORDINANCE NO, 97-22 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY ESTABLISHING CONVENIENCE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE B-4 ZONING DISTRICT The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1, Section 4.132 (42) "Restaurant" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (42) Restaurant and Convenience Food Establishment. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication, Dated the 28th day of July, 1997. W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: Va]erie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the , 1997. ) day of STEVEN A. SONDRALL MICHAEL R LAFLEUR MARTIN P. MALECHA WILLIAM C STR.~IT~ 'A'APPROVED ADR NEUTF~L COmUCK & SONDRALL, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Edinburgh Execu[ive Office Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671 FAX (612) 425-5867 June 18, 1997 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Ordinance Establishing Convenience Food Establishments as Permitted Use Jn B-4 Zoni'ng District Our File No: 99.49722 Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed a proposed Ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Convenience Food Establishments as a Permitted Use in the B-4 Zoning District for consideration at the July 1, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. This Ordinance is in follow up to the Building Official's June 4, 1997 memo and our discussions at the June 18, 1997 Codes and Standards meeting. Basically, it is a housekeeping item since it was always our intention to allow convenience food establishments as permitted uses in the B-4 Zoning District. However, I do feel we need to maintain the distinction between restaurant and convenience food establishment based on the fact there is a entire body of case law that makes a distinction between restaurants and convenience food establishments. I do not think we should eliminate the distinction dispite the fact our Code seems to treat the uses in a similar fashion. A situation may occur where the distinction is important or useful even though I cannot think of it at this time. Also, since we are amending the Zoning Code a public hearing is required. As we also discussed, the public hearing will be held at the July 28, 1997 Council meeting. I will take responsibility to publish the appropriate notices in the paper. COntact me if you have..any questions or comments regarding this issue. Kirk McDonald June 18, 1997 Page 2 Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slw2 Enclosure cc: Valerie Leone (w/enc) TO: KIRK McDON,-YLD .42 BRIXIUS, NAC FROM: DOUG SANDSTAD DATE: JUNE 4, 1997 RE: "CONVEN'IENCE FOOD / RESTAURANT TEXT ISSUES I was shocked, yesterday, to find that we no longer allow "Convenience Food" in our B4 zone as a permitted o_.r conditional use, according to our ci,ty -code ! I was relieved to find that this is a .typographical or editorial error, since each of your recollections matches mine: A primary goal for myself a47_. d Kirk had been to remove the CUP red tape for convenience food businesses, except for a drive-up window. We are comfortable including most eateries in an umbrella "restaurant" category. Ordinance 96-4 resulted from Plan Case 95-21 and several attempts to improve external customer service in "B' zones. While the "fix" involves several code sections, as I noted in my 10-25-95 memo, I am going to suggest that we simplify as follows: " · Delete definition 4.022 (29) "Convenience Food Establishment" · Change "Restaurant" definition 4.022 (120) to "An establishment that serves food for consumption at tables, booths or counters and may, also, offer take- out food. · Change Section 4.122 (5) B-3 Permitted Uses to have this title "Restaurants, Drive-In Establishments" · Change Section 4.125 (8) B-3 Conditional Uses to change the first sentence to read: "Outdoor dining as an a%cessory use for'restaurants and drive-in establishments, under a conditional use permit subject to the following conditions:" · Change 4.036 (10) 1 to "Drive-in Establishments."... · Change 4.036 (10) r first sentence to read "At least one space for each 25 square feet of gross floor area of dining"... I think that these changes will result in treating all restaurants the same, unless they will have a drive-up window (CUP) or drive in function. The parking effect will be compromised lower for "fast food" and higher for "restaurant" in the new "restaurant" definition. Since our city is fully developed, and many of our restaurants are on shopping center sites, the impacts of parking code changes are reduced and can be scrutinized on a case- by-case basis for new restaurants. Let's meet on this, briefly. Date: To: From: Subject: October 25, 1995 Kirk McDonald Douglas Sandstad, Building Official ~' NAC REPORT (10-24-95); B-ZONE CUP REVIEW ++4'++-I-+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I am pleased to see the input from Al Brixius on our CUP headache in B-Zones. Staff support the simplification of the process by initiating this phase of review, after hearing much "flak" from our business community. When, however, we make all restaurants ("fast" arid "slow") Permitted Uses in all of our B Zones, we must revise our parking standards at~d definitions to parallel this change. Code sections 4.022 (29) and 4.022 (120) must be combined into a single eatery definition. Section 4.036 (10) I has required parking on a different basis than 4.036 (lO) r, in the past. This requires some careful consideration and further study. I agree with the concept of requiring the CUP process for "Drive-through" eating establishments, but not all drive-up windows, such as banks, photo-processing & pharmacies, as long as staff have the site plan review process for any proposed changes. cc: Brixius gte 71££ MEMOR~LVD C:~! cc: Donahue McDonald file "'POSTE H. ASTE SHOPPING CE~VTER '" 9400-9446 36th Ave. No. ~-25-95 OK TO ISSUE BUILDLVG PER34IT FOR "DAaVCE STUD[O" (3,200 sf) ~) Ss~b~i: completed scale plans&section view. fees. ~,/'c) Property Owner, Jerry Showalter, mu~t schedule meeting to talk with city staff about the recent cutting down of front yards trees after request was denied and general property issues. . City Staff will commence by Sepa 15, 1995, a Text Amtndment for small B-4 tenant wes that are now CUP's de. spite routine nature. 248) romp:Lotion o~ policy statements, ?ca:s, standards, and ~aps ~:d:ng :ne pnysicaL, sot:al and economic ~eveiopmen:, ~otn nc: L:m:te~ to, the foiLow~ng: statements of pelto:es, gaols, standards, a Land use plan', a commun:tg ~acLLLtLes plan, a transporter:on plan, and recommender:one for plan execut:on. c~mprenens:ve plan represents :ne plans:ag commission's recommendations ~or :~e future development of the commun:ty, as approved ~y t~e Counc:L. (Code 072684) C:moact:on. The densiff:¢acion off a fill ~y mechanical means. <Ord. 90-07) 25) 26) Condit:onal Accessory Use. An accessory use wnic~ ~ecause of spec:al proc:ems oe control require a Cond:tionaL Use Conditional Use. A use, ~nicn ~ecause of special pcoOLems control :nnerent :n the par:ocular ~se, reguires reasonaoLe, Out spec:al, unusual or extraordinary Limitations peculiar to t~e use for t~e protection of :ne puc:it welfare and the nun:cope: Land use plan. Condo:tonal Use Permit. A perm::, issued Oy :~e Counc:L Oy resolution, as a flexibility der:ce to enaOLe :~e Council to ass:ga dimensions to a proposed use or condi:ions surrounding i: a~ter cons:deco:ion of adjacent uses and t~e:r ~unc::ons and the ~pec:ai proc:ems which the proposed use presents, aesoiuc:ans · utnor:z:ng Conditional Use Permits snail ~e ~iLed w:tn the s~propr:ate County officials as required ~y M:nneso:a Statutes. Frequently ldenc:fied Oy :ts :mi:ia:s, CUP, or C.U.P. (Ord. 79-il, 84-3) Condom:nium. A multiple dwelling or development costa:ming :nd:v:duaiLy owned dwelling units and 3costly owned and snared areas and facilities, which dwelling :s suOaec: :o the prov:s:ons of :ne Minnesota Condominium Law, M:nnesota Statures. (Code 072684) Convenience Food Establishment. An establishment wnicfl serves food in or on disposal or ed£~Le costa:nets La individual services ~or consumption on or o~ the premises. Customers are 9enera~ly served ac a pi:g-up scar:on O¥ cLec~s rac~er :nan served ac caD:es, ~x~ochs or earing counters ~y ~a::ecs cc ~aicresses. ALso, co~niy known as iasc io~ escaOL:snmenCs. (Code 072684, Ord. ~5-20) 3O) Convenience Fool Take Out/Oeliver~ Es:aOLisnmen:. An establishment where the exclusive operation is Limited :o :ne preparation and sale o~ ~ood :n disposaOLe containers ~or consumption o~E c~e premises. ALL ~ood sales snail Oe over t~e counter sales to customers who pic~ up and :a~e out ~ood orders or :o ~ood eases whic~ are delivered directly :o :~e customer ac a place designated by th% customer. Over :ne counter pic~-up and take-out food sales s~all ncc include sales ~rom a dr:ve-cnrouq~ service w:ndow. (Ord. aG-L]) 072684, described in sec:ion L0.038 of ~n~s Coda. (Code 072684, Ord. 85-20, Ord. 87-2) Re=all Sales. The sale of goo~s in small quantities direc=Iy to ~ne consumer. (L22) Satellite Ozsn. Snail mean a come,nation of 1) antenna or dian antenna, ~urpose of which is to receive communication or any o~ner electronic s~gnaIs from orDl:~ng satellites and o~ner situated ac the focal po~n: of the receiving component and whose ~urpose is to magnify and transfer signals; and 3) a coaxial ca~Le for t~e purpose of ca~ry~ng the s~gnais into the in,error of ~ne Dullding, and 4) suc~ o~ner state of the art par~s or modlf~cat~ons wnic~ do not su~stantl&~!y ~ncrease the he~gnt or bul~ of ~e Satellite o~sn. (Ord. 84-3) Sediment. Earth me,er/al deposited by water or wind. (Ord. 90-07) { 123~ SetOac~. The minimum horizontal ~Ls~ance ~etween a Ou~idlng and s%ree~ or lo~ Line. The se~ac~ ~stance Is measured at ground neares~ :ne lo~ line. <i24) S~ooo~ng Ceflte~. An inteqrated grouping of individual retail and sera'ce s%ores located Ln one or more principal Ouild~ngs, snaring par~ing, entrance and exit areas, under single ownership (Ord. ?9-Il, 84-3) Site. A space, parcel or parcels of real property owned ~¥ one or'~ore ~an one person wn~cn Ls oe~flg or ~s capaole o~ ~eLng developed aa a single pro]eeo. (Ord. 90-07) ( 125 ) Slope. T~e degree of deviation of a surface from the ~orizontal, usually expressed ~n percen: o= degrees. Slope also means an inclined ground surface t~a inclination of w~ic~ is expressed as a ratio o~ horizontal d/stance %o vertical distance. (Co(la 072684, Ord..-90-07) 072~S~ 4.12 'B-3' AUTO-ORIENTED BUS[NESS 2IS?RICT &.l. 2, ~..1.21., a.122, ~,~2~ (1) (a)(~) 4.121 Purpose. The purpose of =ne 'B-3' Auto-Orien:ed Business District :s :o provide for and limit the establishment of mo=or veh:cle oriented or dependent commercial and serv:ce activities. 4.122 Perm~ttedUses, B-3. The following are permitted uses in a B-3 (1) Auto Accessory Store. (2) Mo:or Vehicle and Recreation Equipment Sales and Garages Accessory Thereto. (3) Commercial Recreational Uses. (4) Motels. Motor hotels and hotels provided that the lo% area contains no: less %nan five Hundred square fee: of lo~ area per unl= of living quarters. 5) Restaurants. Includin~ service w~ndows, cafes, tea rooms, on and ~ sale l~quor. (6) Amusement Rides. 4.123 Permitted Accessory Uses, B-3. The following are permitted accessory uses ~n a 'B-3" D1s:rlc~: (1) Less Intensive USe District. Ail permitted accessory uses in a 4.124 Conditional Uses, B-]. The following are condi=lonal uses in a "B-3" Dls:r~ct: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures se: for=~ in and regulated by Sec:ion 4.20, and compliance with 4.033 (5), Ligh=~ng; Chapter 3, Signing; 4.033, Screening; 4.036, Parking; 4.037, Off-Street Loading. Au:omo~ile Service Station. Motor fuel station, auto repalr- minor an~ :1re and ~a:%ery stores and servzce provided =~a=: (a) Saf_9_~~. Regardless of whe:her the dispensi.g, sale or or:er~n~ for sale of motor fuels and/or oil ~s incidental the conduc= of =ne use or business, :he standards and requirements ~m~osed by this Code for motor fuel stations snell apply. These standards and requirements ace, Aowever, in addition to o%ner requirements wn~cn are imposed for other uses of =ne proper:y. Compatibility. The architectural appearance and functional plan o~ :ne building and site s~all not ~e so dissimilar to the exxs=ing buildings os areas to cause impairment in property values or constitute a ~lighting influence within a reesonab~? dis:ante of =Ac loc. &-63 07268& I I a) =) (c) ,~*orma~on ~emons~ratlng ~me location an~ ~yoe of all ~aoles, area is a f~ll service restaurant, 'nO!~ng The SlZe Of tme dining area is restricted to C~irCy (30) percent .* :me total customer floor area w~tm~n tme principal s:ruc:~re. The dining area is screened from view from adjacent residential uses in a¢corCance with Section ~.033(3)(0) of this Co~e. All lighting ~a ~ooded amd directed away from adjacent rs$iCemt~al ,Jsea ~n accordance with Section A.033($) Of this Code. The applicant demonstrates tma~ pedestrian circulation follow~ng: (i) (ii) (iii) ~e~es~rian o~rc~lat~on Oy ~eam$ of temporary ~enc~ng, ~ollarda, ropes, ptan~ngS, or otmer metmod$, and small suDjec~ ~o review and aOP[0val 0y tme City Council. the cafe small :e at leas: five (5) feet witmout interference ~rom marked motor vehicles, Oollarda, treem, treegates, stairwaym, trash receptacles, stree~ l~gnta, ~ar~ing or tme like. Overstory canopy of ~rees, ~m~rellas or o~er structures extending ~nto tme oe~estr~an clear massage zone or a~sle shall have a m~nimum clearance of seven (7) ~ee~ s~dewalk. The din,rig area ~s surfaced with concrete, O~tum~noum or :ecora:~e paver to provide a clean, a:trac:lVe, and functional surface. (h) A minimum width of thirty-six (36) inches small Oa provided .~:n~n aisles of tho outdoor d~ning area. (i) Storage of furniture a~all not :e permitted cntne sidewalk ~etween November t and Mar¢~ 31. Sidewalk furniture tn&t ia ~mmovaDle or ~ermanen~ly fixes or attached to tme sldewalW snell no~ ~e su0ject to tme $~oraga gro~ition of tmis section. However, any ~mmovaole or parmanan&ly fixed or attacmed ?urnltUre m~$~ ~e approved as Dart of the mite plan application ~rovlded ?or ay )&.125(8)(a) of tn~s Code. (j) NO outside ~ar or coo~im9 ~acility snell ~e established, only wai~ stations m~&ll :e allowea. (k) ~dditional of~-mtreet p&rWing s~all :a require~ purauan: to t~e require~ntl set forth ~n §~.03~ of tn~s Code :&ee~ on tme additional seating area provided ~) the out~oor dining area. 07268Y~ areas. Sucm comta~ner$ shall be place~ in a mamner ~~Ic~ ~oes ~c~ ~o~]~age ama Olow~ r~e operation ~$ suo~ec= to approval of t~e City Sanitarian aha comp1~ance w~t~ any wr~ttem prov~s~oms ne or sam requires. aool~caOle conO~t~ons as l~steO nere~n aha in aa~t~on: (ii) (iii) safety of Persons/proper~y. Any permamemt structures, incluaimg divider walls, t~ell~$ as soe~fiea ~m Section &.033(I) of tmis Code. The suOmitted olams ~o~ a rooftop dining ~mcility as welt as the ~u~lOing uoon wn~c~ :ne Oro~oeea outOoor O~n~ng ~s to occur ~$ Subject to review Oy t~e City Bu~lO~ng Inspector, capaOte of hamalin~ the additional we~nt of persons an~ equ~omen%. ,, (Orca. 92-5) &-69C 07268~ ~.0~ (LO)(¢) - e) ~) ~) Fop e&cn tan units an~ one soece F~r eeon employee on any smlFt. caoac~y olus one For each three classrooms. seats :asea :n t~e :es~gn caoec~ty o~ t~e ~a~fl asaemo~y ~al~. :acal~t~es as may ~e Orov~ea in ccfljunct~cn w~tn such OutgOings ap uses snell Oe suojec~ to additional ~eau~emen~s wn~cn are ~moosea :y tn~s Code. fop each (Code 072~84, Or~. 91-18) ~e~ty (~qnior ¢i~qn), ~Wys~cally ~and~caooe~, o~ ~-5 ~ous~,~. ,m the ~-$ zoning ais~c~. ? ~erly (~qn~or ~i~i~qn) ~es~ent~al ~ou~nq. C~e seats :er every s~ecl FOr eec~ unl~. <Code 072e84, (Code 07258A, Or~. 85-22) s=aces =~uS aC least onq..soace ~o~ each t~O munare~ f3~ty s~uare ~eec o~ ¢~00~ area. (Code 072884, Or~. 94-01) ~-36 07~6~ ~etaL~ Storer Serv£ce or Convenience C~e 072684, Ord. At 4salt eager spactl or one spAcl for e4¢~ one ~un~=ed one space for eac~ f£ve hundred square fait o~ storage O~Zfl~sr ~:sf ?ave~fls~ N~nc Clubs. AC least one s~ce i ! I I I (t) (u) (v) ~ufle~i~ 9~lssLOfl. 8occl~ng Coca, Any, Shop for A Trade ~mpLoytng SLx or ~il Structure. Etgnc o~-screec ~r~tfl~ spacee, plus oas add~C~onal s~ce Esr ~cn e~ghC ~ufldc~ ~:e ~lic o~ ~ooc a~e4 over one t~ouland square ~itC. Other Crowd Attractions. ~civAte 8ockey A~en4, ~ollec stree~ pirNAn~ spaces pl~s one for eac~ one ~undred Icl~ace feec o~ floor Schoolsf Such as ~,mAstic Tra£n£n~. One and ofle-hel~ ~ucXAng sp~cee loc every cwo pupils at student unless tt can ~e demonstrated tha~ a ~Ac~ertflg ~r~Anq La r~uAr~ ~y emac activity. (s! ~ur Wss~. (la Addition Co required scacktng mpacs)t (t) Auto~at~c Drive Throuqh Serviced. A uAn£mum of twenty apices, o~ one spice for eic~ employee on the mastmum shaft, v~tchever ~s ~reicec. (L£) SeL~-Service. A mAn,mum o~ two spaces. (t££) Hoist fuel Station CAr wAih. ~ero tn AddLttou to that requited for the station. (F) ~OlpitA~S. T~O spaces ~r eAc~ Md. 4-37 Planmng Case: Request: Location: PID No: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLAN~E~'G CASE REPORT 95-21 Ordinance No. 96-04,An Ordinance Reclassifying Various Conditional Uses as Permitted Uses Within the B-1, B-2, B-3 and B4 Zoning Districts B-l, B-2, B-3 & B-4 Business Districts City of New Hope February 2, 1996 February 6, 1996 BACKGROUND City staff and the Codes & Standards Committee are. requesting formal consideration by tlc Planning Commission of the enclosed Ordinance Reclassifying Various Conditional Uses is Permitted Uses Within the B-I, B-2, B-3 and B4 Zoning Districts. The Commission discussed this ordinance informally at the lanuary Planning Commission meeting and directed staff to proceed to publish a public hearing notice for formal consideration of the ordinance at this meeting. Since the January meeting, the Planner has submitted a revised matrix and also pointed out some other inconsistencies in the attached January 26th memo. Staff, the City Attorney and Planner have discussed these issues and the City Attorney has prepared the enclosed correspondence and a revised ordinance to address the inconsistencies. The changes are outlined under the ANALYSIS section of the report. The idea for this ordinance originated this past summer when the City Manager gave administrative approval for a dance studio to operate in the Post Haste Shopping Center. "Dance studios" are not specifically identified in the Del'tuition section of the Zoning Code and routinely "commercial recreational uses" require a conditional use permit. Staff recommended that the City review our standards for some of these uses, as a dance studio seems to be a reasonable use for a shopping center. Why is it that some reasonable uses, such as a karate school or cafe, require a CLT' while other more complicated uses, such as tattoo parlors, are a permitted use'.) It was starts opinion that some uses that currently require a CUP should be allowed as permitted uses and not be required to go through the CUP process. While it is not staff's intent to bypass the Commission or City Council with planning/zoning applications, staff would like to streamline the process so that uses that do not have a negati~ie impact on surrounding properties and are clearly a reasonable use in the Business Zomng Districts are not required to go through the conditional use permit application process. Planning Case Report 95-21 4. January, 2, 1996 The Planning Consultant conducted a review of the various conditional uses within the City's commercial zomng districts to determine whether certain uses would be more appropriately classified as permitted uses within their respective districts. Based on past experience, question has arisen as to the need to process certain uses via a conditional use permit, particularly in cases where such uses occupy existing structures (i.e.. within shopping center). Additionally, the report gives specific attention to the regulation of "commercial recreational" uses with. in the City's 134, Community Business District. 5. The Planning Consultant reiterated the purpose of the conditional use permit, as follows: .'- Purpose of Conditional Use Permit Process. According to Section 4.211 of the Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of a conditional use permit is to: "Provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the conditional use is to be allowed, the City may consider the nature of the adjoining land or buildings, 'whether or not a similar use is already'in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite for consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health and safety." It should be recognized that the CUP process and its need is directly related to the purpose of the City's various zoning districts and a use's appropriateness within such framework. Basically. conditional uses are uses which are appropriate within the base zoning district provided certain additional conditions are imposed to insure compatibility. The consultant further outlined the purpose of each of the commercial zoning districts, the permitted and conditional uses allowed in each district, and inconsistencies between various uses/districts. The conclusion of the analysis was that a number of conditional uses in the City's various commercial zoning districts could be appropriately classified as permitted uses and the intention of the amendment is to clean up the uses allowed in each district, eliminate duplication and overlapping of certain uses, and generally make the ordinance easier to understand. ANALYSIS Subsequent to the lanuary meeting, the Planner raised the following issues and these issues have been addressed in the revised ordinance as follows: mo Memo Item #7 Number 55 from the previous matrix was eliminated (Dry Cleanirig including plant accessory heretofore, pressing and repairing), as it is listed under number 7 (Cleaning. Laundry and dry cleaning provided the process used meets the requirements of the Fire Prevention Code for use in buildings with other occupancies). Planning Case Report 95-21 January 2. 1996 Response to Memo Item 7 Staff decided to eliminate "cleaning" from the permitted uses in a B-2 Zomng District under Code §4.112. Staff determined that "cleaning" is already a permitted use in the B-I District and therefore rolls over as a permitted use in the B-2 District. As a result, its reference in the B-2 District is not necessary. In Section 4 of the enclosed Ordinance, the Commission will see the repeal of this reference in the B-2 District. Memo Item #8 The City allows for grocery stores that are less than 21,500 square feet in size. However, under current City regulations, grocery stores larger than 21,500 square feet in size are not identified in any zoning district. The City may wish to consider adding a provision to allow larger grocery stores in the B-4 Zoning District. Response to Memo Item #8 Staff decided it did not make sense to limit the floor space of grocery stores and supermarkets in either the B-2 or B-4 District. Staff decided to amend the reference to "food" in the B-2 District by eliminating the floor space restriction. Therefore. based on the roll-over provision of the Code, the floor space restriction will ngt apply in the B4 District as well. Staff decided the lot sizes of the various properties in the referenced districts would actually control the floor space of such facilities and, therefore, a specific reference limiting floor space is not required. In Section 4 of the Ordinance. enclosed the Commission will find the amendment dealing with this issue. C. Memo Item #15 The proposed ordinance does not eliminate Copy and Pn'nting Service from being both a permitted and conditionally permitted use in the B-2 District. Response to Memo Item #15 The enclosed Ordinance now eliminates "copy and printing service" as a conditional use in the B-2 Zoning District. Refer to Section 6 of the enclosed Ordinance. It repeals the "offset printing and copy service" reference. Staff concluded this is the same use as referenced in {}4.132 of the Code under subsection (9). Since §4.132(9) is not marked with an asterisk, it also becomes a permitted use in the B-2 District pursuant to Code §4.112(5). D. Memo Item #25 Insurance Sales offices would also fall under the category Professional and Commercial Offices, therefore, the reference has been added to the matrix. Eo Response to Memo Item g"25 Staff decided to eliminate the reference to "insurance sales" since it would fall under the same category as "professional and commercial offices". Section 9 of the enclosed Ordinance repeals the reference to "insurance sales", and staff will now rely on the reference to "professional and commercial offices" in the B-2 District to permit insurance sales in both the B-2 District and the B4 District. Memo Item #37a Drive-Through Service Windows have been added to the matrix per the proposed ordinance. All uses with drive-through facilities are proposed to be a conditionally permitted use .within the B-3 and B..4 Zoning Districts. Planning Case Report 95-2I 4 January 2, 1996 Response to Memo Item #37a Staffdecided that "drive-throughservice windows" should be listed as a conditional use in all commercial zoning districts. As a result, the reference to this use as a conditional use in the B-1 Zoning District has been added. This reference can be found in Section 2 of the enclosed Ordinance. With the inclusion of this reference in the B-1 Zoning District, all permitted uses or conditional uses in all commercial zoning districts that include a drive-through service window will be required to obtain a conditional use permit for the drive-through service window. In other words, this is the broadest application possible for drive-through service windows thereby providing the Commission with the desired effect relative to this use. Memo Item #58 The consultant raised the issue of the purpose of number 58 (Floor Space Limited). Specifically, how does the City administer a regulation of an "accessory use not to exceed 30% of the gross floor area of the principal use". Response to Memo Item #58 Staffdetermined that the reference to "floor space limited" actually dealt with accessory buildings. As a result, Section 3 of the enclosed Ordinate amends §4.103(1) dealing with "floor space limited" by changing the reference to accessory building. Memo Item #64 Number 15 (Commercial and Professional Offices) from the previous matrix was eliminated, as it was listed twice within the matrix (previous ~/67 Professional and Commercial Offices). Again, note that the proposed ordinance establishes this use as a "permitted use" in the B-I District rather than "conditionally permitted use". Memo Item #84 Please note that the City Code allows Commercial Recreational Facilities as a permitted use within the B-3 Zoning District. If the City does not wish to allow these types of uses within the B-3 District, it should repeal Section 4.122(3) of the City Code, that allows Commercial Recreational Uses. Response to Memo Items #64 & #84 The issues raised by these items did not result in any changes to the enclosed Ordinance. //64 is an informational reference, and #84 was dealt with by the pool hall amendment adopted last year as Ordinance No. 95-03. The City, did repeal commercial recreational uses as permitted uses in the B-3 Zoning District. Two other changes were made'to the enclosed Ordinance not mentioned in the City Planner's memo. First, Section 5 of the enclosed Ordinance repeals the reference to "drive-up Financial" as a permitted accessory use in the B-2 Zoning District. Staff determined that this reference was not necessary based on the decision to make drive-through service windows conditional uses for all permitted and conditionally permitted businesses in all commercial zoning district's. Therefore. a bank or other financial institution with a drive-up service window will be required to apply for a conditional use permit for the service window. Planning Case Report 95-21 3. 5 January ~ [996 The second change not considered by the Planner's memo was the decision to repeal the "commercial enterprises" conditional uses in the B-2 Zoning District with the exception of garden novelty stores. Section 6 of the enclosed Ordinance deals with this issue. §4.114(4) of the Code will refer to a garden novelty store as a conditional use permit in the B=2 Zoning District after the adoption of the enclosed Ordinance. Subsections (4)(a) through (i) and (k) will be eliminated. Staff hopes that these changes are not to confusing to you. but we want the ordinance amendment to correct as many errors as possible. On Tuesday night there will be an updated matrix presented and a listing of each Zoning District showing you what is being added and what is being deleted. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance, unless the Codes & Standards Committee wants ro review these changes at a Committee meeting and bring this back to the full Commission in March. Attachments: City Attorney 2/2 Correspondence and Proposed Ordinance Planning Consultant's 1/26 Report and Revised Matrix Legal Notice City Attorney 12/22 Correspondence Plarming Consultant 12/21 Report City Attorney 11/20 Correspondence Planning Consultant 10/24 Report Planning Consultant 9/27 Report Building Official Comments reOruary 2, 199B Kirk McDonald Management Aset. City Of NeW HOpe &401Xylon Avenue North New Nope, MN 55428 RE' Ordinance Redefining Conditional Usaa aa Permitted Usee in the Commercial Zoning Districts Our File NO: 99.45004 Dear Kirk: Zn follow up to our phone conference with Alan Brixiue please enclosed a revised Ordinance redefining conditional uses permitted uses in the commercial zoning districts for consideration at the FeOruary 5, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. aasically, the ravieions respond to the concerns set out in Alan's January 20, 1995 memo. Specifically, the City Planner's memo set out eight concerns. They are addressed as follows; :tam 7 - we decided to eliminate "cleaning" from the permitted uses in a ~-~ Zoning Oistrict under Code §4.11~. we ~etermined that "cleaning" i~ already a permitted use in :~e District and therefore rolls over as a permitted use in the DistriCt. AS a result, its reference in the a-2 District is not necessary. In Section 4 of the enclosed Ordinance you will see t~e repeal of this reference in the B-2 DiStrict. :tam 8 - we decided it did not make sense to limit the floor soace of grocery stores and supermarkets in either the B-2 or District. we aecided to amend t~e reference to "food" in the District by eliminating the floor ~Oace restriction. Therefore, based on the rollover provision of our Code, the ~loor sDace restriction will not apply In ~e 8-~ District as well. We dec,dad ,:e~ruary 2, 1 the lot sizes of the various properties in the referenced UiStr~cts would actually control the floor space of such facilities and t~erefore a specific reference limiting floor space is not required. In Section 4 of the Ordinance enclosed you will finO ~ne amendment dealing with this issue. Item 15 - the enclosed Ordinance now eliminates "copy and printing service" ~$ a conditional use In the ~-2 Zoning ~istrict. ~e?er to sectlon O o? the enclosed Ordinance. It repeals the "offset printing and cody service" reference. W~ concluded this Is the ~ame use a~ referenced in ~4,13~ of the Code under suDsect~o~ (9). Since §4.13Z (9) is not mar~ed with an asterisk, it also ~ecome$ a permitted use in the B-20i~trict pursuant to Code §4 t~12 (5). ' Item 25 - we decided to eliminate the reference to "insurance saIe~" since it would fall under the Same category as "professional and commercial offices". Section 9 of the enclosed Ordinance repeals the reference to "insurance sales", and we will now rely on the reference to "~rofes$ion&l and commercial offices" in the 5-2 District to permit insurance sales in Doth the B-2 District and B-4 District, Item 37a - we decided that "drive-through service wtnOows" should be listed as a conditional use in alt commercial zoning Oietr~cts. AS a result, I have added the reference to thi¢ use as a conditional use in the B-1 Zonin~ District. You can find this reference in Section Z of the enclosed Ordinance. With the incluslo~ O? this reference i~ the B-1 Zoning District, all permitted uses or conditional ueee in all commercial zonint districts that include & drive-through servlce window w~ll De required to o~taln a conaitionel use permit for the drive-through service window. In other words, this i~ the broadest application possible for drive-through service windows thereby proviolng us with~he desired effect relative to this use. Item 58 - we determined that the reference to "floor space limited" actually dealt with accessory buildings. AS a result, Section 3 of t~e enclosed Ordinance amends §4.103 (1) dealing with "floor ~ace limited" ~y chan~in~ the reference to accessory building. ,, !tame 6& and 84 - the issues raised by these item~ did not result in any changes to the enclosed Ordinance. ~4 is an February 2, 199~ informational reference, and 84 was dealt with by the pool halt a/nsndment a~opted last year as Ordinance No. $5-0~. ~e ~JQ repeal ¢ommercia] reore~tional uses as permitted uses in the ~-3 ~on~ng District. Two other changes were'made to the enclosed Ordinance not mentioned in the City Planner's memo. First, Section 5 of the enc~ose~ Ordinance remeals the reference to "drive-up financial" as a ~ermitted accessory u~e in the 8-2 Zoning District. We QetermimeQ that this reference was not necessary based on our decision to m&ke drive-t~rough service windows conditional uses for ~ll germitteQ and conditionally permitted businesses in all commercial zoning districts. Therefore, a Oan~ or oI~er fi~an¢ia~ institution wi,th · ~r~ve-up service window will be required to a~ly for ~ conditional use ~ermit for the service window. The second change not considered bYthe Planner's memo was cur decision to reoeal the "commercial enterprises* ~ond~tional uses ~n the a-2 Zonin~ District with the exception of garden novelty stores. Sec~lon ~ of t~e enclosed Or¢inance dea~ ~ith this issue. §4.114 (4) of our Code will refer to a ~ardsn novelty store ss ~ condition~l u~e permit in the B-Z Zoning Dlstrfct after ~e adoption of the enclosed Ordinance. Subsections (4)(a) through (~) and (k) will be eliminated. you nave any ot~er Questions, comments or recommendations. Very truly yours, $te'~n A. ~ondrall ~1 f3 cc: A~ ~rixtua, City Planner OMDINANCE NO, AN ORDINANCE RECLASSIFYING VARZOiJ$ CONDITIONAL USE8 AS PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE B-l, B-2, B-3 AND B-& ZONING DISTRICTS The City Council O? the City of New HOD& ordains: Sectign I, Section 4.102 "Permitted USes, ~-~" of the New Home City Code ls ~eremy amended Dy ~d~ing subsections "Convenience Food ~ake-Out/Oe~very ~s.t&~lishment.,' (14A) "GOvernment and Uti3ity ~ui3d~ngn" and (18A) "Profess~onat Corr,'nerci&~ Office&" to read aS Convenience Food Take-Out/Delivery Establishment. Government anct Ut*;~[¥ ~ui~d~g$. Profess~ona~ and CQmmercta] 01'f~ce~. Section 2, Section 4.104 "Cgnditional USe$~. B-I" of ~he New City Code ~s here0y &men,ed Dy repealing in their entirety suDs&orions (1) "Government ~n~ Utility aui3din~", (2) Professional and Commercial Office~" and (4)"Convenienc~ an~ Out/Delivery EstaOlishment", Dy renumOering suOsections (3) '~_~J~ Commercial" and (5) "Rest" $u~section~ (2) and respectively, and ~y adding · new subsection (1) "Dr~ve-Throu~h Ser¥~ce Window~" to read as follow&: ~ Orive-ThrogRh Service Windows, A ~.riYe-th~oug~ service win~ow .use~ in any ~erm~tteq or conditionally perm~tte~ ~uslpe~ or use &nell Me all~we~ only if the foll,owi~ additional criteri~ ~re satisfied; Stacking. NOt ~es$ t~aR 180 ..feet of seer&gated au.tomob~3e $t~ckinq 3an& mu~t be orovided for tn& service window. (~). Traffic Control. The sta~ing land and its accesR mu~t be de~i.~.ned to contro~ tr&ffi~ i.n a manner protect the Ouildin~s aha. green area on tn& $~te. Use ~f Street. No Dart of tb.e ~u~liq err&et or Dqu)evmrg may De u~ed for ~t~ckln~ of automooi~es[ Noise. The &tacking lane, ord.? bo&re intercom end ~indow m~acement ~ha]l b~ designed &hq ~oceteQ tn ~uch a manner &~ ~o minimize s~tofr~biJe.~nd ~ommunicat~On noises, em~sion and head~i h ?are KS to cent remises arti~ularly residential rem~e~ an To maximi · maneuvera i i Yeh~¢les ~n T~e site. - M_ours. MOur$ of O~eration $~11 Da lim~te~_&~ n~eceseary tO minimize t~e ..effect of nuisance ~¢t~.C$ euC~ as_traffic, noise an~ ~lare. ~ Section ~. Section &,103 (1)"F~oor~macm ~imited" of the New Hope ~ity CoQe is hereby amended to r~ad as follows: ...... ~ ............ , ACCessory Buildinq. Acce~mor~ Duildinq for commercial uses -- ~;~ ~u~l~:.~s ;,~ ~ shall mot exceed thirty Percent of the gross floor space of the ~rincip&l ~~w~. ,, ~ec%ion 4. Section 4.112 "Permitted Uses. ~-~" of the New NoDe City Code is hereby amended by repea~in9 s~bsection (2) "~qeaninQ" in its entirety, Dy renumbering subsection (3) "Food", suOeec~lon (~)"~imited._B-~ Use~'° ~nO subsection ($)"Mortu~r~" subsections (&) through (6) reepectively ~nd by adding new su:sectiona (2)"B~nR~ (WiThout a Drive Th.rough)" .. _ , (3) Appliance Stores a~d (8) '*~es~aurant$ (Without a Drive Throug an~ ~mending renumbered subsection (~) "~oo~" to re~d ~s follows: Banks (W~thOUT a Qrive Throu~hJ. Electric&l Appliance etore~ ~-e~e~. Grocery Stor~ and ~uDerm&rket~--r:'.'~im- th~ ~e~t~urants (Without ~ Drive Throu~. Section ~. Section ~,113 "Permitted Accessory Uses, B-?" of the New NoDe City Code is hereby amended by repealing ~uDse~tion (2) "0rive-Up, ~in&n~i&l" in its entirety, V Sec?ion ~. Section 4.11~ "Condition~l Uses, ~-P" of the New Nope ¢~ty Code ~ hereby amenOed by reoealing in their entirety euDsec~1on$ (2] "Multim1~ Family", (~) "Commer¢i~.l Enterprise~" (4)(al "~", (~)(b) "E!ectr~..cal Ap~liance etgres", (~)(c~ "Eabric Store~", (4)(d)"Off-Sale ~iquor", (el(e) "Offse%. Printi~q and gop¥ Service", (~)(f) "~ t~_~~,,, (~)(g) .,~ ~hoto~raDh~c Suoplie~", (~)(h)"Boqk Stores", (¢)(i)"Medi. C.a_~]", and (~)(k) "Criteri~ fora(a) through (i)" and by renumber~ng su~ect~on (4)(~) "Garden Novelty Stores" to sub~ection (~). Section 7. Section 4.122 "Permitted uses~ a-~" of the New Hope City Code ~s hereby amended by amending SUbSection (5) "~" to read as follows: (5) ~est urants onvenience FO ~ Drive- . · · Including rest~ w~th li or win or beer licenses oDtaine~ under Cha . 10 of this o~e, . st lishm nts with Orive~ ThrouRh servlce~ w~ndowS dO reauire a conditional ~$,] [er~i a rovided b ection 4.1 4 3 of this Cod~,~ section 8. Section 4.124 (~) "Orive-Zn and Convenience ~ood" Of ~he New Hope City Code i~ hereby'amended my repealing ~n t~e~r entirety subsections (a) :hrough (i) and amending subsection ~) *o read as follows: - (+~) Orive-ThrouRh Servige Wtndowm. A drive-through service winOow ~Sed in any permitted or conditionally permitted business or use shall be allowed only if the foltowing additional criteria are satisfied: (a) ~~. Not less than 180 feet of se~regate~ automobile etackin~ ~Oe must :e provided for service window. (~) Traffiq Control, The stacking land an~ its access must be ~esigne~ to control traffic in a manner to protect the buildings and green area on the site. (~) Use of Gtreet. No part Of the public street or boulevard may De used for stacking Of automobiles. (,Id_) N?~..~.. The stacking lane, or,er Ooard intercom and ~ln~o~ ~lacement shall be designed and located ~n such & manner as to minimize automobile and communication noisea, emissions and hea~llght glare a~ to adjacent prImtses, particularly residential premises, and to maximize maneuverability of vehicle~ on the 6its. 3 neCeSSary to m~n~m~e the e?fect of nuisance ~-~~- ~ec~on 4.132 "~ermi~e~,e~_~., of ~he New Nooe City Code is hereOy amende~ ~y re~eaTin9 in its en~lre~y subsectlo~ (22) "Insurance "~om~4~crea*~ ....... -- and by adOfng suDsection (48) Area;' ~,~n ~ usaa NOt xceeoing 4,000 Souar~ Feet to reed aa fo]lows: ~48) mmerc~ ~ Recreational Uses NO~ Exc e~ 4.000 g~Uare Eeet ~n Are~. ~ect~gn 1~. Section &.13& (8) "~ommer¢ia~ ~ecreational Facilities" of t~e New NODe City Code i~ follows: -- here~y amen~e~ ~o rea~.,as c°mmerc~a1 ~ec~eational Pa~lft~e.~ Commercia] ~ec~eat~ona3 fa ~ties e'Xceed~n 4 00~ s uare a~_.~.~, provided that: feet Section 11. Effective Date. T~is Ordinance $h&13 ~e ef~ect~¥e upon ~tS Passage and publication. Oared the day of _, 1996. At~ee=: Leone, City C3erk Fdw. J. Erickson, Mayor Published ~n the New Hope-Qolaen Valley Sun-Post the , day of Northwest Assoc ated Consultants, lnc COMMUNITY ~L A NNING DESIGN · MARKET PLANNING REPORT. ADDENDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Cary Teague/Alan Brixius 26 January 1996 New Hope - Zoning Ordinance Amendments (Business Districts) 131.00 - 95.21 Upon further review of the matrix highlighting the current ordinance vs. the proposed ordinance amendment, a couple of issues of note were discovered. The following highlights the issues discovered, again, each issue corresponds to the number on the left side of the matrix. Number 55 from the previous matrix was eliminated (Dry Cleaning including p/ant accessory heretofore, pressing and repainng), as it is listed under number 7 (Cleaning. Laundry ancl dry cleaning provided the process used meets the requirements of the Fire Prevention Code for use in t~ufldings w~th other occupancies). am Please note that the City allows for grocery stores that are less than 21,500 square feet in size. However, under current City regulations, grocery stores larger than 21,500 SCluare feet in size are not identified in any zoning district, The City may W~sh to consider adding a provision to allow larger grocery stores in the B-4 zoning district. 15. The proposed ordinance does not eliminate Copy and Printing Service from being both a permitted and conditionally permitted use in the B-2 district. 25. Insurance Sales offices would also fall under the category Professional and Commercial Offices, therefore, the reference has been added to the matrix. ', 37a. D#ve, Through Service Windows have been added to the matrix per the proposed ordinance. All uses with d{'ive-through facilities are proposed to be a conditionally permitted use within the B-3 and B-4 zoning district. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.' Suite 555 · St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636'Fax. 595-9837 58. Our office raises the issue of the purpose of number 58 (Floor Space L~'m/ted~. .Spec~cally, how does the City administer a regulation of an 'accessory use not to exceed 30% of the gross floor area of the principal use". Number 15 (Commercial and Professional Offices) from the previous matrix was eliminated, as it was listed twice w~thin the matrix (previous ~67 Professional and Commerc/ai Offices). Again, note mat the PrOl:x3sed ordinance establishes this use as a "perm~ttecl use" in the B-1 district rather than "conclitionally permitted use" 4m Please note that the City Code allows Commercial Recreational Facilities as a permitted use within the B-3 zoning district. If the City does not wish to allow these types of uses within the B-3 district it should repeal Section 4.122 (3) of the City Code, that allows Commercial Recreational Uses, ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN NEW HOPE'S BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICTS P - Permitted Uses A . Accessory Uses C - Conditional Uses CA - Conditional Accessory Uses N - Not Permitted 2a. 3. 4. 11. 12. 13. 14. B-1 P P P N N P P N P P P P&C P P P P Current N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P . P P N P P P N P P P P P P P P P N P P B-2 B-3 B-4 See 2a See Za N P N - P N P P N P P N P P N P P N P P N P P N P P N P P N P P N P P N P Use 1. Barber Shops, 2. Beauty ShoPs. 2.a. Pemonat Services. 3. Essen~al Services. " 4. Convenience, LJmrted Merchandise, Groce~ Stores (not supermarket type). 5. Laundromat. 6. Mortuary. 7. Cleaning. Laundry & clry Cleaning provided procese used meets the requirements of the Fire Prevention Code for use in buildings wTth other occupanCle~. 8. Food. Grocery stores and supermarkets providing the use aoes not exceed 21,500 s.f. of floor space. 9. Antique Shops. 10. Art/School Su DDlies, Book, Office Supp,es. Stationary Stores. 11. Bicycle Sales/Repair. 12. Candy, Ice Cream, ice Milk, Popcorn, Nuts, Frozen Desserts. Packaged Snacks, Soft Ddnk$. 13. Carpet, Eugs and T~le and Ortner Floor Coverings. 14. Coin and Philatelic Stores. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 37a. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. P 13 N 13 13 13 N 13 13 13 N 13 N 13 N 13 N 13 N P N 13 N 13 N 13 N 13 N P N P N A A A N P&C N P N P N P P&C N P&C N P P P P Proposed B-1 B-2 B-,1 8-4 P P&C N P N P N P N P N 13 N 13 N P N A A A N P N P N N C C P P N P P P N P 35. 3e. 37. 37a. 38. 39. 40. 15. Copy and Prfnfing Service. 16. Costume and Clothes Rental. 17. ~ EquiDment Stores. 18. Drug Stores. 19. EmDIoyment Agency. 20. Flor~t ShoD. 21. Furniture Stores. 22. Furrie~ w~en Conducted only for Retail Tracle, on Premises. 23. Gift or NoveRy Stores. 24. Hobby Store. 25. Insurance Sales ~$ee 26. Locksmith, 27. Meat Market but Not Including Locker Storage. 28. Paint and Watlloaoer Sales. 29. Plumbing, Tetev~on. Radio, ElectTical Sales and Such Reoair. 30. Toy Stores. 31, Tailor Shops. 32. Jewelry Shops an(~ other Similar Uses. 33. Travel Bureaus, Tran$t~3rta~on, T~cJ~et Offices. 34. Variety Stores, 5/10 Cent Stores, Stores of Similar Nature. weanng Apparel. Drive-up, Finanaal (1 Lane Maximum), Banks (W'~hout drive- through. Drive-Through Service Window~. Recorcl Shog. Real Estate Sales. Buikli~g Material Sales of Retail Nature in Totatty Enctc~se¢l Building, 41. Fabric Store. 42. Camera/Photographi~ Supplies. 43, 45, 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63, 65. 66. 67. 68, C urredl t C P&C P P N P&C N P C P&C N P N I= N P N P N P N I= N P N N P N N N P N N N P N N N P N N N N P N C N P N N N P N N N P N N N P A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A C C N N C, P N P C C N C C C N N N C N N N C N P /:¥oposed B-_.t a-;i 8-,t C P P P N P N P N P N P N ;~ N ;~ N P N P N P N P N N P N N N P N N N P N N N P N N N N N C N N N N N N N P N N N P A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A P P N P P P N P C C N C P P N P N N N N N P N P U~ 43. Restaurant (without drfve-through), 44. Off-Sais Liquor Stores, 4~, Medical Facility, 46. Smorfing Goods Stores. 47. Pet Shol~. 48. Hara~vare Stores. 49. Auto Accessory Store. 50. Motor Vehicle and Recreation Equipment Sales and Garages Accessory Thereto. 51. .Motels. 52. Amusement Rides. 53. Enclosed Boat anct Marine Sales. 54. Garden Novelty Stores. 55. Theaters - Not Outcloor Drive-in Type. ,, 56. Custom Manufactunn~ and Repair. 57. Public Garage/l:)arking Ramp. 58. Floor Space [Jmrted. CommerC;al or buS;ness buildings and structures for a use accessory to the pnnC~pal use. I=ut such use shall not exceed thirty percent of the gros~ floor space of the pnnc;pal use. 59. Parking. Off-street parking as regulated by Sec'don 4.0~6. 60. Off-StTeet Loading. 61. Signs. 62. Pinball Machines. 63, Government and Utility Buildings, 64. Professional and Commercial Offices. 65. PUD, CommerC;al. 6~, Convenience Food Take-Out/Delivery Establishment. 67. Mulflpis Family. ElectTical Appliance Store. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 84b. 85. 86. 87. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N A N N 8-2 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N A N N Current C C C C C CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA N N P P A C C C C C C N N N N N N N N C C N C C A C N N CA N N N CA N N N CA N N N CA N N N CA N N N CA N N N CA N N N CA N N N N See 64a & 84b N N N P C N N P P A A A A N N C C N N P P ~4b. ~9. Automobile Staaon. 70. Convenience Gasoline. 71. Drive.In and Convenience Food. 72. Car Washes. 73. Motor Vehicle Sales, Se~ce, Leas~ng~Rental and Reloair. 74. Automobile Se~ce Station. Addi'donat Uses. 75. Automobile Se~ce Sta~ons, Suborclina~e Uses. 76. Olden Storage, Accessory. 77. Outdoor Sales and 78. Enclosed Sales ar~ Sewice. Acc. es~3ry. 79. Take-Out Service Window. 80. Sale of PrOl:)ane or LP Gas Accessory to Automobile Serwce Sta~on. 81. Outdoor Dining, Accessory. 82. Training Schools 83. Vetennanan Clinics. 84. Commermal Recrea~onal Uses. · [a. ~iai Recreation Facilities (ezcesding 4,000 square feet). Commercial Recreation Facilities (not exc44ding 4,000 square feet). ~5. Adult Uses - Accessory. ~6. Adult Uses - Pdnc~ual. 87. Outdoor sales o( seasonable farm produce. Store Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Can/Teague/AJan Bdxiu$ 21 December 1995 New Hope - Zoning Orcllnance Amendments (Business Districts) 131.00 - 95.21 BACKGROUND Pa' the r~quest of the Codes and 8tandan~ Committee our office has day opecl a matrix showing a compamtJv® ah/al of ltl a within 13'-to City's busine.~,~ districts. Specifically the mal3'tx st'x:hvs existing uses compared to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. This memo serves as an exl31anatlon of the matrix. ANAL ¥$15 The attac~ed matrix highlights all uses within the City's business zoning ctistncts anti compares them to the existing zoning ordinance and the propoeed amendment to the z~ning on~linatlce. The uses in bold print rellmssnt ama~ where ct~anges to the ordinance are proposed. An exl31anaflon of tl3e fx.R3oee of each zoning district may be benefidat when consideti~j arne'~mentl t~ the z~ning ordlw, tlle~fore, the purpose of each clistrict is as follows: B, 1 ~'mM Neighborhood Bueine~a DiatricL The p~ ~ ~ 'B-I" Limit~ Neig~~ Bulin~ Di~ ia to ~vide f~ ~e ~ta~lishm~ ~ I~1 Mntem for conveni~, lim~ ~M, r~il or s~iM ~e~ ~i~ dMI ~ir~y ~ the ~stomer from wh~ ~ good~ ~ ~i~ am ~mish~. ~ese ~ ~e to p~vide se~i~s and goo~a only for ~e su~ounding neig~~s ~d ~ not intoned to ~ cu~o~m ~om ~ ~i~ ~un~. B,2 Retail Business Dletrlct The purpose of the 'B-Z' Retail Business District is to provide f~- low intensity, retail er service outlets which deal directly with the customer for 5775 Wayzata Bivcl.. Suite 555. St. Louis Park,~MN $5416r (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837 whom ~he gcc~s or servica~ are fumis~e<:l. The uses allowe~ in this district ars to crovicte goods ~d services on a limited community market scale and located in areas which are well served Oy c~l[ec~or or arterial street facilities at the edge of residemiai cllstricts. 8-3 Auto. Oriented Business Dial. dot.. The ;ur~se of t~ 'B-3" Auto-Oriented Busine~ District is to t:~:~vide for arc limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. B-4 Community Bueinea~ Dietrict. The purpose of the 'B-4" Community Business District is to I:X~'ovide for ~ estat~lishment of commercial and service activities which clraw from and serve c3astomers from the entire community or subregion. The following is a detailed explanation of the proposed ordinance amendments shown within the matrix. Eacl~ i~ue corresponds to the number on the left side of the matrix. 1.2a. The axing ordinan:e regulates ~ shops and l:~auty shops u different uses. However, after a detailed study, it wa~ reCOmmended to amend the zoning orclinance to establish/~ersona/sen/c-es. Under the deflnitic~ of personal services. several similar uses are regulated under one definition. Personal services am cleft, ned .aa follows: Berber'' shop, beauty salon, electrolysis, rnanic~Jdst, tanning panor, physical therapy, ~apeutic r'na~sage, and tattooing. 37. Please note that there are several uses in the current ordinance that are listed as both permitted and conditionally permitted uae~ within the ~rrent Zoning Ordinance. The ccrrent zoning ordinance does not make a distinction between ba~ks with and without drive-through window~. Based on the impacts drive-through banks have on traffic and site design, the proposed ordinance makes the distinction I~etween the two. Under the current ordinance, ban.ks are considered a permittecl ancl conditionally perm~ use in the B-2 cli~trict and permitted in the B-4 distJfiCt. Under the proooaed ordinance, banks without drive-throug~ facilities are parroted uses within 'the B-2 and I]-4 dis~ict~, and drive-,through facilitiles will remain conditionally permitted uses within the B-2 and B-4 districts. f By cm~l~lly permitting drive-I~mugi~ facilities, the City is able to examine the ,repack_ of ~ u~e ~n:x.~'l a I~ he~g ancI CUP processing, and may place specific cerx:litiona orr t3'teee use~. Ber~ '~hout clrtv~ fecilitie~ do not hold any land uae impacts different ~m uses that ard permitted within the B-2 or 8-4 district. 41. 42. 66& 6'7. 70. 71. 87. Because a Fat:~ic Store does not hold any land use impact~ clifferent from uses *,hat are permrtted within the 6-2 or 6-4 district, the proposed amerl~ calls for Fa0rtc Stores to be permitted uses. Because a Camera/Photographic Supl31y Store ~3es not hold any land use impacts different from uses that are permitted within the a-2 or 8-4 district, the proposed amenclment calls for Camera/Photogral3hi¢ Stores to be permitted uses. Restaurants are currently c~nsidered permitted and conditionally permittect uses within the B-2 zoning distrtcL Further, regulation of restaurants with drive-through facilities are regulated as Drive-in and Convenience Food. The proposect ordinance eliminates Drfvefin and Convenience Food Estab/ishrnent and replaces it with Restaurant with Drive-through Facilities, therefore, all types of eating estal31i~ will be regulated as Restaurar4a. A~ auc~, Restaurants with drive. Lhrough facilities are prooosed to be conditionally permitted in the B-2 anti B-4 districts and a permitted ~ in the B-3. Reataurar~ ,anfl",out drive-through facilities are prc=t3osed to be conditionally permitted in the B-3 district, and permitted uses in the B-2, B-,3 and B-4 districts. The purpose of the additional regulations on Restaurants with ddve-througtl facilities i~ the same aa for banks with dnve-~rou{~h facilities. The land ~ impacts are greater on uae~ ~ drive-thmugl3 facilities. Off-sale liquor and medical facilities are currently oonsidered pen'nitted and conditionally permitted use~ in the B-2 dis~ct. However, the. se uses more appropriately designated as permitted uses, therefore, ate proposed as suc~. Government and Utility Buildings and Professional and Commercial Offices hold ct~aract~ wflich may make them more appropnately designated as permitted uses within commercial zoning clistrtcf~ rat~er than conditionally permitted uses. therefore, the change has been prol3osed. Mulfil31e Family development has I==.-~t. found not to be an al;3t3ropdate use within ~e B..2 district, as the 13ur13ose of the district is to provide for low intensity retail or se~'vice outlets, therefore, multtl31e family development Is 13rOl3Osed to be prohibited in the 8-2 disb'ict. Electrical A,ol311ance Stores hold characteri~tica which may make them mere approf3'iatety designated as permitted uses within the 13-2 zoning district, rather than a conditionally permitted use, therefore, the ~ has been proposed. Currently Commerci~ Rec~'eation Facilitie~ are considered permitted uses in the B-..3 district and conditionally 13ermitted use~ in the B-4 (prohibited in the B-1 ancl B- 2). Comme~al Recreational Facilities ara defined by the Ordinance as 'bowling alley, golf, pool hall, dance hail, skating, traml3oiine and simil~ uses.' -' 3 While commemial r~::reational uses the scale of bowling alJey, billiard hail rolter rink, etc. were recerrtly studied and found to be appropriately designated as conditional uses in the B-4 District, it is believed small scats commercial ~onal uses may be more suital31e as permitted uses. Of particular issue are small scale uses sucfl as dance studios, karate instruction, etc. which ex~st in multiple occupancy commercial buildings. While these smaller rec~'eationat faC~litJe~ wo~ld provide ~ a.~.~ml~ of people f~ classes or competitions, the size a~ct scale of these oper~ can be regulated to make them consistent with other in this regard, it is believed that commercial recreational uses with les~ than 4, 00(3 square feet of floor area could compatibly exist in the B-4 District without neecl a public ~earing and CUP processing. In review of the tenant breakclown~ of the New Hope City Center ~d Winne~a Center, a standeml leasable ~bay' measures 3,400 and 1,600 square feet respectively. Oesed on this and existing busineu square fo~3tage allotments, it is believed a commercial recreational facility less than 4,(:X30 square feet in area would have minimal impact. ,: CONCLUSION The attached matrix highlights the proposed changes to the City's Business zoning districts. 'These changes are proposed after much study and consideration by the City. It has been concluded that a number of conditional uses in the City's various commercial zoning district may be more appropriately classified as permitted uses. Based on an examination of district purpose and use characteristics our office recommencls approval of ail of the pro~ modifications. Northwest. Associ. ated Consultants, Inc. COMMUNITY L ANNING DESIGN · MARKET RE SE A R C ~ PLA~NNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Kirk McDonald Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius 27 September 1995 New Hope - Zoning Ordimaace Business District Conditional Use Review NO: 131.00 - 95.21 BACKGROL,'ND At the direction of the City, our office has conducted a review of the various conditional uses within the City's commercial zoning districts to determine whether certain uses would be more appropriately classified as permitted uses within their respective districts. Based on past experience, question has arisen as to the need to process certain uses via a conditional use permit, particularly in cases where such uses occupy existing structures (i.e.. within shopping centers). Additionally, we have given specif-a: attention to the regulation of 'commercial recreational" uses within the City's B4, Community Business District. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Zoning Map IS SLT.,S .&NALYSI$ Purpose of Conditional Use Permit Process. According to Section 4.211 of the Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of a conditional use permit is to: Provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion tn determining the suitability of cerra!r~ designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. -'In making this determination, whether or not the 5775 Wayzata Blvd.' Suite 555 .St. Louis Park, MN 55416' (612) 595-9636'Fax. 595-9837 conditional use is to be a/lowed, the City may consider the nature of the adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premi, s~, or on any adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite for consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health and safety. It should be recognJz~ that the CUP process and its need is directly related to the purp<)se of the City's various zoning districts and a use's appropriateness within such framework. Basically, conditional uses am uses which am appropriate within the base zoning district provided certain additional conditions am imposed to insure compatibility. DISTRICT REVIEW B-I, Limited Neighborhood Business District- Purpose. The purpose of the B-1, Limited Neighborh0ocl Business District is to provide for the establishment of local centers for convenient, limited office, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer from whom the goods or services ar~ furnished. These centers axe to provide services and goods only for the surrounding neighborhoods and am not intended to draw customers from the entire community. As shown on Exhibit A, very few B-1 Zoning Districts currently exist within the City. Where they do exist, such districts typically overlay single sites of Limited size. It is within the framework of the B-l District's puq~se that the potential for adverse impacts and need for conditional use permit processing should b~ ev/luated. Permitted/Conditional Uses. T~e following is a listing of permitted and conditional uses in the City's B-1 Zoning District. Permitted Uses: Conditional Uses: Barber Shops Beauty Shops Essential Services Convenience, Limited Memhanctise, Grocery Stores (not supermarket type) Laundromat Mortuary Government and Utility Buildings Professional and Commercial Offices Commercial PUD Convemence Food Take-Out/Delivery EstabLishment Findings. Of the aforementioned B-I District conditional uses, a number hold characteristics which may make them more appropriately designated as permitted uses within the district. Specifically, the following uses should be considered as permitted uses in the B-1 District: Government and Utility Buildings Professional and Commercial Offices To be noted ia that the aforementioned uses hold characteristics similar to several permitted uses in the district and the additional conditions imposed upon such uses ~ applied regardless through general provision requirements (i.e., conformance with setback, prohibition of outside storage, etc.). It is further recommended that the references to barber and beauty shops (under permitted uses) b~ changed to ~personal service'. In conjunction with such change, the term "personal service" will be specifically del'reed to include a variety of service businesses including barbers, beau~ salons, and similar uses within the Def'mition section of the Zoning Ordinance. B-2, Retail Business Distn'ct Purpoc~. The purpose of the B-2, Retail Business District is to provide for low intensity, mrml or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom goods or services ~ furnished. The uses allowed in the district a~ to provide goods and services on a Limited commumty market scale and located in areas which a_~ well served by collector or arterial street facilities at the edge of residential districts. As shown on Exhibit A, tim 13-2 Zoning District has timitedr application in the City. Such dismct is most prevalent along the ~ast~m portion of the Bass Lake Road comdor. Petmitted~Couditional Us~, Tim following is a listing of pemit',ad and conditional uses in the City's B-2 Zoning District. Permitted Us~: Permitted Uses in the B-1 District Laundry and Dry Cleaning Grocery Store. s/Supermarkets Antique Shops Art/School Supplies, Book, Office Supplies, Stationery Stores Bicycle Sales/Repair " Candy, Ice Cream, Ice Milk, Popcorn, Nuts, Frozen I~ssens, Packaged Snacks, Soft Drinks 3 Conditional Use,s: Carpet, Rugs and Tile and Other Floor Coverings Cohn and Philatelic Stores Commercial and Professional Offices Copy and Printing Service Costume and Clothes Rental Office Equipment Stores Drug Store Employment Agencies Florist Shop Furniture Stores Furriers when Conducted Only for Retail Trade, on l:~mises Gift or Novelty Stores Hobby Store Insurance Sales Locksmith Meat Market But Not Including Locker Storage Paint and Wallpaper Sales Plumbing, Television, Radio, Electrical Sales and Such Repair Toy Stores Tailor S hops J'ewelry Shops and Other Sirnila~ Uses Travel Bureaus, Transportation, Ticket Offi~ Variety Stores, 15/10 Cent Stores, Stores of Similar Nature Wearing Apparel Banks, Savings/Loans, Credit Unions, Other Financial Institutions Record Shop Real Estate Sales Building Material Sa/es of Retail Nature in Totally Enclosed Building Fabric Stores Camera/Photographic Supplies R~staurant Off-Sale Liquor Stores Sporting Goods Stores Pet Shops I-Ia~wa~ Stores Conditional Us~s in the B-1 District Multiple Family Buildings Commercial PUD Banks Electrical Appliance Stores Fabric Stores 4 Off-Sale Liquor Offset Printing and Copy Service Restaurants Camera and Photographic Supplies Book Stores Medical Garden Novel~ Stores Findings. Numerous permitted uses in the B-2 District are replicated as listed conditional uses. This raises obvious concerns in regard to Ordinance interpretation. Specifically, the following uses ar~ listed as both permitted and conditional uses in the B-2 District: Banks Electrical AppUance Stores Fabric Stores Off-Sale Liquor Camera and Photographic Supplies , Within the context of the 13-2 Zoning District, the following conditional uses have characteristics which make them more appropriately designated as l~rmitted uses: Government and Utility Buildings Professional and Commercial Offices Banks (Without a Drive Through) Fabric Stores Electrical Appliance Stores Restaurants (Without a Drive Th.rough) Camera and Photographic Supplies Book Stor~s '. Medical Garden Novelty Stores (Without Outdoor Sales) Generally speaking, the aforementioned uses are considered similar in nature to permitted uses within the district. For ~, it is believed a fabric store holds no greater land use impact than a supermarket or dry cleaning facility. It is further _r~cornmended that multiple fmrtily buildings be prohibited in the B-2 District as their existence lies contraxy to the district purpos~ of establishment. B-3, Auto Oriented Business District Purpose. The purpose of the B-3, Auto Oriented Business District is to provide for and Limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. As shown on Exhibit A, the City's B-3 Zoning Districts flank Bass Lake Road and 42nd Avenue. Permitted/Conditional Uses. The following is a listing of permitted and conditional uses in the City's B-3 Zortmg District. Permitted Uses: Auto Accessory Stor~ Motor Vehicle and Recreation Equipment Sales and Accessory Gaxages Motels Restaurants ,amusement Rides Conditional Uses: Motor Fuel Station, Auto Repaix-Minor, T'tre and Battery Stores and Service Convenience Store with Gasoline. : Drive In and Convenience Food Car Washes Motor Vehicle Sales, Service, Leasing/Rental and Repair Conditional Accessory Uses: Automobile Service Operations Retail Sales Accessory to Auto Service Stations Open Storage Outdoor Sales and Service Enclosed Sales and Service Take Out Service Windows (Drive Th_rough) Propane LP Gas Sales Outdoor D~n~n~ Findings. In review of the B-3 District conditional uses, it is believed all hold characteristics which warrant the imposition of ~ifional, use specific performance standards to ensure land use compatibility and maintain the public health, safety and welfare. B-4, Community Business Distn'ct Purpose. The purpose of the B-4, Community Busiaess District is to provide for the establishment of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve customers from the entir~ community or sub-region. Permitted/Conditional Uses. The following is a Listing of permitted and conditional uses in the City's B-I Zoning District. Permitted Uses: Permitted Uses in the B-1 and B-2 Districts Antique Shops Art/School Supplies, Book, Office Supplies, Stationery Stores Bicycle Sales/Repair Candy, Ice Cream, Ice Milk, Popcorn, Nuts, Frozen Desserts, Packaged Snacks, Soft Drinks Carpet, Rugs and Tile and Other Floor Coverings Coin and Philatelic Stores , Commercial and Professional offices Copy and Printing Service Costume and Clothes Rental Office Equipment Stores Enclosed Boat and Marine Sales Dry Cleaning Including Plant Ac. cessory Heretofore, Pre.ising and Repai.nng Drug Store Employment Agencies Florist Shop Furniture Stores Fumers When Conducted Only for Retail Trade, on l:~mises Garden Novelty Stores Gilt or Novelty Stores Hobby Stor~ Insurance Sales Meat Market But Not Including Locker Storage Paint and Wallpaper Sales Plumbing; Television, Radio, Electrical Sales and Such Repair Theaters, Not Outdoor Drive-In Type Toy Stores Custom Manufacturing and Repair Tailor Shops 1ewetry Shops and Other Similar Uses Travel Bureaus, Transportation, Ticket Offices Variety Sto~s, 5/i0 Cent Stores, Stores of Similar Nature Conditional Uses: Wearing Apparel Bard, s, Savings/Loans, Cr~clit Unions, Other Fi. na~cial institutions Public Garage/Parking Ramp Record Shop Real Estate Sales Building Material Sales or Retail Nature in Totally Enclosed Building Fabric Stor~s Camera/Photographic Suppties Restaurant Off-Sale Liquor Stores Medical Sporting Goods Stores Pet Shops Hardware Stores Conditional Uses in the B-3 District, excluding any B-3 uses permitted in the B-4 District Commercial PUD Training Schools (Secondary Use) Veterinarian Clinics Commercial Recreation Facilities" Findings. Of the ligted conditional uses in the B-4 District, veterinarian clinics ar~ allowed subject to conditions which would apply to the us~ regardless of whether it is 'permitted~ or "conditional'. For instance, a veterinarian clinic is allowed under the sole condition that such use comply with the City's noise regulations. From a regulatory standpoint, such use is not considered dissimilar than the majority of permitted uses in the B-4 District. This, however, does not mean that tach us~ does not hold a potential for adverse impacts. In this regard, it is believed that some additional conditions relating to animal confinement, carcass disposal, kennel requimm~U should b~ imposed. This may, however, be consider~ t~yond the scope of this review and may be more appropriately addressed at some future point. Of particular is,sue in the B-4 District is the regulation of commercial recreational facilities. Commercial r~creation.i facilities a.~ defined by the Ordinanc~ as 'bowling alley, golf, pool hall, dance hall, skating, trampoline and similar uses". While commercial r~mlfional uses the scale of a bowling alley, billiard hall roller rink, etc. wer~ recently studied and found to be appropriately designated as conditional uses in the B-4 District, it is believed small scale commercial r~creational uses may be more suitable as permitted Of particular issue a.~ small scale uses such as dance studios, karate instruction, etc. which exist in multiple occupancy commercial buildings (i.e., strip centers). While these smaller recreational facilities would provide for assembly of people for classes or competitions, the size and scale these operations can be regulated to make them consistent with other B-4 permitted uses. in this regard, we believe commercial recreational uses with less than 4,000 square feet of flc~r area could compatibly exist in the B-4 District without need for a public hearing md CUP processing. In review of the tenant breakdowns of the New Hope City Center and Winnetka Center, a standard leasable "bay" measures 3,400 and 1,600 square feet respectively. Based on this and existing business square footage allotments, it is believed a commercial recreational facility less than 4.000 square feet in area would have minimal impact. S~Y It is concluded that a number of co~xlitional uses in the City's various commercial zoning districts may be more appropriately classified as permitted use& Based on an examination of d/strict purpose and use characteristics, the following modifications am recommended: ,', Proposed Permitted Uses: B-1, Limited Neighborhood Business District Government and Utility Buildings Professional and Commercial Uses B-2, Retail Business District Government and Utility Buildings Professional and Commercial Banks (Without a Drive Through) Electrical Appliance Stores Restaurants (Without a Drive Through) Camera and Photographic Supplies Book Stores B-3, Auto Orienled Business District No Changes Pwposed B-4, CommUnity Business District Commercial Recreational Uses I~ss than 4,000 Square Feet in 9 If you have any questions rega=,'ding this material, please do not hesitate to call. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall City of New. Hope I I ' ' AMoc~ated P ~'~ Consultants, inc. EXHIBIT A - ZONING MAP Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: · Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 97-10 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 100-Foot Tall Steel Monopole with Antenna Array for Telecommunications Wireless Service 2900 Nevada Avenue North 20-118-21-34-0029 I-1, Limited Industrial CB Commercial, John Hollenbeck/Northland Mechanical Contractors, Ronald Kocher June 27, 1997 July 1, 1997 UPDATE The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 100-foot tall, steel monopole with antenna array for telecommunications wireless service, pursuant to Sections 4.21, 4.022(3D), 4.039D(3) and 4.144 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. This is an application for a conditional use permit by uS'West that will allow the location of a PCS telephone antenna and cell site on the property at 2900 Nevada Avenue North. CB Commercial has been authorized by US West to act as their representative for planning and zoning matters. US West is proposing to construct a 100-foot steel monopole tower on the noted property. A PCS antenna array will be placed at the top of the pole. The monopole would be located at the northeast corner (rear yard) of the Northland Mechanical Contractors property at the end of Nevada Avenue North, just north of Medicine Lake Road. There is an . existing office/warehouse building on the site, which contains 4.3 acres. This application was reviewed in detail at the June Planning Commission meeting and was tabled until July so that additional information and plan revisions could be submitted by the petitioner. The questions and issues that were raised by commissioners at the June meeting that needed to be addressed by the petitioner from staff's perspective, after reviewing the unofficial minutes from the meeting, are as follows: A. Setback requirements from property line and existing/future building. B. Collapse information; if setback requirements are waived. C. Anti-climb device. D. Removal letter. E. Structural Analysis - not completed by a certified engineer. F. Future plans to ~xpand building (tower location could impact future building setback). G. Consistency between site and landscape plan - fence height. H. Other landscape plan issues? .. I. Soils data. J. Documentation re: accommodating two antenna arrays. 6. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and the property owner on June 12 and additional documentation and a revised landscaping plan have been provided at or subsequent to that meeting. 7. The issues listed above are addressed as follows: A. Setback requirements from property line and existinq/future building: The new ordinance states that "Antenna towers shall maintain a setback to the nearest property line of seventy-five (75) percent of tower height and a minimum setback from a building in the same lot of fifty (50) percent of tower height." As you are aware, the proposed tower is 100 feet tall, so the minimum setback from the property line is 75 feet and the minimum setback from a building on the same lot is 50 feet. "The setback requirements may be reduced if the applicant provides documentation by a registered engineer that any collapse of the tower will occur in a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. The setback requirements shall not be reduced below the collapse area of the tower or the minimum setback requirements of the base zoning district, whichever is greater." This proposed tower is set back 44 feet from the north property line and over 135 feet from the building. Therefore, the 50 percent tower height from building' setback requirement is met, but the 75 percent tower height from property line is not met. The petitioner has determined to leave the tower in the original proposed location and has provided a new letter regarding collapse documentation (see below). Staff and the Design & Review Committee find that the new letter meets the requi~rements of the code and that the setback requirements from the property line can be reduced. B. Collapse information if setback requirements are waived; The petitioner has provided a new letter dated June 5 from Millerbernd Manufacturing and signed by a Registered Professional Engineer. The third paragraph of the letter states that "With the pole designed and manufactured in accordance with the above criteria, Millerbernd Mfg. Co. certifies that the monopole will not collapse." C. Anti-climb device: The Design & Review Committee is recommending that-the requirement for an anti-climb device be waived, as this is a smooth monopole that will be surrounded by a fence. Staff agree with that recommendation. D. Removal letter: The Commission agreed at the June meeting, as did the City Attorney, that the addendum to the lease agreement regarding the lessee restoring the lessors property to its original condition after the lease is terminated was adequate to fulfill the ordinance requirement for removal. The City Attorney confirmed that the statement was a guarantee by the lessee to restore the property to its original condition, which would be interpreted to be the removal of the tower. In addition, U.S. West has submitted the attached June 10 letter stating that the tower would be removed within 12 months of cessation of operation. E. Structural Analysis by certified engineer; This will be a condition of approval and must be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. F. Future plans to expand buildinq (tower location could impact future building setback): Northland Mechanical has indicated that they may expand their building in 1998, but would probably down-scale the expansion and eliminate the "east jog" of the building expansion (see site plan for Phase 1 and 2). The owners do not feel that the tower will impact their expansion and understand that any building expansion will have to maintain a 50-foot setback from the tower. G. Consistency between site and landscape plan - fence height: The petitioner has submitted a revised landscaping plan which indicates that the fence will be eight- feet in height. This height is consistent with the site plan. H. Other landscape plan issues: The petitioner has eliminated the generic landscape plan and has developed a plan specifically for this site. Due to the fact that there is already extensive foliage on the north and east sides of the tower, the plan has been revised to eliminate additional landscaping on these sides. All landscaping is on the south and west sides. Please refer to the revised landscaping plan and schedule. Staff finds the plan acceptable. I. Soils data: This will be a condition of approval and must be submitted prior to the issuance of a building p, ermit. J. Documentation re: accommodating two antenna arrays: This information is already shown on the plans. .. The petitioner has also sent a letter regarding access port documentation. The proposed monopole would have access ports 15 feet and 30 feet below the antennas at 100 feet, so the access ports for other users would be at 85 and 70 feet in height. Staff finds that the petitioner has addressed all issues raised at the June Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend approval of the conditional use permit to construct a 100-foot monopole at 2900 Nevada Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with State Building Code. 2. Structural analysis by Minnesota Certified Engineer. 3. Submittal of soils data. Attachments: 6/17 Petitioner Correspondence Revised Landscape Plan and Schedule 6/5 Correspondence from Millerbernd 6/10 US West Removal Letter 2/27 Millerbernd Pole Extension/Access Ports 6/26 City Attorney Correspondence June Planning Case Report CB COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE GROUP. INC. BROKER.',GE SERVICES lrlCB COMMERCIAL Delivering Solutions Through Local Knowledge Worldwide FOUNDED i906 June 17, 1997 Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue NOrth New Hope, MN 55428 Application to Construct PCS Telephone Monopole at 2900 Nevada Avenue North Dear Mr. McDonald: Enclosed please find a revised landscape plan (10 copies) for US West's proposed monopole at the above referenced location. Please contact me at 603-6i27 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, . Scott Hoelscher Zoning Specialist CB Commercial Real Estate Group, Inc. IN EXCLUSIVE ,-kLLI.-kNCE WITH DTZ AND C.¥. LEUNG EXCEEDING CLIENT ES:.PECTATIONS AROUND TI-I~-; GLOBE 2550 UNIVERSITY .\VENUE WEST. SUITE 159 SOUTH. ST. PAUL. MINNESOT.-\ 55114-1052 GATE ._.-~-8' 'qlO~ SECURITY'FENCE / SEE OE x/XX ---/ FOR M )RE INFORMATION ON EO'JIPMENT PA0 MONOPOLE LOCATION PLANTINC LAYOUT COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE NOTES AUSTRIAN PiNE PlNU'S NIGRA 8~GT. 8&dB 8LACK HILLS SPRUCE ASH PICEA GLAUCA 0ENSATA ¢RAXINUS PENN. 'MARSNALLS SEEOLESS' 8'HGT. CAL. BUSH HONEYSUCKLE OIERWLLA LON:CER'A #5 POT AM. HIGHBUSH CRANBERRY ~8URNUM TRILOBUM 0 5 SQ.~LE iN rEEf PLOF Af J' = 5' 8&8 'I PLANT tO' O.C. PLANT I0' O.C. PLACE AS SHOWN 3' O.C. 5' 0.C. Ujrr- . t.q,, 0 · 0 IvtQNOPOLE LOCATION PLANTING LA¥OUI O COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE AUS FRIAN PINE , PINUS NIGRA 8'H GT. O&-9 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE PICEA GLAUCA DENSATA 8'HGT. MARSHALL SEEDLESS ASH FRAXINUS PENN, 'MARSHALLS SEEOLESS".. 2.5' CAL. 8&8 BUSH HONEYSUCKLE 01ERkqLLA LONICERA POT AM. HIGHBUSH CRANBERRY V~BURNUM TRILOBUM S' B&8 NOTES PLANT Io' O.C. PLANT 10' O.C. PLACE AS SHOWN 3' O.C. 5' O.C. 0 S I0 SCALE IN FEE PLOT AT BECHTEL TELECOM 199'7 $oott B~ 4.26 North Fairvigw, P, oom 101 St. Paul, Mlq ~104 Millcfoemd Mfg; Co. only uses Ammic~-~d¢ cazbcm si¢cl (A~TM A5'72 o: A60'/) which Ms a f0,000 laSI rain yield. Ail ou: ~el is order~l with ,,,m ~ertifics:ic~ to v~ ~eg~/of the matccilL Ihe ,~1 cerr~_~2~_~ arc kep~ cra ~ should a copy bc r~q~k~d at some fiau~c dat~, Only AW$-D 1. i' ' SUuctwal Wcldi~ Code" qualified pe:sennel will be used ~ ~¢ ot'~ ~. 'Wold inspections vaql be p~,ormed by $~WI:-TC-lA cl,,,l;~ed Teat pe:~nnel to vori~ the soun,:~ of the welds. - exceeds tl~ nlonopole caGT capabilities, th~ pole val[aot collapse, bu: talh~ ~ top of the pole -,rill star: to bend ore: and the pole will belkin t° l°ek l~c an upfide cl°v~a [ The bendi~ wffl con:iaue umil the a~:~aus at t~e top ~thc pole :ear.,b. a poslti~ mc~. ~ tho wimi is blowi~ crc: the aale,~-, and not in~o them On~o :~ position is reached, the monopole will stop be~di~ ami maim~ that poski~ 1%: tho bcndins to happen, d~e wind would have to over 175 MPH a~cl be ~ roi a ~ olive. MILLERBEFtND MANUFACTURING COMPANY · P.O. BOX 98 ' WlNSTED, MINNESOTA 55395 PHONE (320) 48S-211f ' FAX (320) 485.4420 '97 ~2:27~M BECHTEL TELECOM ~..L]le~b~ M.~ .Co. ~ br.~ ~. bu~t ~iz~ 193:3 a~cl m~m~:rb~ mozu:~oles ~iz~e 1~45. ~.~ 1990. /.~ tl~ i.b~, 40 i~b~ a~te~ mo:urpoles ~v~ been tn~ a~t aL~o ~t ~¥ If:you liav¢ any questions W~lea$ WEST WIRELESS STP H0.597 e.l×l $~e 10, 199'7 Mr. Doug Sandstad BuJ/diug Officiah City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave. North New Hop=, ~ 55428 Proposed U S West PCS Facility 2900 Nevada Ave, Dear Mr. Sandstad; I am writing ~o confirm that U S West's proposed monopole at the above referenced location will be removed within 12 months of cessation ofopemion. This is in accordance tn Section 4.039D Personal Wkeless, Service Ante~_na~ ,~d Towers of the New Hope City Ordinance No. 9%04. Please contact mc at ~2-6016 if you have my questions regard/rig t~ mat~er. Regional Real Estate Manager U S Wcs~ Wireless JUM.E6.1997 2:35PM CB COMMERCIAL STP M0.021 ~.1/1 February 27, 1997 Mr. scott R. Ballan¢e BECKrrJ, CORPORATION 426 Nogh Falrv/ew Room 101 St. Paul, MN. 551O4 Fax Note 7671 RE: M~.,j~acture and design of monopole tubular structures to accommodate future additions of equipnlellt. Dear Mr. Ballance: During our telephone conversation the other day, you expressed concern regarding the availab/li~ to design and mamffa~ monopole mru~es ti~ can be modified aI a laIer date to accept ,, additional equipment in the future. We understand the rapid growth of the cellular communications market requires that some monopole locations will need the availability to "co- locate" with other systems to facilk~ ~ growth. Please be assured flint lVfillerbemd Mi'g. Co. has tim design and manufa~g capability to en~eer and mamifacturo monopole slructures thai can be moai~ed to accommodate mos~ requirements. Howe~er, fntmre loading requirements need to be eni~ineered into the initial design of the monopole structmre. These requirements are generally depemie~ on equipment such as antenna and microwave dish quantity, size, and elevation, local codes and wind load velocit~ requirezuents, soil conditions, and aesthetic value requirements of 6ae project. Our experience wi~ "co-locaiin~" additional equipmen~ on monopole st.rucmres include the addition of equipment on the original slruct~, or by the addition of extra len~h to the monopole to accommodate the additional equipment. Additional ini~ormation regarding this information may be ~btained by contacting our eagineeririg depar~ent or this office. Sincerely: Michael $.Wendolek Sal~s Manager cc: Bechtell ~le MILLERBERND MANUFACTURING COMPANY · ~0. BOX 98 · I/VlNSTED, MINNESOTA 55395 PHONE (320) 485-2111 ' FAX (320) 485-4420 JUN-26-97 THU 15:46 P, 02/02 MAI~'IN p. MALl=CMA Com, mc~ & Soz~o~.a~LZ,, P.A. A;n'C'~RN~¥~ A'r LAw Ed~burgh Excc~ O~cc PI~ 8525 Edinbr~k CroSsing Suite ~203 Brooklyn P~k. M~nesotm 554~3 ~P~OHE (612) 4~?~ June 26, 1997 Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue Nnrth New Hop~, MN 55428 RE: 2900 Neveda Antenna Monopole CB Commercial Variance Request Our File: 99,10038 Dear Kirk: This letter is in response to your ,June 25, 1997 E-mail regardin9 the referenced matter. I have reviewed the letter provided by the engineer for Millerbernd Mfg, Co. concerning the collapse issue with respec~ to thelr monopoles. Zt ie my opinion the letter meets the requirements of New Hope Code §4.039D(3)(g) on variance~ for monopole ~etback requirements. The author of the letter is a Minnesot= registered professional engineer(reg,~24741). In 'the letter the engineer certifies the pole will no~ collapse unless wind~ exceed 175 mph for an ex~ended period o¢ time. He further indicates the welds wilt be in~pected by SNT-TC-1A qualified ~es~ personnel. The referenced code section indicates minimum setbacks can be reduced if documentation is provided by a registered engineer that any collapse of the pole will occur in a lesser distance under all for'e~eeable circumstances, If one concludes from the engineer's letter this pole will not collapse under any foreseeable c~rcumstance a reduction ~r'om the minimum setbacks would he appropriate, In my opinion ~he letter mee[s the requirements of our code ~o jusbify a reduction. Steven A. $ondmalt zlt2 Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 97-10 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a 100-Foot Tall Steel Monopole with Antenna Array for Telecommunications Wireless Service 2900 Nevada Avenue North 20-118-21-34-0029 I-1, Limited Industrial CB Commercial, John HollenbeckJNorthland Mechanical Contractors, Ronald Kocher May 30,1997 June 3,1997 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 100-foot tall steel monopole with antenna array for telecommunications wireless service, pursuant to Sections 4.21, 4.022(3D), 4.039D(3) and 4.144 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. This is an application for a conditional use permit by US West that will allow the location of a PCS telephone antenna and cell site on the property at 2900-Nevada Avenue North. CB Commercial has been authorized by US West to act as their representative for planning and zoning matters. US West is proposing to construct a 100-foot steel monopole tower on the noted property. A PCS antenna array will be placed at the top of the pole. 3. The monopole would be located at the northeast corner (rear yard) of the Northland Mechanical Contractors property at the end of Nevada Avenue North, just north of Medicine Lake Road. There is an existing office/warehouse building on the site, which contains 4.3 acres. 4. CB Commercial states that the foundation for the tower will be a caisson type. The tower steel and foundation will be designed following specifications as determined by the tower manufacturer. These specifications take into account soils, local wind loading guidelines, and the type of equipment to be attached to the tower. A safety factor is included in the design parameters resulting in a tower that typically exceeds local building code requirements. Additionally, the cell site will meet both FAA and FCC requirements for the location. Tower color will be chosen to blend in with the surrounding environment. No signs or lighting will be attached to the tower. 5. The petitioner further states that an unmanned prefabricated equipment pad measuring approximately 12'0" x 9'6" x 6'0" will be located at the base of the pole. The drainage of the site will not be changed. A chain link fence and landscaping will be implemented per the City's requirements. The site will only require single phase 200 amp electrical service and T1 telephone for utilities. These will be brought in underground. 6. Surrounding zoning/land uses are I-1 office/warehouse to the north, wetland/marsh zoned I-t to the east (and several R-1 properties), I-1 office/warehouse to the south, and a non-conforming home located in an I-1 zone to the west. 7. The area is known as Planning District 30 in the Comprehensive Plan and contains a small industrial park at the southeast corner of the City. 8. One paved parking space is available for service within 75' of the tower. Note from the Building Official's attachments that the north half of this property is not yet developed. 9. The topography of the property slopes toward the east marsh and the property contains m~n~mal~'-. vegetation'. 10. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments regarding this request. The City of Crystal was also notified due to the proximity of the municipal boundary. ANALYSIS Conditional Use Permit 1. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the conditional use is to be allowed, the City may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings, whether .or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite for consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health, and safety. 2. Other general criteria to be considered when determining.whether to approve or deny a conditioqal use permit include: A. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been. considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City. B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the Code. O. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. E. Zoninq District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts: 1. In Industrial Districts (I-1, I-2): a. Nuisance. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon existing oi' future development in adjacent areas. b. Economic Return. The use will provide an economic return to the community and commensurate with other industrial uses that the property could feasibly be used for. In considering the economic return to the community, the Planning Commission and City Council may give weight to the sociological impact of a proposed use, both positive and negative. 3. The petitioner has submitted the following statements in regard to the Zoning Code criteria for a CUP: A. The site meets the City's standards for conditional uses. The antenna will be visually unobtrusive and go unnoticed by the casual observer. B. New wireless communication technology has developed rapidly in the past few years and many new applications are vital to industrial and business uses. Business and industry will be seeking out and adapting to these new technologi~ to remain competitive as the new Information Highway becomes a reality. Having access to these emerging wireless technologies will be an important amenity for the success of future business. C. This site will enhance public safety and welfare because it will enable US West to bring this New CDMA cellular technology to the area. The ability to transmit data such as fax, paging and computer data transmission will open a whole new way for business, individuals, and government services to communicate. Police can use CDMA cellular fax machines as part of their drug enforcement program to obtain immediate search warrants when illegal activity is observed without leaving the scene. Firefighters can receive faxed blueprints of a building en route to more safely fight fires. Ambulances can use it to transmit vital data to emergency rooms which allows the emergency rooms to be better prepared to receive injured accident victims. At spill sites, hazardous material information can be obtained "on site" by accessing computer data bases throughout the country with a CDMA cellular modem. Motorists who do not have the cellular phones are benefited by this system. Passing motorists with a phone can place an emergency call. D. CDMA cellular radio transmissions are very safe and pose no health risk. It is really nothing more than a digital Iow power two-way radio. CDMA cellular uses Iow power to insure that the signal stays within the designated "cell" so it will not interfere with neighboring "cells." The output for PCS cellular is 40 watts. Television and radio station transmitting towers can range from 50,000 watts to one million watts of power output. In fact, the output of a PCS antenna array impacts the population at approximately half the output and associated absorption rate of the microwave oven found in most kitchens. E. The question is often asked if the operation of a' Cellular antenna will affect home rad~ and television reception. The use of the frequency spectrum is tightly controlled by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The CDMA cellular system is operated in the 1900 MHz range. This is a higher frequency on the radio spectru~n than home radio and television frequencies. This is important because higher frequency users cannot interfere with lower frequency users. Since 1984, over 15,000 cellular antennas have been erected across the United States, and there have been no documented instances of interference with home entertainment equipment. Additior~ally, CDMA encoding will virtually eliminate the possibility of phone number cloning and cell number theft. Staff agree that the plans meet the CUP criteria, as the proposed tower use is compatible with an industrial area, it will not create any nuisance characteristics, and it will provide an economic return. Ordinance 97-04 1. The newly adopted ordinance establishing regulations for the construction and placement of telecommunication towers and facilities states that "Personal wireless service antennas erected on an antenna tower may be allowed as a conditionally permitted use within Industrial Zoning Districts, provided they comply with the following standards: A. Unless the antenna tower and land is under the same ownership, written authorization for antenna and antenna tower erection shall be provided by the property owner as well as the applicant. B. All obsolete and unused antenna towers shall be removed within twelve (12) months of cessation of operation at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the City Manager or designate. The removal shall be the joint and several responsibility of the antenna tower owner and land owner. C, All antenna towers shall be in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. D. Structural design and construction plans of the antenna towers shall be in compliance with manufacturer's specifications'-and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. E. When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna towers shall be accompanied by any required federal, state, or local agency licenses. F, The City many authorize the use of City property for an antenna tower in appropriately zoned districts in accordance with the procedures of the City Code. The City shall have no obligation whatsoever to use City property for such purposes. G. Antenna towers shall maintain a minimum setback to the nearest property line of seventy-five (75) percent of tower height and a minimum setback from a building in the same lot of fifty (50) percent of tower height. The setback requirements may be reduced if the applicant provides documentation by a registered engineer that any collapse of the tower will occur in a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. The setback requirements shall not be reduced below the collapse area of the tower or the minimum setback requirements of the base zoning district, whichever is greater. H. All antenna towers shall maintain a minimum separation of one thousand (1,000) feet from existing towers at the time the conditional use permit is approved. I. Maximum height of a two antenna array tower shall be one hundred forty-five (145) feet. A tower providing for three or more antenna arrays may have-a maximum height of one hundred sixty- five (165) feet. J. Antenna towers shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by the ~ederal Aviation Administration (FAA) to protect the public's health and safety. K. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna tower. L. Antenna towers shall be painted silver or have a galvanized finish to reduce visual impact, unless otherwise required by federal law. M. Antenna towers shall be of a color and configuration as to minimize adverse visual effects ~n order that such facilities harmonize with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. N. A security fence eight (8) feet in height shall be provided around the base of the antenna tower. A locked anti-climb device shall be installed on all towers extending twelve (12) feet above the ground. ©. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, whether self-contained or located in a free- standing equipment building, shall be located at the base of the antenna tower and shall be screened from view from residential uses and public right-of-ways. P. If a new antenna tower is to be constructed, it shall be designated to accommodate at least two (2) antenna arrays including, but not limited to, other personal wireless service companies, local police. fire, and ambulance companies. Q. The conditional use permit provisions of Section 4.21 of this Code must also be satisfied. The petitioner met with the Design & Review Committee on May 15 and all of the ordinance requirements were reviewed. Additional plans/documents were submitted as a result of the meeting. The specific applicable requirements of Ordinance 97-04 are addressed as follows and also outlined on the enclosed PCS CUP checklist from the Building Official: A. Written authorization by the property owner has been provided. B. Removal - Staff requests that the.tower owner and land owner submit a signed statement indicating that they will be responsible for removing the tower within 12 months of cessation of operation at the site if it becomes obsolete and unused, and that this be a condition of the CUP approval. C. Building Code compliance will be a condition of approval. D. Structural desiqn verification by engineer - A structural analysis has been provided and will also be a condition of approval. E. Federal License has been provided. F. Not applicable. G. Setbacks or "confined collapse" documentation - The tower is set back 44 feet from the north property line and over 135 feet from the building. The 50 percent tower height from building setback requirement is met, but the 75 percent tower height from property tine is not met. Setback requirements may be reduced if collapse documentation is provided. The petitioner has provided two letters regarding the structural integrity of the tower (November 7, 1996, letter from Engineered Endeavors, Inc., and May 12, 1997, letter from Millerbernd). H. 1,000-foot separation - The tower meets the 1,000-foot separation requirement: please see Building Official attachment. I. Height - Maximum height of a three antenna array tower can be 165 feet and this tower is 100 feet tall, with antenna array at 100 feet and future growth at 70 feet and 85 feet. J. Illumination - none proposed. K. Advertising - none proposed. . L. & M, Paintin,q - The tower extension will be painted silver or gray to reduce visual impact. N. Security fence/anti-climb device - The site will be surrounded by an eight-foot chain-link fence. The petitioner has not submitted information for an anti-climb device. Any approval should include this condition. O. Equipment at base of tower - An unmanned prefabricated equipment pad (12' x 9' x 6') will be tocated at the base of the pole to hold the necessary equipment for the tower. A detailed, generous landscaping plan and schedule have been submitted showing landscaping on all sides (exterior) of the fenced enclosure, including Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce, Marshall Seedless Ash, 'Bush Honeysuckle and Cranberry. 'Staff find that the petitioner has submitted or is in the process of submitting all of the information requested by the Design & Review Committee. The revised plans also show the location of the building to the north and include an erosion control fence. Staff does want to take this opportunity to comment on the Northland Mechanical property. The property is "unfinished," since it was built in 1984 as "Phase 1." Council allowed Northland Mechanical to defer the completion of the north half landscaping and paving/curbing until "Phase 2" building was erected, understood to be a few years. The property owner was required to apply for a CUP for outdoor storage on the day of final inspection of the new building in 1984. Plan Case 85-1 was approved, as a CUP for the outdoor storage of six semi-trailers on the unfinished north side of the building, with no screening and a maintained driveway. The General Inspector has regularly found that their storage exceeded the scope of the CUP. Staff ask that a revised Site Plan be submitted for completion of the entire property in a reasonable manner. The City now permits outdoor storage in the I-1 zone, not to exceed 20 percent of the building, under a set of conditions. With the 24,000 square feet of warehouse, Northland can show 4,800 square feet of outdoor storage on a finished surface, without any CUP, in the new plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend approval of the CUP to. construct a 100-foot monopote at 2900 Nevada Avenue North. subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with State Building Code. 2. Engineer's certification of ail tower modifications. 3. Submittal of"Removal Statement." 4. Submit anti-climb device details for this tower and submit revised elevation and specifications, which are to be reviewed/approved by Building Official. 5. Annual inspection by staff. 6. Property owner is requested to submit a revised 1997 site plan for completed property. Attachments: Zoning/Address/Topo/Aerial Maps Certified Survey 5/29 Petitioner Correspondence Revised Plans: Title Sheet Vicinity Map Site Plan Equipment Pad Plan Monopole Elevation Landscaping Plan/Schedule Monopole Color Photo 5/5 Petitioner Correspondence 5/2 Petitioner Correspondence Site Lease Agreement FCC License Information Miscellaneous Submittals PCS Tower CUP Checklist Tower Separation Map Building Official Attachments re: Outdoor Storage and Phase Construction Collapse Information Letter Application Log I-1 Limited [n'ustr: I-2 General Industr Open Space 1 INCH = 1000 F 1000 ~ AL LANE 7/~1 o z 1 I ~_7ZI ~.71! ~?~ 7 N '? ·. ZTO 1 .//. COUNTY ROAD NO. ! PI?O,J[(:T IqO. Mlfq Ofi. T ~CAL{E . ~ - NSg'sg'04' E ..... ~o ~ t{' ~ ' ' / / '-* gfl~'O4'W 334 ~4 z ~..,~¥ ,o. []OARMAN_- KROOS_PFISrER_ VOGEl_._.& ASSOCIAES CFRI11qCAYION: I he~y cm'flfy that this map worn prepared by mi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ and Ihd I ~ o du~ Uce~ ~.d Su~wor ~d~ the Iow~ of ~e store of Minnesota. ~bd fhll tBth d~ of ~ember, IgOr. ~ ~vi~ed thll 2nd d~ of M~1997~~ 1. I, Io lille wo~ was fumlehed fo~ lhe F~l~lmllon of ~s ~ lo ved~ the I.qal 2. ~1~ mu~ do~ not pu~ lo mhow afl Imp~enb lo the p~pe~. ] ~ o~o of lhe prope~ 4eK~d he~on b 1~,664 ~re feel or 4.377 4 g~H~K: T~ nt~ of th, ~nl ~ot~ ot the Int~K~ M ~h A~nue Nodh and L~ubbn~ Avenu~ No~h. (~jnn -'g37.~ boo 2~10/15 ECAN, FIELD & NOWAK INC. SURVEYORS 23702R1 1702 CB COMMERCLNL RE.~ ESTAT~ Oaoc'~. IrlCB COMMERCIAL Detiverzng Solucion~ ?hrou~h Local Knowledge ~ortdwMe FOL ND£D :-nX~ May 29, [997 Doug Sandstad City, of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Conditional Use Permit application to construct 100' monopole. Dear Mr. Sandstad Enclosed please revised site plans for US West's proposed monopole at 2900 Nevada Avenue North, New Hope. The revised plans show the existing building to the north of the said property and a erosion control fence. Please feel free to call me at 603-6127 if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, Scott Hoelscher Zoning Specialist CB Commercial-Telecommunication Division EXCLUSIVE ALLIANCE V~ITt't DTZ .aND C.Y. LEUNG --~ EXCEEDING CLIENT EXPECTATIONS AROUND rile GLOBE 2550 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST. SUITE 159 SOUTH. ST PAUL. MINNESOTA 55114-1052 SITE NO. SITE NAME: CITY: U S WEST MIN-063 NEVADA AVE. N. NEW HOPE ZONING SUBMITTAL INDEX %lrl~ ~ ! [ VAHON WIRELESS PROJECT COUNTY: HENNEPIN STATE: MINNESOTA DESIGN TYPE: MONOPOLE PROJECT INFORMATION SITE NAME: NFVAOA AVE N SITE ADDRESS:'2900 NEVADA AV[Nll[ NORTIf NEW HOP[, MINN[ SOfA OWNED: US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 426 NORTtt FAIRVIEW, ROOM 101 Sr. PAUL MINNESOIA ,~)S104 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: BECHI[I_ IFIECOM (612) 642-6294 ENGINEER: RECHTFI_ TELECOM (612) 642-6294 SURVEYOR: [GAN. FIFID & NOWAf< (~17) 546 6R,37 T LUCENT TF. CHNOLOC~.,S ~ "~' ~ "~ I MIN 063 ~ ,Krr cm~m ~. ~mmJ~.-.._.__ _ ~ .( ANTENNA '5' TYPICAL MONOPOLE LOCATION PLANTING LAYOUT AUS r'RIAN ~IC~A GLAUCA O F~AXINU$ PENN. ~SU~,NU~ T~ILQSU~,i 5' B~J~ .T 0.C. § I0 ~LOf ~f t' = tO' lll'.'~~-~ t~ommanications MIN063 2900 Nevada Ave., New Hope .~[onopo/e Height: 100' CB COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE GROL'R INC. B ROK.F-.R~GE SERVICE~ I]CB COMMERCIAL Delivering Solutions Through ~'~ Local Knowledge ~brldwide FOUNDED May 5, I997 Doug Sandstad-Building Official City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Mr. Sandstad: Enclosed are the additional Conditional Use Permit submittal requirements for US West's proposed monopole at 2900 Nevada Avenue. Please find the following items: -20 sets of 11" x 17" site plans. -20 copies of enlarged landscape plans (attached to the site plans). -20 color computer renderings of the proposed monopole. -Revised property survey showing all easements. -Owners signature (see permit authorization). -Evidence of Title: Owners and Encumbrance Report. -Statement regarding the signage and lighting of tower (see letter to Kirk McDonald dated May 2, 1997). -Letter from Engineered Endeavors Incorporated: Statement addressing the reliability of the steel monopole. -Copy of the lease. -Proof of US West's FCC license. US West was awarded the D block PCS license in January of 1997. FCC review and processing of applications will take 3-4 months. have enclosed a letter and article showing the winning bids for the PCS licenses. Thank you for your continued assistance regarding this matter. Please feel free to call me at 603- 6127 with any additional questions you may have. Sincerely, t _ Scott Hoelscher Zoning Specialist CB Commercial-Telecommunications Division IN EXCLUSIVE ALLIANCE WITH DTZ AND C.Y. LEUNG ~ EXCEEDING CLIENT EXPECTATIONS AROUND THE GLOBE 2550 UNIVERSITY AVENUE %'t:ST. SurrE 159 SOD'TH, ST, PAUL. MINNESOTA 55114-1052 CB COM2vtERCL L 2550 UniversityAvenueWest Suite 159S St. PauI, MN55114 (612) 603-6129 Fax(612) 645-1526 May 2,1997 Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, ~ 55428 RE: US West Site# ~063 Dear ,Mr. McDonald: This letter accompanies an application for a Conditional Use Permit by US West that will allow the location of a PCS telephone antenna and cell site on the property, at 2900 Nevada Avenue North. CBC has been authorized by US West to act as their representative for planning and zoning matters. PROPOSED USE US West is proposing to construct a steel monopole tower on the noted property. A PCS antenna array will be placed at the top of the pole. The foundation for the tower will be a caisson type. The tower steel and foundation will be designed following specifications as determined by the tower manufacturer. These specifications take into account soils, local wind loading guidelines and the type of equipment to be attached to the tower. A safety factor is included in the design parameters resulting in a tower that typically exceeds local building code requirements. Please reference the enclosed drawings and the specification sheet from Engineered Endeavors, inc. Additionally, the cell site will meet both FAA and FCC requirements for the location. Tower color will be chosen to blend in with the surrounding environment. No signs or lighting will be attached to the tower. An unmanned prefabricated equipment pad measuring approximately 12'-0" x 9'-6" x 6'-0" will be located at the base of the pole. The drainage of the site will not be changed. A chain link fence and landscaping will be implemented per the cities requirements. The site will only require single phase 200 amp electrical service and T1 telephone for utilities. These will be brought in underground. Site photographs, a site plan, and a zoning drawing are attached. ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The site meets the City's standards fofsonditional uses. The antenna will be visually unobtrusive and go unnoticed by the casual observer. New wireless communtcafion technology has developed rapidly in the past few years and many new applications are vital to industr/al and business uses. Business and industry will be seeking out and adapting to these new technologies to remain competitive as the new Information Highway becomes a reality. Having access to these emerging wireless technologies will be an important amenity for the success of future business. This site will enhance public safety and welfare because it will enable US West to bring this new CD,MA cellular technology to the area. The ability to transmit data such as fax, paging and computer data transmission will open a whole new way for business, individuals, and government services to communicate. Police can use CDMA cellular fax machines as part of their drag enforcement program to obtain immediate search warrants when illegal activity is observed without leaving the scene. Firefighters can receive faxed blueprints of a building in route to more safely fight fires. Ambulances can use it to transmit vital data to emergency rooms which allows the emergency rooms to be better prepared to receive injured accident victims. At spill sites, hazardous material information can be obtained "on site" by accessing computer data bases throughout the country with a CDMA cellular modem. Motorists who do not have the cellular phones are benefited by this system. Passing motorists with a phone can place an emergency call. CDMA Cellular radio transmissions are very safe and pose no health risk. It is really nothing more than a digital low power two-way radio. CDMA Cellular uses low power to insure that the signal stays within the designated "cell" so it will not interfere with neighboring "cells". The output for PCS cellular is 40 watts. Television and radio station transmitting towers can range from .5.0,000 watts to one million watts of power output. In fact, the output of a PCS antenna array impacts the population at approximately half the output and associated absorption rate of the microwave oven found in most kitchens. The question is often asked if the operation of a cellular antenna will affect home radio and television reception. The use of the frequency spectrum is tightly controlled by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The CDMA cellular system is operated in the 1900 MHz range. This is a higher frequency on the radio specman than home radio and television frequencies. This is important because higher frequency users cannot interfere with lower frequency users. Since 1984, over 15,000 cellular antennas have been erected across the United States, and there have been no documented instances of interference with home entertainment equipment. Additionally, CDMA encoding will virtually eliminate the possibility of phone number cloning and cell number theft. I respectfully request that we be placed on the next available Planning Commission Agenda. I plan to attend the hearing to answer any questions or concerns that the conmnttee or public may have. I appreciate the assistance I raCe akeady received from the Zoning Staff. I look forward to working with you to provide CDMA PCS cellular capability to your area. John Hollenbeck Zoning Manager CB Commercial Telecom_mumcations Division O?~ON AND SITE LEASE AOREEME~'T THIS OP~ON AND SiTE LEASE AGREEMENT lthis "Agreem, ent"l is ~tered ;nrc this Sth day of October, [996 ("Date of A~reemenf'~ by and be,"~,een 2900 Nevada LLC. a Minnesota corporauon ("Lessor') and US '&'EST COMMbN[CATIONS WIRELESS GROUP, a dlwslon of L'S WEST Coma-numcamons, [nc., a Colorado Corporation ("Lessee") whose address ~s 1999 Broadway, Tenth moor, Denver, Colorado 80202. WHEREAS. Lessor :s the owner of certain real property including building (s) as more pamcularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part. hereof by :h~s reference C'Property"); and WHEREAS, Lessee desires to obtain an option on the Property for the purpose of occupying and installin$ ~ts communication Facilities as more spec~ficaily set forth below. WHEP,.EFORE, Lessor and Lessee agree as follows: Lessor for and in consideration of Five Hundred dollars (S500.00), the receipt of whereof s hereby acknowledged, Joes hereby grant and convey unto Lessee, its successors, assigns, and agents an Option to lease the Property For the Permitted Use as set fo~h n paragraph three beiow. 2. O~non. I-ne obt~on to lease Lessor's P:'ope,"ty may be exercised by Lessee at any time ',,nthm the first I ~ months of the Date of A~eement I."Optlon Pemod") by providing Lessor w~th w~rten notice at' Lessee's intent. Lessor agrees that Lessee may extend Option Period by slx addi',Iona[ months by providing Lessor ~th '.,,~tten nonce prior to the expiration of ~he original Opnon ?cried and by paying Lessor. at the time Lessee requests the extension, an sum of Five Hundred dollars ($$00.00). to as the "Site" Permitted Use. l'he location on Lessor's property which Lessee is occupying and installing its f'acilines shall be referred, Fa) Lessee shall have the right, at ~ts expense, to install, construct, recons~-uct and maintain on :he Site communication facilities including, w~thout limitation, radio and other corru"nunican0~-transmt~ng and receiving antennas, support mounts, cables, equipment, equipment storage structures and other irr~provements relatmg thereto (collectively the "Communicanon Facilities"). Lessee shall have the right to modify, supplement, replace, upgrade or relocate the Corrrmunicanon Faclli~es on the l:q',oper'~y at any time dunng the :ere of :he '.ease so long am said relocation, replacement or upgrade is made for :he purpose of improving the operation of its Corrtmun:cat:cn Facilmes, v,'~th prior ,~,mt~en consent of Lessor, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Lessee shall be entitled to reasonable access to the Site 24 hours a day. seven days per week, and shall have additional rights of access, egress and egress to and from each Site, provided however, except in the case of an emergency, Lessee shaii not: Lessor in advance of Lessee's proposed construcnon, maintenance or repair acnvlties to be performed on ~he Site in order to coordinate sa~d ac~w~ties '~qth Lessor's operanons. (c) Lessee shall pay any incremental additional utility charges to the Site incurred as a result of Lessee's Pe,nmttted use. Lessee shall have a right, at its expense, to install or improve utflines W~thin or on the Property to service this Site. 4. Terrcl. This Lease, if executed, shall be for a term of five years ("Lease Term"), and shall commence on the date that :he Lessee places its w~'at~en nonce to Lessor in the mail of its intent to exercise its right to lease the Property. Lessee shall have a right to renew :he Lease Term four addinonal terms at five year terms each (each being a "Renewal Term"). 5. Ren~. (a) Each month during the initial Lease Term Lessee shall pay Four Hundred Fifty dollars (S450.00) ("Lease Payment'": to Lessor ~ Rent. Said rent shall be payable in advance to Lessor on or before the first day of each calendar month. Each additional lease :e..,.n~ sha~l be paid as follows: Renewal Term I - Year 6-10 Renewal Term 2 - Year l 1-15 Renewal Term 3 - Year t6-20 Renewal Term 4 - Year 21-25 $$2$.00fMonth $610.00/Month S710.00flvionth $825.00fMonth Lessee shall pay, as additional r~nt, any increase in real property taxes levied against the site, which ts directly attributable :o Lessee's use of the site, and Lessor agrees to furnish proof of such increase to Lessee. 61 Due Dili~,ence. During the Option Per/od and any option extension, Lessee, its agents, engineers, and contractors shall have the right to enter upon Les$or's Property to respect, examine, sample and conduct all engineering test or studies of the Site, to a~ply for and obtam ail licenses and perrnits required for the Lessee's Permitted Use fi-om all spplicable governmental or regulatory entrees, and otherwise do those things on the Site. that in the opm~.1~ of Lessee. are necessary to determine the physical condition of the Site, Lessor's ~tle to the Site and the feasibility or suitability of the Site for Lessee's Permitted Use. all at Lessee's expense. Lessee shall not be liable to Lessor or any third party on account of any pre-existing defe~t or condition on or w~th respect to the Site, whether or not such defect or condition ~s disclosed by Lessee's inspecnon, although Lessee shall be responsible tbr any damage, loss or destruction to the Site as a result of the acnons of its employees, representanves or agents dunng the duc diligence acnwnes. rev:9/20/96 a) Lessee shall not use .~he Site in any way ~hat ~nte,'-t'eres w~th the ex[sting use by: ~i) Lessor or (U) tenants or licensees of Lessor holding .rights to such Site on the date oi this Agreement LExis[rog Tenants"). Lessor warrants to Lessee the use and qmct enjoyment o£the Site. Lessor agrees that it shall not use nor shall :[ ge[mit its renan[s, Lessees, employees, invltees, or agents to use, any ~)omon of the ProOe~ m any way which would int~e o¢cmUon of Lessee, provided that connnucd use by Lessor or Existing T~an~ m thc same mann~ ~ ex~sted at the time the Lease executed shall not consnmte .,nte~r~ce with Lcssec's ope~oons. $. Environmental Matters. (a) Lessee will be solely responsible for and w~il defend, inderrmit5 and hold Lessor, ~ts agents, and employees harmless fi.om and against any and ail direct claims, costs, and Iiabilines, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of or :n connect[on wath the cleanup or rcstoratmn of the property assocmted with the Lessee's use of Hazardous Materials. (b) Lessor ,mil be solely responsible for and wdl defend, indemnify, and hold Lessee, ~ts agents, and errmloyees harmless from and against any and all direct claims, costs, and liabilities, tnciuding reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of - :n connecnon with [he removal, cleanup, or restoration or'the property 'anth respect to Hazardous Materials from any and ali sources other :~an those Hazardous Matenats introduced to the property by Lessee. (c) ~ means asbestos or any hazardous substance, waste or materials as defined m any federal, state, or local environmental or safety law or reguiaUon including, but not lira[ted to, CER. CLA. (d) The obligations of this section eight shall sur'~ve the expiratmn or other terminauon of this A.m'eement. 9. [r,isurancwlnderrmitication~emment Domain. Lessee shall maintain, at its exl=ense, commercial general liability ~nsurance covenng acnons by Lessee providing for a iimit or' not less than $I ,000,000.00 single limits, bodily injury and/or property damage combined, for damages arising out of bodily injuries to or death of all persons and for damages tO..or destruction of property, including the !oss of use thereof. Coverage shall include independent contractor's protecnon, premises-ope[orions, productWcor~, teted opera,OhS and contractual liability v~th respect to the liability assumed by Lessee hereunder. Lessor and Lessee shall look solely to insurance for loss due to any damage which is covered by insurance and net[her party's msurance corr~any shall be subrogated to a claim against the other party. {n :he even[ Lessee is self insured, lessee shall supply Lessor "ruth a certificate of self-insurance which comclies w~th the policy limitattons set forth above. Each aa[tv shall indemmO and defend :he other against loss from their negligent acts and that negligent act of their employees, agents, licensees. ::~d 'ray,Lees. The pomes shall share m a conderrmauon award in propomon to their interest tn the Property taken. lO. Assi~ment and Subleasini. (a) Upon Lessor's written consent, which shail not be unreasonably w~thheld, which may be based on the .net worth of the buyer, Lessee may assign this Lea.se, in part or m whole, including its right to renew, to any person or business ennry wNch ~s licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. (b) Lessee may sublet and assign this Lease, or pomon ~'hereof, and its other rights hereunder to any person or business ennty which is a parent, subsidiary or affiliate of Lessee W~thout Lessor's consent. (c) Upon notification to Lessor of any assignment, Lessee shall be relieved of all performance, liabilities and obligations under this O'ptlOn and Site Lea~e Agr~emtmt, except as provided in Paragraph tO(b) and after approval as provided in Paragraph !0(a). (d) In the event Lessor elects to permit another communications user the right to use any of Lcssor's ?rope~wy., Lessor agrees to nonf'y L~ssee thirty (30) days prior to thc issuance of such authonty for the purpose of dett~rmmmg whether the third party communicanons user anti intm"fer~ with I.~ssee's us~ or intended usc of the Site. Should Lessee nonf'y Lessor in orating that the th[rd party communlcanons will intert'er~ v~th Les.see's of:re'arsons, then Lessor agrees not to permit the third patty communicanons user the right to use the Site. Lessee's con,~nt shall not b~ unreasonably Xmthheld. (e) Lessor shall have the right to convey or assign Lessor's rights hereunder and Lessor's rights to the property leased provided the assignee agrees to the terms of this lease. l l T;,wnmatlon. This Option and Site Lease Agreement may be terminated as follows: (a) by Lessor if Lessee fails to cure a default for payment of amounts due heraundm' within thirty (30) days after Lessee's receipt of written notice of default fi'om Lessor; by the non-defaultin..~.par~ if the other party defaults (othm' than a default described in Section 11 (a) above) and fails to cure such dehult w~thin sixty (60) days at'[er wntlen notice of such default is received by the defaulting party fi.om the non- defaulting party; prowded, however, that if such default is capable of being cured, the Lease may not be terminated so long as the defaulnng par~ commences appropriate curative action an[bin such sixty (.60) day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes such cure to complenon as promptly as possible; rev: 9/20196 Lessee upon one hundred e~ghty ([ $0) days prior w~nrten notice. ~ ~ m ~ JCC~SSO~ and ,-MS~ImS. 1-his Agreement shaiI run with the Property and shall be binding upon and inure to lhe benefit Of the parties, their Fes'oecnve successors, personal representatives and asslgns. i 3. .Renr~sentatmn and Warrannes. Each party covenants and warrants to the other :hat (il ~t has Full right, power and authority :o execute this Ol:)non and Site Lease Agreement and has the power :o grant all rights hereunder: iii) ~ts execunon and ~efformance or' :h~s Agreement ..v~[l not violate any laws, ordinance, cov~ants, or the prov~smns of any mortgage, [ease or other agreement blnd'ing on sa~d par:y; and (iii) ih¢ execution and deiivery of this Agreement. and the pedormance of its obligations hereunder, have been duly authorized by a~[ necessary, personnel or corporate office'rs and do not v~oiate any provis~ons of )aw of the party's cernficate of incomoranon or bylaws or any other arrangement, provision of [aw or court order or decree. 14. Nonces. Alt notices, requests, demands and other communications hereunder shall be m wmmg and shall be deemed given ffpersonaily delivered, or marled by cemtied marl, return receipt requested, to the follo,~ng addresses: [f to Lessor, to: If to Lessee, to: Ron Kocher US WEST Communicanons, {nc. 2900 Nevada Avenue C, 0 US WEST Business Resources, !nc. New Hope, MN 55-527 t$8 inverness Drive West, Suite-/.20 Englewood, CO g01 [ 2 Attention: Attentmn: PSL Manager/?CS Real Estate w~th a copy to: w~th a copy to: US West Commumcattons Wireless Group a26 N, Fairv,~ew St Paul~ MN 55104 Attention: Regmnal Real Estate Manager 15. Miscellaneous. -Fhis O~tion and Site Lease Agreement shall consm'u'te the ennre ag~ement and understanding of :he pames with respect to the Property that is the subject mat~er thereof and supersedes all otters, negotla~ons and other agreements w~th resvect :here:o. There are no representations or understandings of any kind not set forth herein. Any amendment to this Agreement must be tn ~,~nng and executed by both paimes. (b) any claim, controvm'sy or dilute arising out of this Agreement shall be set, led by arbitration ~n accordance with :he applicable rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbm'ator may be entered m any court ~avmg jurisdiction thereof. U'~e arbitration shall be conducted in the county where the proper'cy ~s located. 1-here shall be no d~scovery other than the exchange of information which is provided to the arbitrator by the pomes, l'he arbitrator shall have :he authontw only to award compensatory damages and shall not have authority to award punmve damages or other noncorrrpensatory damages: the pames'her,-~y waive all ngh~ to and ctaims for monetary awards other than compensatory damages. (c) Either party hereto that is re~resented in this transaction by a broker, agent or commission salesperson (a "ReCresentarive") shall be fully and exclusively r~sponsible for the payment of any fee, comn'asston or other com~ensanon owing to such Re¢resentanve, and shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless from and against any claim to a fee, comn'assmn or other corr~pensanon asserted by such Representative, mcludin$ r~onable attorneys' fees and costs mcun'~d in defending such ctaim. (d) If any term of this Agreement is found to be votd or invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining :er'ms of this Agreement. which shall continue in full tome and effect. (e) By executing this Affr~ement, the part, es are not establishing any joint undertaking, joint venture or parmersh~p. Each party shall b~ de~'ned an ind~endent con~'actor and shall act solely for its own account. T~e par~es have entered into this Agr~-rnent ~ of this date first stated above. LESSOR: 2900 Nevada Avenue LLC ITS: Federal Tax I.D. or "- Social Secunty No. 41-I811184 rev:9/20/96 LESSEE: US WEST Communicanons, Inc. BY: ITS: Attorney-m-fact US WEST Communicanons Wireless Grou~ By: [TS: A'I-fEST: MLN063C ADDENDb~'M TO OPTION AND SITE LEASE AGREEMENT The aaached option and Site Lease A~reement made and entered into this 7th day of October, I996, by and between , a Mizmesota Corporation ("Lessor") and U.S. West Cormmtmacations Wireless Group, a division of U.S. West Commtmications, mc., a Colorado Corporation, ("Lessee") of which rtUS Addendtan is made a part, is hereby amended and supplemented as follows: Lessee 'aqll pay for all necessary permita or approvals that are imposed by local, state or federal govemments. Lessee will restore Lessor's property to its ongmai condition after [ease is terminated. Any utilities that have to be moved to keep communications facilities operational will be paid by Lessor. Lessee shall indemmfy and b.o[d harmless Lessor for any liability occasioned by the use by Lessee of the dermsed site, including but not limited to, artracUVe nuisance Liability, environmental claims, or damages due to the collapse of the tower to b'~ placed on the site. Lessee shall not be responsible for any negligence of Lessor. .amy surface improvement from existing blacktop to site to be by Lessee. Lease is valid contingent upon Lessor agreeing to placement of monopole. *Si=o-natures La wimess whereof, the parties hereto have executed this instrument by proper persons thereunto duly authorized so to do on the day and year first hereto above written. Lessee: EXHIBIT "A' TO SITE AGREEMENT Site [D~' M[N063C Site Name: Northland Mechamcal SKETCH AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.. SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTfON OF OWNER'S PROPERTY; 2927 Nevada Avenue North New Hope, .MN 55427 PIX)g: 20 118 21 34 0029 It is agreed by owner and lessee that the precise legal description.]'or the Owner's Property will be corrected, tf necessary, and that the correct legal descrtption may be placed o,, shjs Exhibit ".4" Site Sketch Lucent Technologies Site Information Sheet Site Address - [ndicat~: lea~¢ si:e & di~tance frorn lrno~n property boundary or structur,, ~iztin~ structur~ h~ight($) and di~tanc~ frorn proposed area, a¢c~$ route, ad]. roads and north arrow. If t-L, indicate ~quitJment location, l~a.,t d~m~in~ lin~, and acc~.$$ rout~ Also in$i¢at¢ :onin~ stttlacl~ requiremcnt~ frotn Rropcrty lin~ a, v~ell a~ a¢¢~ to ncarcxt Tel¢o (Tl limo and IJo~¢r (tran,formtr). P EI::CMIT AUTHORIZATION Date: Re: Tenant's Site Code To Property. Owner: Please sign and return the letter of authorization below to Lucent Technologies., Attention: Mark Campbell, ~ soon as possible to assure rapid processing of this site. Any building permit applications will be made only after the required zoning approval process has been completed. This letter shall not constitute an agreement to enter a binding lease or option to lease, and neither party shall be bound with respect to the leasing of the property until a final Lease Agreement is negotiated and signed by both parties. Sincerely you..v.r.~, ~ Mark Campbell, Site Acquisition Manager LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION To Whom it May Concern: The undersigned hereby authorizes Lucent Technologies, its attorney, agents or representatives, to make application for any necessary zoning petitions including the filing of building permit applications. Very truly yours, 2900 NEVADA LLC 7/30/96 Property Owner (Date) Property Owner (Date) U $ WEST CommunlcatJona, Inc. ~ 999 8roac~way Tentl~ Flocx Oenver, Corrado 80202 3O3 294-1613 Marry 0. Olckerso~ Cirec~or F~eguia[ory Affairs Wireless Grouo LI .ST February, 1997 FCC auctions for the D and E blocks of Personal Communications Services (PCS) spectrum concluded in January. U S WEST Communications has won 53 licenses for a total of $57 million. We have money on deposit with the FCC to cover 20% of our winning bids and will be paying the remainder of the $57 million when the licenses are granted. The applications for those licenses were filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on January 30, 1997, along with applications from all the other winning bidders. We expect that FCC review and processing will take about three months, the same as for the prior PCS auctions. Attached are pages from the FCC's Public Notice, dated January 15, 1997, showing U S WEST Communications as the high bidder in specific markets. U S WEST Communications is committed to providing wireless services. example of our commitment, we have had an experimental license in the Boulder, Colorado area since 1992 for testing and developing the PCS technology that we intend to deploy. We also have invested significant resources in building a staff to develop, implement, and market wireless services. AS an If you have questions about the status of our license applications with the FCC, please call Marty Dickerson, 303-294-1613. attachment n n. ses auctioned mil)ion for ~22 of the licenses, cover para of all stat~, ~id AT&T s~keswoman Ma~ Ireland. I~ Colorado, the AT~T licenses pl~ Pueblo. wire) cover the same areas as U S West, · The FCC requires betweer, tb.ree and si= compardes to offer wireless se,,wice /m each area so tb~t consumers bare cboices. Sev. era) other companies bid on li- ~es t~ of/er the service m Colo- Wireless phones, often referred to as the "next generation" of Phones followmg cellular, basical]y are mobLle phones that can hook up wit. b computers, fax machines, pa- gers and trad/tionaI wired phones. "The sound/s clearer than cellu- lar phones and people ca='~ eaves- drop on your conversation because they use dig~:al technolo~',' Man- ,,ettJ said. Mom cellular phones are analog devices. It ~s relatively easy to eavesdrop or interrupt transrmssions, be added. . AT&T n6W/offers w~'~less ~hone selm~ tecallv but it not bas .become cq~mo=place. The FCC auction means more companies ~LI] offer the service and the price will likely drop. U $ West plans to offer wireless service in Denver by tad-year, and along the Front Range by year- end. Wireless phones may reptac~ the common two-tiered system of wired borne phones and cellular mobile phones~ MannetU said. lj S t&'es= spokesman .Jerry Brown said company officials "feel very good" about the $5? million they paid t~ provide wireless ser- vice in 53 parts of the country, be- cause it comes out to an average $2.88 per person. Nationally, the average price per person or "price per population," as it/s sometimes called,/s $373, he added. Snaggmg the hcenses /~ another step toward realimn~ U S West president Sol ?rujilio's wsior~ of "one-stop shop' for telephone ser- vices. ~ week Trujilto said wire less semce should be availabie in Colorad~ ~,s year~ If S g'es: and AT&T aren't the onJy providers no~ licensed to pro- v~de w~re)ess se, vice m Colorado The FCC made sure it provided for compeUtion by licensing up to telephone compames m each area Sprint. ICG and several other telephone prov)ders ~'ere nc: Auction ID: 11 Round No.: 276 ($oded by MTA,BTA) Dale of Report: 1115197 14:28 Easlern Time Market Freq License Round of No Block Description High 131d FCC" ]roadband PCS Auction .,,' Submission Round Results, High Bids Before Withdrawal Date/Time Name of Bid FCC Account Nel Bid Gross Bid Number Amounl Amount M0t2 - Mim~eapolis-Sl. paul .......--H~98 D Minneapolis-SI. Paul, M 74 0840273800 U S WEST Communications, Inc. 10128196 9:12:46 $7,200,000 $7,200,000 13298 E Minneapolis-SI. Paul, M 72 0223330080 AT&T Wireless PCS Inc. 10/25/96 9:07:58 $6,646,000 $6,646,000 13298 F Minneapolis-SI. Paul, M 145 5163935806 Norlhcoas! Operating Co., Inc. 11/27196 11:26:4 $1,499,258 $1,999,011 13119 D 19ululh, MN 65 0223330080 AT&T Wireless PCS Inc. 10/21196 14:33:4 $271,000 $271,000 B119 E Dululh, MN 80 0911275998 MVI Corp. 10130/96 9:30:01 $565.001 $565.001 13119 F Dululh, MN 88 6122304198 Minnesola PCS Limited Padnershi 1111196 15:25:22 $534,750 $713,000 B138 D Fargo, NE) 77 0810424592 Touch America, Inc. 10129196 9:17:31 $551,000 $551,000 13138 E Fargo, ND 53 0911686827 Weslern PCS BTAI Corporation 10110196 15:17:4 $556,000 $556,000 B138 F Fargo, ND 188 7018585231 Norlh Dakol~ Network Co. 12113196 10:24:4 $392,700 $462,000 13277 19 Mankato-Fairmonl, MN 94 0223330080 AT&T wireless PCS Inc. 1115196 15:23:25 $1,357,000 $1,357,000 13277 E Mankalo-Fairmont, MN 100 0421407240 McLeod, Inc. 11/7196 15:23:34 $1,738,000 ,; $1,738,000 13277 F Mankalo-Fairmont, MN 68 6122304198 Minnesola PCS Limited Padnershi 10/23196 9:11:20 - $879,000 $1,172,000 13391 D SI. Cloud, MN 101 0223330080 AT&T wireless PCS Inc. 1118196 9:04:41 $837,000 $837,000 ___._._---~391 E SI. cloud, MN 97 0840273800 U S WEST Communications, Inc. 11/6196 15:33:21 $836,000 $836,000 13391 F St. Cloud, MN 104 6122508255 wireless Communicalions Ventur 11112196 9:19:31 $1,367,250 $1,823,000 B378 D Rochester-Auslin-Atbed 64 0840273800 U S WEST Communicalions, Inc. 10/21196 9:48:46 $1,059,000 $1,059,000 ------~'B378 13 Rochester-Auslin-Albed 65 0421407240 McLeod, Inc. 10/21/96 14:42:4 $1,009,000 $1,009,000 13378 F Rochester-Auslin-Albed 68 6122304198 Minnesola PCS Limited Padnershi 10/23/96 9:11:20 $659,250 $879,000 B1GG * D Grand Forks, ND 1 0911686827 Western PCS 13TA I Corporation 8126196 12:33:01 $374,381 $374,381 B16G E Grand Forks, NE) 215 FCC999999 FCC 8/26/96 10:00:00 $0 $0 13166 F Grand Forks, ND 133 5076418000 Redwood Wireless Corpration 11122196 11:25:0 $82,500 $110,000 13422 D Sioux Falls, SD 114 0911686827 Western PCS BTA I Corp?ralion 11115196 12:38:3 $463,001 $463,001 P~ge 25 of 72 Submission Round Results, High Bids Before Withdrawal Auction ID: % Round No.: 276 (Sorfed by MTA,BTA) Dale ol Reporl: t115/97 t4:28 Eastern Time Market Freq License Round of No Block Description High Rid MO t2 ' ~inneapolls-~i. Paul I]422 E Sioux Falls, SD 11422 F Sioux Falls, SD 1] 123 D Eau Claire, W1 11123 E Eau Claire, WI 11123 F Eau Claire, WI .... 11477 D WiIlmar-Marshall, MN 11477 E Willmar-Marshall, MN I]477 F VVillmar-Marshall, MN 11045 D Bismarck.,ND 11045 E Bismarck, ND 11045 F 11ismarck. ND 11299 D Minol, ND 11299 E MinoI, ND 11299 F Mlnol, ND 11142 I') FergUs FalI.~. MN FI142 V Fergu.,~ Falls, MN 11142 V Vergus Falls, MN 11481 D Worlhinglon, MN 11481 E Wodhin.glon, MN 13481 F Worlhin.glon, MN 11001 D Aberdeen, SD RO01 E Aberdeen. SD I FCC Account Number 91 0421407240 123 0470418455 39 0223330080 45 0911275998 88 6122304198 239 0840273800 239 0043160187 119 5076418000 66 0810424592 84 0911686827 63 7018585231 24 1018585231 71 7018585231 3 7018585231 101 0223330080 66 0810424592 105 6122304198 88 0043160187 91 0421407240 179 6122304198 1 0911686827 121 0223330080 Name McLeod, Inc. Northeast Nebra.~ka Telephone C AT&T Wireless PCS Inc. MVI Corp. Minnesola PCS Limiled Partnemhl CI S WEST Communications, Inc. Tdad Cellular Corporation Redwood Wireless Corpration Touch Amertca, Inc. Weslem PCS BTA I Corporation Nodh Dakota Network Co. Norlh Dakota Network Co. Nodh Dakola Network Co. Nodh Dakota Network Co. AT&T Wireless PCS Inc. Touch America, Inc. Minnesota PCS Llmiled Parfnershi Triad Cellular Corporation McLeod, Inc. Minnesota PCS Llmited Parlnershi Western PCS BTA I Corporation AT&T Wireles.q PCS Inc. Oate/~lme of Bid 1114/96 15:26:53 10/4/96 14:36:36 1/7/97 10:19:26 1/7/97 10:20:40 10/22/96 9:32:51 10/31/98 12:43:0 9f19/98 9:08:30 lor24/~ 14:33:1 8/28/96 12:54:59 1118/96 9:04:41 10/22/96 9:32:5t 1114196 15:26'53 12112196 9:02:12 8/2_6196 12:33:01 Net Bid Amount $400,000 $550,500 $127,000 $166.501 $181,500 $91,100 $86,000 $120,000 $238,000 $243,001 $47,600 $169,000 $190,000 $55,250 $180,000 $156,000 $174,750 $16t,000 $174,000 $133,583 $1t1,114 $60,000 I Gross Bid Amount $400,00O $734,000 $127,000 $166.501 $242,000 $91,100 $86,000 $160,000 $238,000 $243,001 $56,000 $169,000 $190,000 $6 ,ooo $180,000 $156,000 $233,000 $161,000 $174,000 $178,111 $111,114 $60,000 P~e 2~ of 72 U S West Narrative 'N~re!ess T: '~'~cm :: May Cane--re.: far ~i~'Ccn~i:ia~ Use ?~i~ ~: ....... ~ 5c Co-Location Policy USWEST '/lifeless P'~/ect 4,26 North Fairvtew, Suite [01 St. Paul, ,gfN 55 ~ 04 Fac~mmie: 612-6,42-6289 Januar-~' 24. [997 Frank Chrz Manager of Operations CB Commercial, Telecommunications 2250 University Ave. West St. Paul, MN 551.14 Dear Mr. Chrz, The enclosed assembly detail and monopole photograph rept, esent a sample of the same type we ,.rill be installing in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area for US West. These poles are accommodate more than one antenna array thus making them suitable for colocation. Enclosures Sincerely. //Sohn 'idgeon// ~,/ Construction Su~rintendent Co-Location Technical Data Sheet PCS D Block. Acmai Charmels Used: 325, 3f0,375 Base S~a::on Tx Frequenc:es: Base Station Rx Frequencies: [94, > MHz. 1948.75 MHz 19a6.25 MHz, "' 1266.25 MHz, 1867.5 MHz, 1868.75 MHz Modulation, Standard: .X, laxUmum EFRP: Channel Bandwtdth: Anten_na [nformanon: (Desu'ed) U S West PCS Antenna Height ici Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum, CDSDt 15-95 -,.~cLBm (.~/d. Bm- 16dBi gain Ante,ma) Swedcom SPg0 Id-DIN Gain = 16d. Bi Az'a'nuth Beam Width = 900 Elevation Beam Width = 8o Anterma -~.2" x 4.5' x 4" Weight = i5 lb. mcludizg mo unit. rig hardware - t7 ,ff above sun?unding clutter (center of antenna) Standard Antevma Configuranon: 2 :mtennae per sector 3 sector design. [ 20° each Center of sectors ,4~ 0', t20°. & 2400 w.r.t. TRUE NORTH Horu:ontal Spacing:. 3 ff to 6 ff. depending on antenna he,~ght. Governing FCC Rules: Code of Federal Regulations Title 47 (TelecommUmcanons) P~-t 24 (subpart E) Out ,of Band E-~mssioms: Section 24.238 (a) on :my hequency oumide a licensee's frequency block, '&,e power of any ermssion shali be attenuated below the ~a.n.srmtter power (P) by at least 43 [og(P)dB. This is an FCC requirement. Below are the equipment specifica=orm: Note that F = Frequency of other parr/and FOe = Frequency at Block Edge, for E-block F'be -- I9,/,5 and 1950 .x,124z Out of block: <=-13dBrm'12.SkHz for ~-FOe] <=! .MZ4z <= -12dBrm.'Mhz - 1.2 dBi.'MI-Lz [F-Foe} for l Mt-lc < IF-Foe] < 65 Mld. z <= -90 4Brm.Ml-lz tbr [F-F'be] 65 MHz. Levels: AC power requirements: Less than -125 d.Bm delivered to the antenna, at the 1413 compression point of Tx amplifier. AC input voltage: AC input current: 208/240 VAC, 50/60 Hz. single phase 35 Arms ~ 180 Vr-rr~ ~ 2KW DC output. Communications Nireles$ '~ ...... ' 2g, '.99? We, US ',",'est ",Vkeless Group, u:'.ders::~':d C':e ar. pomar, ce of :o-ioca:m] 'er, our PCS towers and we ,.vtli work ~o accorrz.,odate a second canner on our .-k.ay questions should be ..-N.m~cny Seg:~ie 426 Nor~ ~ ' "' St. P~ui, 5~' 55104 612-642-6020 Thmnk 'you. USWest Wizeless Group Regional Neruork Operations M:mager b'$WEST 7/ire~es$ :': ~cem ;01 St. ,~uL MN 55 To: John Ho[lenbeck, C B Commercial FrOm: Scott R. Ballance. Bechtel Corp. Subject: Monopole access ports Dear Sir. [ am writing in response to a request for information regarding the location of access our monopoles as the Civil/Structural Engineering representative. As is standard for this project ordering monopotes with access holes located at t5ft, 30ft. and 45ft below the centertine of our primary, antenna. For our most typical monopole heights of 9Oft this will put our access holes at 60ft. and 75ft. For other monopole heights these elevations will vary.. But for up to a 105ft monepole this standard order will provide holes at or tov,'er than 6Oft a~n.d at e,,'erv 1. Sft above that. Other configurations may be special ordered if necessary,. Please feel free to call me at (51_,64._-6_9-t Pidgeon at (.612) 642-6014. if you have any questions. Sincerely. Scott R. Ballance USWEST Communications Existing Co-Locate Pole Monopole · · Engineering Design ENGINEERED ! ~NCORPORAT=-D No,e~,er 7. :996 Bechtel Tsleccm. D.c. 4'_.6 Nor-da Fa/_~'iew Avenue Room St. Pxul, MN 55104 A~ention: John Pidgeon R ..... nco. Qualiw of Steel and Fab~cation of :z Monopole Scrucrare Reliabili¢' and Failure of an EEI Monooote Dear Mr. Pidgoen: In ressonse :o your inqui.r7 regarding -Ac qualirf of steel for: EEI moaopole: The monopole is fabricated from AS~f ,~72 Grade d5 material conmoaed s~icon conmnt of 0.06% mzxm~ [o promote a ~fo~ galva:%~2 coa~g. ~e b~e plato ~ fabdcamd Eom AS~[ A87I Grade 60 mare%al. plate material meem a Chary V-Notch roug~ess requ2emenr of 15 '0° ~er&eit. By me~rMg ~s s~ct roug~ess requ2emenr, nhe is best ~ited to resist uhe cyclic:'fad~e ~pe loading (i.e., wind [oad~g) ~at ~ese s~cmres 2) Anchor bola are fabrkamd from ASTM A615 Grade 75 mare,'Sal. The boi~ 2 t,i in 4iamemr from #1gl bar ~ock. All threads are rolled. A. nchor bolts come complete with two (2) A194 Grade 2H hex nuts. ,-knchor bott material must 32so m~t a Charpy V-Noah toughness of 15 fr-~.bs @ -20° Fahrenheit, :o cyclic,'fatig-ue type loading. fEI _z'zaranr, ees 2%e quality of steel used on the entire monopote. Material Codifications ,.M~ Test Rer,:r_~) 2.re available on ali mar. edal at the time of fabrication. If ~e structure does net have a proper sdicon content, a non-un/form galvanized coating can develop. Discoloration may result at .earlier stages m ~e tile of the zinc coating which will result [a h.ig,her maintenance costs. The smct rou~mess requirement is also quire [mpomant for monopole sn-ucmres. A monopote ~&zt does not meet 2~is requirement may develop "toe' cracks which could ultimately lead to sr. rucrur~ failure. Fabrication of the monopol% is performed in accordance with the provisions of the AISC Manual of Steel Consn-uction and ASCE's Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures. )dl ,g,'eMin* :t~.d i.~pec~on is in accordance ,Mr~5 r_he American Welding Society's Specification D i. ~ - latest revision. ENDEAVORS. INC ........................... la -=~ ~_~e :o ','our inquiry r===~;== ~e mdcipated reliabilit,~ azd failure mede monccole ~:_-_:cTxr~, [ would like :o offer :he fo[lowing comments: -Fne failure of a steel moncpoie mmcrare is der~:ed ~ beLng '*.kzr point a: '~v~ch -~ induced stresses exceed ~e.yield .,xren=-xJa of the material. At z_his point. ~.~.,,~.~..._~-~': w/il be induced in the s~acmre ,.vkic~ will no longer be recoverable once i~.e has been removed. The induced loads must be susu, i_ned for a long enough period in order structure :o resr~ond ~o :he load 'x'i~out its removal. ex.h. ibit defter:ions ar the .~op in excess of I0ft' before stmcmrat yielding. ~) When yielding occurs, it allows the st_rucmre :o continue :o defie..:: under induced ' ' ' ~oadmg with :o mcrea~e [n load being -~,,,ir~,4 Y!e!..lin_* s~:cmres occurs ar uhe base since d,Js [s where ~e i'2ghest stresses 4.') As ~e su-ucmre leans ~om u~e mduce, d loads, k ?resents a mazkedlv exposure ar~a for ~e development of wind forces. ~2s would resuh :.n [o,,vermg of :he appiied fo~s ~d. u~erefere. ~e ~ucdon of smesses ~nd of O.e su~acmral deflection. This c,;'pe of structural failure would result m .:he ucuer ro~ion of tine :eaton= over and, upon ~e removal of the applied load. ~r would not remm ve,"rical position. Wind induced loads cauld no[ conceivably bnng rAis su-ucmre to the g-round. .-X.n EEI monopote strucTare [s designed ~o meet ~e requizemenu cf E[,~:mcs Industry Asscciarion Specification~..,'~'~'~ F (June, 1.996). rt also ::c exceeds :he requirements of :he BOCA Buildi. ng Cede, ~e Uniform C~'de, u~.e Manual of Sreei Construction by the .4.me,can [r..sdmre of C :r_sa--'c:ion with the fom-,.dadon and ~chor bolts meeting r. he requirements z f '~-~ .-kme~can Concrete rxstimte S~ecificarion ACI 315. The pole itself is designed ro meet the provisions of the American Society of Civil Desig-n of Steel Transm/ssion Pore Structures, wkich was originally published l., .~ and most recently updated m 1990. 7) The monopo[e struc~nzre design is controlled by wind induced toads, however, earrAquxke induced loads are also evaluated with all building code requiremen:z being satisfied. The ges[gn and loading ass~mptio~ which a~e used for ~e azmlysis ,of ~.ese structures are conservative m ~mre, ~erefore, structure fa/lure is highly improbable. 9) Further proof ro t.he [nt~gnU of r. his sr:rucmre g'pe is [he fact r. hat several EEl's monopole sn"ucmres wir. h.srood the direct impact of Hurricane .4redraw .J,'[~ no structural damage re.~orred. Wind speeds.were reported to be well over miles per hour. [ hoFe r. ba.t these cormmenrs address the issues which you might encounter relative to r..he qua2.'? of steer and the anticipated performance of Mono?ole samcm.res. However, [ will be most ha.oF' roar. swer any,,' specific questions w,hJ. ch you might have. S mc~,,.lv, / Jay Parr Design Engineer IINIlt: & I'OIJ) )]ACK Illllll.~l~' 1/:1 UAIL Alii) I'll 1. Al). VOII)S iii'ill SOIL AS I'i. II TII[I" SOURCE J~l:CoXJ~Hl)Alltttl5 IIAINJAIJ. A~II) SOIL CIIAIIACILIOSflI'5 IIOIJ: iillll I'lCJ( .ANI) [=-VI II(~!I!:I.N_ !!ti:!! I'I.AN!IN(~ I YI '1( :Al I)1 (:11)L]()U',; Al,Il) I:Vi.I!( illl:l:N '--i! !!!l-it! l'l ANIIt,i(~ P.C.S. TOWER C.U.P. CHECKLIST Applicant: Property C~er: PI~ Case ~ ~/0 Evidence of ~fle: Phone: Phone: 10 sets of plans New Tower / Existing Tower 10 lot surveys 1 set of reductions 1 set of transparencies Adjacent buildings identified Existing towers within 1/4 mile-[ Minimum 1,000 foot separation] Written authorization of property owner - Service vehicle street access/parking space Landscaping schedule; existing, new, sizes, species, quantity, r~aintenance agreement Wetland / erosion control issues Utility connections Soils Data State Building Code compliance Structural design verified by MN Engineer State or federal license disclosure Property line setbacks or "confined collapse" documentation Tower Height: f0a' Antenna arrays designed @ 7~ ft., S,~ ff., 1~O ft. No lighting except for FAA required No advertising Painted silver or galvanized "Harmonize" with character & environment of the area 8' Security fence, with locked anti-climb device Equipment and/or building screened from residential uses and streets New tower must accommodate minimum 2 antenna arrays Conditional Use Permit standards in code section 4.21 Design-Review Mee' g Date2 07"/~7q~? Checked by: ~n~ -,,ha~d~7:l~/ fffl .. des, M~,1997 date: .j TOWER SEPARATION MAP .NORTH Scale: 1" = 400' NOTE: No existing towers within 1,000 feet of the proposed tower. ADA // 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 appli ,c,:2tion 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 97-10 CB Commercial 5/7/97 7/6/97 9/4/97 2550 University Avenue W. Suite 159-South St. Paul 55114-1052 Scott Hoelscher 603-6127 645-1526 fax Site Location 2900 Nevada Avenue N. 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. B. C. D. Assign each application a number. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). List the date the City received the application. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restaded" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. To calculale the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Bo)~ G must come before lhe date in Boxes E and F.) List the deadline under any extension or waiver. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Boxl 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 97-12 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Home Maintenance Business to Operate Out of the Home 3941 Winnetka Avenue North 18-118-21-41-0057 R-l, Single Family Residential Donald & Molly Nix June 27, 1997 July 1, 1997 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a home occupation for a home maintenance business to operate out of the home, pursuant to Sections 4.21 and 4.038(4) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. ,, 2. The petitioners operate "DM & K Home Services" out of their home on Winnetka Avenue. The business offers a variety of home services, such as snow removal, house cleaning, yard maintenance, plumbing/ electrical/cement repairs, etc. to senior residents. 3. The properly has been the subject of several complaints due to outside storage issues. Due to the growth of the business, staff is recommending that the petitioner obtain a conditional use permit to continue operation of the business out of their home. 4. The property is located in an R-l, Single Family Residential, Zoning District, and is surrounded on the north, west and south by single family dwellings. Across Winnetka Avenue to the east is R-C), Residential Office, and I-1, Limited Industrial, (church and Versa Die Cast). 5. The 11,100 square foot lot, which is located south of 40th Avenue and on the west side of Winnetka, has a 75-foot frontage on Winnetka, and a lot depth of 145 - 150 feet. 6. The property is located in Planning District #20 of the Comprehensive Plan and no changes were recommended for this neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan has policies stressing maintenance of high quality residential environment through rehab or redevelopment and emphasizing the importance of the housing maintenance code to ensure the on-going stability of residential neighborhoods. 7. The existing house on the Site has a double garage with a large curb cut and driveway on Winnetka and a driveway around the garage to the backyard. There are four outdoor parking spaces available on the site. 8. The petitioner has stated that they "would like to obtain a conditional use permit to operate our home maintenance, business from our home. This business provides services to complete all general household chores and repairs, inside and out, such as: window washing, house cleaning, lawn maintenance, gardening, hedge trimming, snow and ice removal, garage and basement cleaning, removal of dead shrubs, repairs, painting, etc. Above the normal chores, we also provide for the special needs of the elderly .and disabled when it fits within our abilities. These special needs may be installing a rail or putting together a shower chai, r, installing no-skid mats or picking up something at the store." 9. The petitioners also state that "because we are a home maintenance business, nearly 100% of our business is done at our client's residence. The business requires a home office, tool storage, and a very occasional fabrication of an item, such as a rotted window frame, etc., done within the garage. Below is a general list of the tools we use: Lawn mowers Chain saws Wood working tools Screw drivers Rubber gloves Mops Brooms Gas cans Weed eaters Snow blowers Wrenches Ladders Cleaning buckets Dusters Cleaning & dusting rags Hammers Hedge trimmers Pressure washer Drills Gardening tools Vacuum cleaners Shovels Utility trailer Vehicles, etc." 10. The petitioner further states "Although the list above is very general and not every exact tool is listed, you will find that the majority of these items are what you might find in any home. However, because of our business we may have more than one of a given item, such as lawn mower, snow blower, etc. This is to accommodate for our children who also wish to be involved, and to give us a back up if one should break down. Currently, the majority of the tools not used for the current season are stored off site. However, at a later date, we would like to remove our current shed and build another more appealing to the eye and large enough to accommodate for the storage of our household and business needs." 11. They state they are listed as an indePendent contractor through the District 281 Senior Services Chore Project 612-522-0850 and the Senior Linkage Line 333-2433. The Senior Linkage line is sponsored by the Minnesota Board on Aging, Metro Area on Aging and other local partners. 12. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received several inquiries. ANALYSIS 1. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the conditional use is to be allowed, the City may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite for consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health, and safety. Other general criteria to be considered when determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit include: A. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City. B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the Code. D. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. E. Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts: 1. In Residential Districts, R-'1,2,_3,4,5, R-O: a. Traffic. Non-residential traffic is channeled into thoroughfares or onto a street abutting business or industrial uses leading directly to thoroughfares, and not onto minor residential streets. b. Screening. The proposed use will be sufficiently separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing homes will not be materially depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. c. Compatible Appearance. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. 3. The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to insure that the occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use and that compatibility with surrounding residential uses is maintained. 4. For purposes of the City Code, home occupations are defined to distinguish between "permitted home occupation" and "conditionally permitted home occupations." All home occupations which satisfy the "permitted home occupation" criteria are considered as a permitted accessory use in all residential zoning districts. Home occupations which fail to satisfy the permitted home occupation criteria require a conditional use permit and may be located in any residential zoning district based upon conditions set forth in the approved conditional use permit. 5. Permitted Home Occupations. Home occupations which meet the following criteria: A. Structural Changes. Businesses which require no interior or exterior changes necessary to conduct the business, which are conducted within a principal building, and which require no mechanical or electrical equipment not customarily found in a home. ', B. Traffic. Businesses which do not significantly alter the traffic pattern of the neighborhood. C: Employees. Businesses which do not require emPloyees other than those living on the premises. D. Area Permitted. Businesses which require no more than twenty (20) percent of the gross floor area of a dwelling, not to exceed three hundred square feet, including accessory building. E. Sales on Premises. Businesses which are not involved in direct sales on the premises except as may be conducted through the use of the U.S. mail, commercial delivery services by a vehicle no larger than a step van, or by taking and ordering delivery of orders by telephone. F. Outside Storage. Businesses which require no outdoor storage of equipment, machines, inventory, tools or any other item required for use by the business', except for parking of business vehicles in compliance with §4.036(4)(0 of this Code. (Items E and F were amended or added to the City Code in 1994.) 6. Conditional Use Permit. Conditionally permitted home occupations shall consist of those home occupations which do not meet all of the provisions of #5 above. Said home occupation may be granted a conditional use permit provided that: A. Adverse Effect-on Neighborhood. The City Council shall find that all business related activity occurring on the premises shall not cause any adverse changes to the residential character of the neighborhood. B. Screening of Exterior Changes. The City Council shall find that any exterior changes necessary to conduct the business are sufficiently screened, properly designed, or separated by distance so as to be consistent with existing adjacent residential uses and compatible with the residential occupancy. C. Interior Changes. The City Council shall find that any interior changes necessary to conduct the business comply with all building, electrical, mechanical, and fire codes governing the use of the residential property. D. Traffic. The City Council shall find that the traffic generated by the business involves only vehicles of the type that typically service single-family residences and that such traffic constitutes neither a nuisance nor a safety hazard. 7. Staff find that this particular use requires a conditional use permit because several sections of the "permitted home occupations" regulations appear to be violated, including: · Area Permitted - the code limits business use to 300 square feet on the property. With half the garage, an office and equipment/material storage in the backyard and shed, staff feel that they exceed the limit. · Outside Storage - a number of complaints have been received about outside storage at the site. 8. The petitioners have stated that they feel their CUP request should be granted due to the following: A. The majority of the clients are seniors and the disabled. The people of this community and neighboring communities that just need a little helping hand to remain at home. Without this help these clients may be forced to live in nursing homes where the cost of their care becomes enormous. B. The petitioners believe the services they provide are not only beneficial to the aging and disabled, but also to the working class that may not have the knowledge to or maybe the time to complete the task at hand. C. The petitioners state that the business will not increase the traffic pattern of the neighborhood because they don't receive any customers at the home or do any direct sales from the home. They have no other employees of the company other than thbir family. Business signs are placed on their vehicles only, no signs are placed directly on the property. The inside structure of the house will not be changed in any way to accommodate the business. The only changes to the property will be the replacing of the current shed. They believe their business will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. D. Not allowing them to continue the business will have some major effects on their clients and their direct neighborhoods. When their lawn can't be mowed or their shrubs can't be trimmed, their neighborhoods will be affected. E. The services the business provides is beneficial to the community and surrounding communities. To say "yes" to the request is truly a way to say New Hope is indeed a neighborly community and we take care of the growing needs of our community and neighboring communities. 9. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner at its June meeting and issues discussed included number of employees, area of home and yard devoted to business, removal/replacement of existing shed vs. renting a storage area, types of equipment utilized in business and on-site parking. No additional information has been submitted to staff since the meeting. 10. Per the submitted site plan, the petitioners show a 10' x 13' (130 feet) area in the lower level of the home to be used as an office. They are proposing to remove the existing 6' x 20' shed on the back of the house and replace it with a new 20' x 20' (400 square feet) shed in the southwest corner of the yard. 11. Staff agrees that this business provides a needed service to the community, but feel that the growing business demands have impacted the interior/exterior of the home. City code prohibits interior or exterior changes necessary to conduct the business and requires the business to be conducted within the principal structure. Any exterior changes that are necessary to conduct the business must be screened and separated by distance so as to be consistent with existing adjacent residential uses. 12. Past complaints have involved a con~,,erted school bus on the property and resulted in the enlarged driveway, approximately 40 feet wide. The bus has been sold and the petitioners now have a panel van with a business sign on it. The Winnetka location is highly visible. Some complaints from neighbors have involved construction materials, etc. that have been stored in the rear yard. 13. Perhaps this lot is better situated than most for a home occupation due to the fact that it is located on a County Road and across from an industrial use, but the neighbors investment in their homes must also be protected. 14. Staff recommends that the Commission further discuss with the petitioners the idea of renting more off- site storage for their equipment and/or establish where personal vs. business items will be stored (shed, garage, house, off-site). 15. The Commission will also want to take into consideration the comments from neighbors. RECOMMENDATION Pending public input, staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit for the home maintenance t~ome occupation business, subject to the following conditions: 1. Specifically limit the business use area of the property and identify what exact areas of the home and garage will be used for the business. 2. Allow no outdoor storage. 3. Get a commitment from the petitioner on whether or not a~' new shed is going to be installed, and if so, determine timeline and use of shed. Panel van with signs should be parked on the south side yard drive. Annual inspection by staff. Attachments: Zoning/Address/Topo Map Certificate of Survey Petitioner's Correspondence Proposed Shed Business Advertisements Inspection Reports ~ ~R-1 I R-O R-5 "Senior / Disabled" Resider R-O Residential Office R-O(PUD) Residential Office - P B-1 Limited Neighborhood Busir B-2 Retail Business B-3 Auto Oriented Business B-4 Community Business I-1 Limited Industrial 1-2 General Industrial -1 Open Space / Public 1 INCH = 1000 FEET 0 1~0 2000 GETHSEMANE CEMETERY ' ~ - 40 TH AVE. N. ADM. OFFICE >' SCHOOL BUS BETHEL CEMETERY 58 TH NORTHWOOD PARK × 143.6 931 932.4 Z 929.7 c) 939.] 940.7 933. 932.2 x 929.5 .2 ,4/ FOR: CERTIF:CATE OF SURVEY Z Ld o x ooo .o ( ooo.o ) Denotes iron monument {::)eno=es offset szake Denotes existing etev. Denotes Proposed elev. Denotes surface drainage Prol:x3sed garage floor etev,= DEMARS . GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 3030 NarOor Lane No. Plymouth MN 55441 Phone: (612) 559-0908 Proposed lowest floor elev. = ProDosed too of foundation elev. = BENCH MARK: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings, if any. ther/~on, and all vlsiDie encroachments, if any, from or on sa,d land ~ ~i. / ---.,..._A --. Please outline description of request: We would like to obtain a conditional use permit to operate our home maintenance business from our home. This business provides se~'ices to complete all general house hold chores and repairs, inside and out. Such as; window washing, house cleaning, lawn maintenance, gardening, hedge trimming, snow & ice removal, garage & basement cleaning, removal of dead shrubs, repairs, painting, Etc. Above the normal chores, we also provide for the special needs of the elderly and disabled when it fits within our abilities. These special needs may be installing 'a rail or putting together a shower chair, installing nO skid mats or picking up something at the store. Because we are a home maintenance business, nearly 100% of our business is done at our clients residents. The business requires a home office, tool.storage, and a very occasional fabrication of an item, such as a rotted window frame~ Etc., done within the garage. Below is a general list of the tools we use. Lawn mowers Weed eaters Hedge Trimmers Chain saws Snow blowers Pressure Washer Wood working tools Wrenches Drills Screw drivers Ladders Gardening tools Rubber Gloves Cleamng Buckets Vacuum Cleaners Mops Dusters Shovels Brooms Cleaning & Dusting rags Utility trailer Gas cans Hammers vehicles ETC. .~though the list above is very general and not every exact' tool is listed, you will find that the majority of these items are what you might find in any home. However because of our business we may have more then one of a given item, such as lawn mo .wer, snow blower, Etc.. This is to accommodate for our children who also wish to be involved, and to give us a back up if one should brake down. Currently the majority of the tools not used for the current season are stored off site. However, at a latter date, we would like to remove our current shed and build another more appealing to the eye and large enough to accommodate for the storage of our household and business needs. We are listed as an independent contractor through the DiStrict 281 Senior Services Chore Project 612-522-0850 and the Senior Linkage Line 333-2433. The Senior Linkage line is sponsored by' the Minnesota Board on Aging, Metro Area on Aging and other local partners. (see enclosed brochure copy) Whv should request be granted? The majority, of our clients are seniors and the disabled. The people of our community and" neighboring commuNties that just need a little helping had to remain at home. With out this help these clients may be forced to live in nursing homes were the cost of their care becomes enormous. We believe the services we provide are not only beneficial to the aging and disabled but also to the working class that may not have the knowledge to or maybe the time to complete the task at hand: Our business will not increase the traffic pattern of the neighborhood because we,.don't receive any costumers at our home or do any direct sales from the home. We have ho.other employees of the company other then our family. Business signs are placed on our vehicles only, no signs will be places directly on the property. The inside structure of the house will not be changed in any"' way to accommodate the business. The only changes to the property will be the replacing of the current shed. We believe our business will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. However not allowing us to continue the business will have some major effects on our clients and their direct neighborhoods. When their lawn can't be mowed or their shrubs can't be trimmed their neighborhoods will be effected. A simple thing such a cleaning a toilet or scrubbing a floor may be trivial to you and I but means a world.of difference to someone that can no longer do it. The twinkle that appears in the eye of someone when they see their house is not being neglected, or the expression on their face when they can see flowers blooming outside their windows even though they were unable to plant them. The services our business provides is beneficial to our community and surrounding communities. To say yes to our request is truly a way to say New Hope is indeed a neighborly community. Taking care of the gro,a4ng needs of our community and neighboring communities. HOW AVAILABLE IN YOUR AREA. HOME SERVICES A DIVISION OF DM~I:K CREATOR COMPANIES INC. SNOW & ICE REMOVAL HEAT TAPE APPLICATIONS HOUSE CLEANING GARAGE & BASEMENT CLEANING & ORGANIZATION YARD MAINTENANCE GARDENING OFFERING TREE & SHRUB MAINTENANCE WALL WASHING GUTTER CLEANING SMALL PLUMBING & ELECTRtCAL REPAIRS. WINDOW MAINTENANCE SMALL CEMENT REPAIRS SMALL WALL REPAIRS GENERAL HANDYMAN SERVICES PAINTING GENERAL CHORE SERVICES COMPETITIVE PRICES C~LL NOW FO'R MORE INFORMATION AN'I) CURRENT PRiCES DISCOUNTS FOR SENIORS AND DISABLED DON AND MOLLY NIX 3941 WTNNETKA AVE N. NEW HOPE ~ 55427 PHONE 612-545-6893 F.a~X 612-595-9900 Help is closer than you think! E~ENIOR Your connection to [he services near you. 333-2433 or 1-800-333-2433 Senior Linkage Line is a free telephone information and assistance gervice which makes it easy for older adults and their families to find community services. · Transportation · Housing · Home Care -Housework · Volunteering · Caregiver Support · Food/Meal Delivery · Legal Assistance · Financial Assistance · Snow/Lawn Care · Minor Home Repair · Health Insurance Counseling · Health Care Ombudsman · And Much More * V/TTY iB~icates that a voice or text telephone is available for non-hearing callers. Minnesota Board on Aging Metro Area Agency on Agi. ng and local partners ...... e.¢~d oen~lzies wit?e~ .~nnnd tO tMl~ c~';=~ued for your a,,-- ' you fail . ,.~. wmrr, nt ma~ .. the fine. penal~ o~ ~u .... .~ Address: .. ~ Name: 4401 ;~ylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 (612) 531-5127 COMMUNITY OEVEEOPMENT INSPECTION REPORT Date: Time: PID# Type: Source: [] Construction Comments: /~C~ Other //-/---,~ 6, / Annual Corrected Representing: ,?,-- ;'-'--- NOTE ~ days to Correct these Conditions Reinspection Date: / / white · ap.p!icant Date: // -/ 2 -..5 ~, Maile~,~ Phone: _ .~' ' Signature yellow 'inspector pink · file CCMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTI Address: 4401 Xylo~q Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 (612) 531-5127 INSPECTION REPORT Date: Time: PlO# Business Name: Type: Source: [] Construction -5'- ~- -~ ~, ,~Co [] Other ¢'.'~ 3" - Comments: [] Annual Corrected Issued to: Date: z//_ .~ - ~'~ Mailed:~' Representing: NOTE (:// days to Correct these Conditions Reinspection Date: / / Phone: white · applicant yellow :inspector Inspector: ~/ Signature pink: file INSP-0 Memorandum To: Planning Commission Members From: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Date: June 27, 1997 Subject: Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on CouncillEDA actions. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. 1. June 9 Council/EDA Meetings - At the June 9 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Motion Declining Purchase of the Property at 2709' Lamphere Drive: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Motion Authorizing Submittal of Local Planning Assistance Grant to Metropolitan Council: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain an Appraisal for the Property at 7813 and 7819 Angeline Drive: Approved, see attached Council request. D. Project #583, Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for 1997 Backyard Drainage: Approved, see attached Council request. E. Proiect #573, Motion Approving Plans and Specifications for Rehabilitation of the Property at 5212 Winnetka Avenue and Authorization to Seek Bids: Approved, see attached Council request. F. Project #545, Resolution Authorizing and Approving the Sale of 6067 West Broadway to Jeffrey and Cynthia Greenlun: Approved, see attached Council request. (3. Ordinance No. 97-03/Planning Case 96-04, An Ordinance Amendinq the New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Pawn Shops as a Permitted Use in the B-4 Zoninq District: Continued until 9/22/97, see attached request. H. Ordinance No 97-20, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code Section 4.074(4)(f) by Requiring Annual Review and Monitoring of Group Care Facilities by the Department of Protective Inspections: Adopted, see attached Council request. I. Project #598, Resolution Vacating Storm Sewer and Utility and Drainage Easements at 7300- 7390 49m Avenue North: Approved, see attached Council request. J. Planning Case 97-06, Resolution Approving Revised Gradinq, Drainage and Utility Plan for Office/Warehouse Construction at 7300 49t~ Avenue North, Submitted by Hoyt Development/ Continental Distribution Partners LLP: Approved, see attached Council request. Orlgtnatmg Department Approved for A~enda Agenda Section City Manager ~ Consent i/~ 6-9-97 Item No. Stephanie Olson By: Community Development Specialist ]3)-: 6.7 MOTION DECLINING PURCHASE OF TH/E PROPERTY AT 2709 LAMPHERE DRIVE In May 1997, the City received a letter from Delores Audette, the owner of 2709 Lamphere E)rive. expressing her interest in selling her property to the City. The property is located in an R-l, Single Family Residential:'Zoning District. The assessed value of the property is $114,000 ($21,000.00 land/S93,000.00 building). The house was built in 1963 and has approximately 1,580 square feet of living space. The lot is approximately 14,560 square feet in size. The Property is located to the north of Terra Linda Park. After evaluating 2709 Lamphere Drive, staff believe that the City should not purchase this property for several reasons: -. The house is too expensive. · The house is in good condition and does not need to be rehabilitated due to code violations, as far as City staff is aware. · The property is not located within a blighted neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of a motion not to pursue the potential purchase of 2709 Lamphere Drive. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Ar]ministration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ &YE N Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent 6-9-97 Kirk McDonald Item No. By': Management Assistant ~ 6.8 MOTION AUTHORIZING SUBMI'I-FAL OF LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE GRANT TO METROPOLITAN COUNCIL The Metropolitan Council has established a planning assistance grant and loan program to assist local governmental units in implementing the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The funding is intended to provide communities with incentives to review/amend local comprehensive plans and official controls to reinforce regional goals to create more livable communities. Recent amendments to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act require local governments to update their comprehensive plans and official controls by December 31, 1998. The planning assistance fund includes $1 million available for grants and the funds will be distributed based on communities' efforts to meet the Met Council's goals and policies, and on the communities' demonstrated need and available financial resources. Grants may not exceed 75 percent of the total costs and expenses of the work plan for which the grant is awarded. The maximum grant allowed for each community is approximately $20,000. As you are aware, New Hope received a proposal from Northwest Consultants in the amount of $30,000 to update the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff anticipates submitting a grant request in the amount of (75% x $30,000 = $22,500) $20,000 (the maximum allowed). Grants must be submitted by July 18 and preliminary funding decisions will be made within 45 business days of the date of application; at which time the Met Council will commit not less than 80 percent of the grant amount. The Met Council will execute a grant agreement with the local unit of government. The grant requests will be evaluated on the funding criteria outlined in the attachments. Staff request that the Council approve a motion authorizing the submittal of a grant application to the Met Council in the amount of $20,000 to assist in the cost of the Comprehensive Plan Update. tViOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE GRANT GUIDELINES PURPOSE The purpose of the planning assistance grant and loan pro.am is to assist local governmental units in the Metropolitan Area in implementing the Metropolitan Land Plaraing Act. The ftmdmg is intended to provide co,,,,,cmities with incentives to review and amend local comprehensive plans, fiscal devices and official conwols, to reinforce regional goals and to create more livable communities. These grant program guidelines outline the Council's funding objectives, criteria and the disbursement schedule. These grant guidelines also are intended to implement the provisions of 1996 Minnesota Law chapter 464, article 1, section 9, subdivision 2. AUTHORITY The Metropolitan Council is authorized to prepare and adopt guidelines establishing uniform procedures for the award and disbur~.-ment of plmming assistance grants under Mirmesota Statutes, sections 473.854 and 473.867. Amendments to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act require local coau,anities to update their comtxehensive plans and official controls by December 31, 1998. ' In 1996, the Legislature authorized the Council to tranzfer up to $1 million from solid waste bond proceeds to the pla.,mmg assistance grant and loan program to assist local co~-umties in meeting comprehensive planning requirements. The planning assis~ce fund includes thiz $1 million available for grants and approximately $770,000 available for interest free loans. FUNDING OBJECTIVES The Council will distribute plarmmg assistance funds based on co,i.,,omties' efforts to meet the Council's regional goals and policies, and on the co~mities' demon.Vwated need and available financial resources. Funding pnonry will be directed toward comh~,mities located within the Illuslrative 2020 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) which are expected to have the highest growth and redevelopment. The Council will utilize the plam~g a,s,sistance funding to reinforce the following regional objectives: · Target plarating dollars to co~ties that include the Illustrative 2020 MUSA and are projected to have high growth or redevelopment. Provide mcontives to co~--unities to implement comprehensive plarming activities that reinforce the Regional Blueprint (December, 1995) goals which reduce sprawl, preserve agricultural are'az, revitalize the urban core and target job growth. · Encourage effective planning that creates more livable com~umties and implements the Council's Metro 2040 policy goals. FUNDING APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The following criteria are tailored to rrg~ the Council's Metro 2040 Regional Strategy goals. Applications must describe: the activities for which the grant will be used; the persons which the applicant plans to use in perfonmng the grant contract; the services and activities which will be paid for by funds of the applicant; and the applicant's need and ability to pay for the contract services. Council staff w'ill evaluate funding requests using these criteria m order to target funding to the pnonty areas and to ach~e the reg~o~ objectives. Whe Council encotrages commu~ties to take a ~oacUve approach to these plarmmg issues as a part of their comprchcnsive plan update proces& 1. Regional Blueprint and Growth Strategy Criteria Location mcIudes the Illustrative 2020 Mt.ISA · Location includes the Urban Reserve · Redevelopment Area within the Urban Core and Suburbs* (*Refex~ to Minneapolis, Saint Paul and adjacent suburbs.) 30 Points 30 Points 30 Points 2. Regional Systems Issues Criteria · Wastewater Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Goals · Local Water Management Plan · Tran~tion Initiatives 2 Points 2 Points 2 Points 3. Innovative and Creative Planning Criteria · Compact Urban Desig~ and Mixed Use Development · Life Cycle Housing 4 Points 4 Points 4. Economic Development Criteria · Transpo~tion and Transit Corridor Planning · Redevelopment · Brownfield Restoration 4 Points 4 Points 4 Points 5. Life Cycle Housing Criteria · Life Cycle Housing Plan, or Livable Commtmities Act Participation · Modify Ordinances to provide Life Cycle Housing · Rural Area Densities Consistent with Blueprint and Growth Strategy 2 Points 2 Points 2 Points 6. Intergovernmental Coordination Criteria · Shared Services with 1 to 3 Jurisdictions · More than 3 lurisdictions I Point 3 Points 7. Cluster Planning Criteria · Cooperat/ve Transportation, Sewer, Water and Housing Planning 2 Points 2 WORK PLAN AND BUDGET The Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes section 473.859 specifies the required components of local comprehensive plans. Comprehensive plans include policies, background, a land use plan (land use analysis, housing, water resources management, historic site preservation, solar access protection), a public facilities plan (transportation, aviation, wastewater, parks and open space, water supply) and an implementation program (official controls, capital improvement program). Refer to the Council's Local Planning Handbook (May, 1997) for detailed reformation on comprehensive plan content. Local comprehensive plans should reflect the Council's regional growth strategies as set forth in the Council's Re~onal Blueprint. Applicants should include a work plan itemizing specific planning activities and a budget identifying planning activities funded by the planning assistance grant. A work plan and budget (Attachment A) must accompany the funding application. Activities eligible for funding include costs and expenses directly related to the plarming activities specified in the work program and may include staff pay, consultant and professional services, printing and publishing. Activities not eligible for funding include per diem payments to appointed or elected board or commission members, and equipment purchases. The local government should include a resolution (Attachment B) authonzmg application to the Metropolitan Council for planning assistance grants. -- ,, FUNDING AWARDS AND TIMING Applications for funding (l'm'd copy) must be received at the Council's offices by 4:30 o.m.. Friday, July 18, 1997. Council staff will review applications, assign points and make appropriate funding awards consistent with Council-adopted criteria. Funding awards will be forwarded to the governing body of the Council for information. Preliminary funding decisions will be made wilttm 45 business days of the date of application receipt, at which time the Council will co~ua,,;t not less than 80 percent of the grant amount for qualifying applications. Final grant awards and amounts will be made following the submission and review of all grant applications. Applicants will be notified in writing of their pmlimma~ and final award status. The Council will execute a grant agreement with the local unit of government. The agreenmats address the funding disbursement schedule, the authoriz~ use of funds, progress r~porting requirements, accounting and records, audit procedures and grant amendmmts. MAXLMI.rM AMOUNT OF GRANT Ch-ants may not exceed 75 percent of the total costs and expenses of the work plan, service or activity for which a grant ks awarded. (Minnesota Statutes section 473.867, subdivision 4). The maximum grant amount allowed for each co,i-fiunity is approximately $20,000. PARTICIPATION BY WOMEN/MINORITY/DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES Grant recipients and their contractors are encouraged to take affinr~tive action to utilize women, minority, or disadvantaged businesses in their assisted planning activities. Orlgtnatmg Depmhnent Approved fOr Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent 6-9-97 Stephanie Olson Item No. By: Community Development Specialist By: 6.9 / MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBT'/AIN AN APPRAISAL FOR THE PROPERTY AT 7813 ANGELINE DRIVE AND 7819 ANGELINE DRIVE Two adjacent vacant lots, located at the southeast corner of Winnetka Avenue and Angeline Drive, have long been available for sale by the owners. The vacant ParCel at 7813 Angeline Drive is approximately 10,220 square feet and the vacant parcel at 7819 Angeline Drive is approximately 9,200 square t"eet in size. Both properties are located in the R-l, Single Family Residential, Zoning District. These properties are of interest to the City as staff has considered the idea of constructing a handicap accessible twinhome on the site, similar in design to the twinhomes previously built by the City. The location would be easily accessible to bus routes on Winnetka Avenue. Staff has discussed this as a joint venture with CommonBond and several other non-profit agencies. Another reason that City staff is interested in developing the property is that drainage issues associated with the railroad could be corrected at the same time construction takes place. To initiate this potential future City housing project, staff is requesting appraisals for both properties to determine the "as is" market values. Staff has contacted several appraisal companies and the City will use the services of the Iow bidder. Once the appraisals are completed, staff would present the information to the Council to determine how to proceed. If the City decides to acquire the properties, the following funds may be used: TIF, EDA, CDBG, Scattered Site and HOME funds. The City has also received a grant from the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors in the amount of $1,500, and 1997 CHDO funds have also been preliminarily approved for the project. Staff recommends that the City Council approve a motion Authorizing an Appraisal for the Properties at 7813 Angeline Drive and 7819 Angeline Drive. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Revtew: AdministraUon: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ ST. AVE, N. 50TH AVE. N. 47TH 48TH AVE. th CIR, PARK } REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Ap. enda Section City Manager Consen~ ~",~6-9-97 Kirk McDonald j ~) Item No. By: Management Assistant By:. / ×/ 6.10 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND ,,,SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR 1997 BACKYARD DRAIN, Z~GE IMPROVEMENT NO. 583 At the April 28 Council meeting, the Council approved a Resolution Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications for 1997 Backyard Drainage Improvement Projects (Improvement Project No .583). The City Engineer has prepared the plans and specifications for the backyard drainage projects and they will be presented to the Council for consideration at this meeting. As you are aware, at the December 9, 1996, Council meeting, the Council authorized preparation of preliminary plans for areas I - 3 and authorized survey investigation work for areas 4 - 6. This work was completed by the City Engineer and all property ownerS'were contacted to determine if they would be supportive of the projects and provide the necessary easements. City staff then met with the City Engineer and the Engineer prioritized the projects on need from an engineering standpoint. The basis for constructing backyard projects is based on the need for storm sewer because acceptable grades for backyard drainage swales cannot be met. In addition, abutting property owners must be agreeable to grant temporary or permanent easements to accommodate construction. Projects have been prioritized on how flat the slopes are in the drainage swales and the size of the drainage area. Listed below is the priority ranking for each project based on the above criteria. I Construction Construction + Priority # Area and Location Costs 25% indirect Costs 1 Area 1 - 46= I Winnetka Avenues $36,200.00 $42,250.00 2 Area 6 - 40= / Boone Avenues (east side) 24,500.00 30,600.00 3 Area 7 -Terra Linda Park 15,000.00 18,750.00 4 Area 2 - Little Acre Park 16,800.00 21,000.00 5 Area 3 - 34"' / Gettysburg Avenues 18,200.00 22,750.00 6 Area 4 - 40~ / Boone Avenues (west side) 15,300.00 19,150.00 TOTAL $126,000.00 $157,500.00 Area 5 is not included because grading improvements can be done to properly convey storm water. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 6-9-97 Due to limited funding available in the Storm Water Utility Fund, the Council authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for priorities 1 - 4, for a total of $115,600. The Terra Linda Park improvement ($18,750) would be funded out of Park CIP Surplus and priorities 1, 2, and 4 ($96,850) would be funded out of the Storm Water Utility Fund. It was determined that priorities 5 and 6 would be delayed until a future project. The attached resolution was prepared by the City Attorney approving the plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids. It is anticipated that bids will be opened on July 23 and that bids will be considered/contract awarded by the City Council on July 28. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. Bonestroo Rosene m--1 Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Richard E Turner, PE · Glenn R COOk, PE. · ~ol~ert G Sc~umcnt, PE · Jerry A Bourdon =E ,~c,hard ~[/ Foster, ~E.. Oavid O, Los~ota, PE · Robert C ~us~ek, A I,A · Mark A Hanson Mic~aet T Rautmann. PE. · Ted K F~eJd. RE · Kenneth P Anderson, PE · Mark R. ~olfs 2E · MEMO TO: /Kirk McDonald Jeannine Clancy FROM: Mark Hanson DATE: June 4, 1997 SUBJECT: 1997 Backyard Drainage Project City Project No. 583 Our File No. 34202 Plan approval for the above-referenced project is scheduled for the June 9, 1997, Meeting. The proposed schedule is as follows: Approve Plans and Specifications Receive Rights-of Entry/Easements Receive Bids Award Contract Begin Construction Complete Construction June 9, 1997 July 23, 1997 July 23, 1997 July 28, 1997 August 11, 1997 September 29, 1997 Council Four areas are included in the plan for bidding, which are described as follows: Area 1 (46th Avenue/Winnetka Avenue) Estimated Project Cost $45,200.00 Five property owners are included. We have met with four of the five owners who are in favor of the project... The one owner who we have not met with but have verbally spoken with indicates that he will work with the City to accomplish what is best for their neighbors. Area 2 (Little Acre Park) Estimated Project Cost $21,000.00 Seven property owners are included. We have met with six of the seven owners who are in favor of the project. The one owner who we have not met with has been contacted in writing but has not responded. We suspect that they are in favor of the project based on neighbor..s' comments. 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 · Fax: 612-636-1311 Area 4 (40th Avenue/Boone Avenue east side) Estimated Project Cost $30,600.00 Six property owners are included. We have met with five of six owners who are in favor of the project. The one owner who we have not met 'has been contacted in writing but has not responded. The one property owner who was previously reluctant has agreed to the revised storm sewer alignment. Area 7 (Terra Linda Park) Estimated Proiect Cost $18,750.00 One property owner is included. We have met with the site manager to review the work. Please review the attached letter to owners. At this time, they are anxious to have the project constructed, however, they have implied that the damage to the garage foundation is due to drainage from the park. COUNCI Originating Depa~Lu,ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent 6-9-97 Stephanie Olson Item No. By: Community Development Specialist B~. 6. [ 4 MOTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION OF THE PROPERTY AT 5212 WINNETKA AVENUE AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK BIDS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #573) Last fall, the City purchased the single family home at 5212Winnetka Avenue North from HUD under the Direct and Private Sales program. The City acquired the Property with CDBG Scattered Site Ho'using funds and will be using the 5-City CHDO HOME funds, along with CDBG, MHFA, TIF and/or EDA funds for rehabilitation of the project. At the time of purchase, the home was in need of significant rehabilitation. Project for Pride and Living (PPL) was hired to assist staff with the plans and specifications for the project. PPL and staff have been working on the plans and specs, including options specified by the City, and they are now complete A few minor changes may need to be made, and with the Council's approval, will be done by staff before bidding the project. The attached plans include a basic rehabilitation (Option 1) and an alternate rehabilitation (Option 2) for 5212 Winnetka Avenue North. Specifications will be distributed on Monday, June 9, before the Councit meeting. A summary for each rehabilitation is listed below: Basic Rehabilitation: The specifications for the basic rehabilitation work include roof replacement, siding repair/replacement. insulation, gutters, cement/block repair replacement, ddveway repair to correct the drainage issue, deck repair, replacement of windows, remodel south bedrooms/family room area into a 3-season porch, gut basement interior, repair/replacement of interior surfaces and upgrades to plumbing, heating and electrical systems. (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 Request for Action Page 2 6-9-97 Alternate Rehabilitation: The specifications for the alternate rehabilitation include several options that are different from the basic rehab. The first option is to demolish the south bedrooms/family room area and tuck under garage and rebuild a garage only at a higher elevation to eliminate poor garage construction and drainage issues. This would result in the construction of a new driveway. Other options include removal of existing siding and replacing it with vinyl siding, and removing the existing deck and rebuilding a new deck in a different location. Bids would be presented to the Council at the July 28 Council meeting. Rehabilitation work will begin immediately after the contract is awarded. It is the staff's goal to have the rehabilitation work completed by this fall and sell the home toa New Hope family through the first time home buyers program. Staff recommends approval of a Motion Approving Plans and Specifications for Rehabilitation of the Property at 5212 Winnetka Avenue North and Authorization to Seek Bids (Improvement Project #573) COUN~ -- REQUF T FOR ACTION Originating Depa~huent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager ~ Public H~ring 6-9-97 Item No. Stephanie Olson By: Community Development Specialist Dy:. 7. l PUBLIC HF_ARING: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE SALE OF 6067 WEST BROADWAY TO JEFFREY AND CYNTHIA GREENLUN (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 545) At the May 12 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized publication of notice and holding of a public hearing regarding the sale of 6067 West Broadway This is the public hearing to authoriz~ and approve the sale. A Purchase Agreement has been signed by Jeffrey and Cynthia Greenlun for the two-story house located at 6067 West Broadway and is contingent upon approval by the City Council. The Purchase Agreement states that the City will sell the home to Jeffrey and Cynthia Greenlun for $95,000. The buyers are in the process of qualifying for an FHA first mortgage and have already been approved for a second mortgage in the amount of $10,000 using CHDO Home Investment Partnership funds. The mortgage banker for the buyers is confident that the FHA first mortgage will be approved, and will be receiving verification the second week in June. If Jeffrey and Cynthia Greenlun do not qualify for the first mortgage, the Purchase Agreement will be null and void. Jeffrey and Cynthia Greenlun will be attending the Public Hearing and staff will introduce the buyers to the Council. Staff recommend approval of the Resolution Authorizing and Approving the Sale of 6067 West Broadway to Jeffrey and Cynthia Greenlun Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Public Hearing 6-9-97 Kirk McDonald ~'~ Item No. By: Management Assistant ~/~/ 7.2 PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED): THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 97-03, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY ESTABLISHING PAWN SHOPS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE B-4 ZONING DISTRICT (PLANNING CASE 96-04) At the November 25, 1996, City Council meeting, the Council conducted a public hearing on Ordinance No. 97-03, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Pawn Shop~'as a Permitted Use in the B-4 Zoning District. (A public hearing is necessary to amend the Zoning Code.) Per the reports contained in the Planning Study, the City Attorney and Planning Consultant have indicated that pawn shops cannot be totally prohibited in the City and it is staff's recommendation that the most appropriate area for these uses is the B-4, Community Business, Zoning District. The Planning Commission considered this ordinance at its November 6 meeting and recommended approval of the ordinance. Due to the fact that the APS (Automated Pawn System) technology will not be available until later in 1997, staff recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing for consideration at a future Council work session so that staff could explain all sections of the ordinance to the Council ir~ detail. The Council continued the public hearing until January 13, 1997. At the January 13 Council meeting, the Council continued the public hearing to March 24, 1997. At the March 24 Council meeting, the Council continued the public hearing to June 9, 1997, and that is why this item is appearing on this agenda, o*- Ordinance No. 97-21, which appears under the "Ordinances & Resolutions" section of this agenda. extends the current moratorium on pawn shops in New Hope until September 30, 1997. The comments contained in that request explain the reasons for the extension. Due to the moratorium extension, staff recommends that the Council continue the public hearing again until September 22, 1997. This should allow adequate time for the APS technology to be prepared to inco~orate New Hope into the system and will allow additional time for research on the "second hand dealers" issue. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ COUN~ Originating Depa~Lment Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Public Hearing 6-9-97 Kirk McDonald Item No. By: Management Assistant E~. 7.3 PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE NO. 97-20 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE SECTION 4.074(4)(F) BY REQUIRING ANNUAL REVIEW AND MONITORING OF GROUP CARE FACILITIES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS This is a public hearing to consider a routine Zoning Code amendment regarding the annual review and monitoring responsibility for Group Care Facilities. The current code requires the annual review/monitoring by the Human Services committee. Due to the non-existence of such a committee, this responsibility is being shifted to the Department of Fire, Safety and Inspections. This is part of the Zoning Code and, therefore, requires a public hearing. Due to the fact that this code correction is a housekeeping item, it was not reviewed by the Planning Commission. A public hearing notice was published for this hearing. The amendment was reviewed with the Department of Fire, Safety and Inspections and they are in agreement with assuming the responsibility for the annual inspections. Staff recommend that a motion be passed closing the public hearing and that a second motion be passed approving Ordinance 97-20. Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ ORDINANCE NO. 97-20 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE SECTION 4.074(4)(f) BY REQUIRING ANNUAL REVIEW AND MONITORING OF GROUP CARE FACILITIES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.074(4) "Group Care Facility" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by amending subsection (f) to read as follows: monitoring by tt~ Department of n o o ,be in compliance with all 'applicable construction ahd operation regulations and standards. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the day of , 1997. W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post the , 1997.~ day of STEVEN A. $ONORALL MICHAEL R. ~FLEUR MARTIN P MALECHA .- May 7, 1997 Coamc[ & SONDt~[,r~, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite ~203 Brookl~ P~k. Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (612) 42~71 F~ (612) 42~7 Valerie Leone City Clerk City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Amendment to Group Care Facility Inspection Requirements Our File No: 99.49720 Dear Valerie: Please find enclosed a Notice of Public Hearing and a proposed Ordinance Amending the Inspection Requirements for Group Ca~e Facilities we discussed in our May 6, 1997 telephone conversation. To review, §4.074(4)(f) requires an amendment to shift the annual review and monitoring responsibility to the Department of Protection Inspections from the Human Services Committee. As noted in the public hearing notice, this is due to the non-existence of the Human Services Committee. As we also discussed, this is a zoning ordinance and as a result requires a public hearing. Since this is somewhat of a housekeeping item, a review by the Planning Commission may not be necessary, however you were going to discuss this issue with Kirk. As a result, I have enclosed a public hearing notice without indicating at which forum the public 'Hearing will occur. Please keep in mind we need 10 days published notice before the hearing to comply with the statutory requirements for amending the Zoning Code. Please let me know when and where you would like to have the public hearing held. I will amend the notice and forward it to the paper for publication after you provide me with the necessary information. Contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this matter. V~.~t ru l y yours, Steven A. Sondrall slw Enclosure .. cc: Kirk McDonald, Management Asst. COUN~ Orlgmattng Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Public Hearing 6-9-97 Kirk McDonald ~ Item No. By: Management Assistant By:.~/ 7,4 PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION VACATING STORM SEWER AND UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AT 7300-7390 49TM AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 598) As the Council is aware, the proposed development of a 120,000 square foot office/warehouse building at 7300 49t" Avenue will require the vacation of two easements. This is the public hearing to consi,~,er the vacation of the two easements, described as follows: 1. There is a 30-inch storm sewer and a 10-foot easement that runs north/south through the property. The developer is proposing to relocate the line and the easement to the west of the new building. The existing 10-foot storm sewer easement needs to be vacated and the developer will dedicate a new easement to the City over the new storm sewer line. 2. There is a 20-foot drainage and utility easement running parallel with the eastern property line. The Zoning Code allows a 10-foot building setback on a side yard adjacent to a railroad right-of-way. The developer is proposing to locate the building 10 feet from the railroad right-of-way to utilize the adjacent railroad to the east via a rail spur. Therefore, 10 feet of the existing 20-foot drainage and utility easement along the east property line needs to be vacated. The City Code states that the City Council may, by resolution, vacate any public utility easement, or any portion thereof, if said easement is not used for sewer, drainage, electric, telephone, or gas purposes. The petition to vacate the easement must be in writing by the petitioner and must be accompanied by a non-refundable fee, as established by the City Code. The petitioner also must submit to the City a current abstract or other evidence of title to the premises to be vacated, as approved by the City Attorney. The Code further states that no vacation of the premises shall be made unless the Council determines that it is in the interest of the public to vacate said utility easement. The petitioner has complied with the requirements of the City Code and has submitted the appropriate documents and fee. (cont'd.) MOTION BY ~ / ..... i TO: Review: ~ttom: Finance: Request for Action_ Page 2 6-9-97 The developer has submitted the appropriate fee and submitted legal descriptions for the easement vacations. However. as you are aware, the route of the new storm sewer has been changed since the original plans were approved. The City has not yet received a revised legal description for the new storm sewer easement or the ponding easements. If these descriptions/easements are not received by the Council meeting, and if the other criteria outlined in the City Attorney's letter are not met, staff recommends that the public hearing be continued until the June 23 Council meeting, June 3, 1997 Kirk McDonald City of New Hooe 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 5000 Winnetka 2nd\Storm Sewer Relocation & Easement Vacations Our File Nos. 99.11189 & 99.11190 Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed for consideration at the June 9, 1997 Council meeting the proposed resolutions: 1. Resolution Rescinding Resolution Declaring Adequacy Of Petition For Public Storm Sewer Improvement At 7300 49th Avenue North, 2. Resolution Vacating Storm Sewer And Utility And Drainage Easements At 7300-7390 4gth Avenue North. In follow up to your June 3, 1997 letter to the Developer it is my understanding the storm sewer relocation project will be done privately by the Oeveloper. As a result, a Minn. Stat. Chap. 429 assessment proceeding will not be necessary. We do not have any written confirmation from the Developer indicating he is withdrawing his petition. Therefore, I recommend he state this intention publicly at the next council meeting before the first resolution referenced above is adopted by the Council. The record should be clear a specially assessed public improvement is not being requested by the Developer. Second, with regard to the Developer's request to privately relocate the public storm sewer, it should be made clear to the 0eveloper that plans and specifications must be orovided to the City prior to the sewer relocation for approval by the City Engineer. Further, a construction and inspection schedule must be Kirk McDonald June 3, 1997 Page 2. submitted and followed by the Developer to oermit the City Engineer to make appropriate inspections of the work in progress so we can assure ourselves the reconstruction meets all City standards, l also recommend we maintain a strict approach to retainage reduction so adequate funds are at our disposal at the end of the project to correct any deficiencies, if any, in the construction of pub]ir improvements related to this development. Third, regarding the easement vacations, we don't need a revised legal description for the existing storm sewer as you indicated in your letter. If we requested a revised easement New Hope Code §6.091(4) would require republication. Our code does not allow us to increase\decrease the extent of the easement to be vacated after publication of the hearing notice unless we republish. As long as the property owner provides the City with a new easement covering the entire storm sewer it will not matter that we vacated more qf the easement than necessary. However, since we have not received a ~evised legal description for the new storm sewer easement or the ponding easements I recommend the public hearing to vacate the existing easements be postponed to the June 23, 1997 Council meeting or until such time as we have signed easements for the relocated storm sewer and ponds. As you pointed out we will also need title evidence from the Developer to assure ourselves the appropriate parties have signed the new easements. We have not received this information from the Developer as well. I would also suggest the easements not be vacated until we receive a signed Development Contract and Letter of Credit guaranteeing construction of all public improvements. A copy of the Development Contract is also enclosed for your review. Concerning the City Engineer's May 29, 1997 letter, please be aware it may be a simple construction task to upgrade the existing storm sewer to accommodate the 35.8 acre upstream drainage area unrelated to the proposed property development as part of the development prolect as suggested. However, coming to an agreement on allocation between the City and the Developer is not a simple matter. Numerous Federal and state court decisions have been recently decided limiting governmental ability to exact requirements From developers unrelated to their developments. Unless there is a nexus between the development's impact and the required construction condition, allocating the cost to the developer for unrelated construction such as an upgraded water quality system may not be possible and constitutes a taking. Courts have not looked favorably on this practice. I a]so doubt the Developer's engineer meant $H7,700.00 is the City's fair share of the upgraded system in his Hay 16, 1997 letter. To establish a fair cost allocation a defermination must be made regarding the Developer's cost to handle his own water without the upgrade. The Kirk McDonald June 3, 1997 Page 3. difference between that cost and the upgrade's cost would be the City's share for the preferred system. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments concerning the enclosed resolutions or the content of this letter. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondratl zltl enclosures CC: Dan Donahue Valerie Leone N 'tAV VNNVISIK101 Or,mating Depa~m~ent Approved for ~enda ~ ~enda Set,on City Manager & Planning 6-9-97 Kirk McDonald ~ ~te~ No. ~: Management Assistant ~~ 8. ~ RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISED ~DING, D~INAGE AND UTILI~ P~N FOR OFFICE/ WAREHOUSE CONSTRUCTION AT 7300 49TM AVENUE NORTH, SUBMI~ED BY HOYT DEVELOPMENT/CONTINENTAL DISTRIBUTION PARTNERS LLP (P~NNING CASE 97-06) At the May 12 Council meeting, the Council approved plans and site/building plan review/approval for the construction of an office/warehouse building at 7300 47. Avenue. The plans for the 120,000 square foot multi-tenant building, which were submiEed by Ho~ Developmen~Continental Distribution P~ners LLP, included a grading/drainage/utility plan that included a 36-inch storm sewer pipe. The City Engineer had requested that the original plans, which denoted a 30-iRch pipe, be revised to a 36-inch pipe. The developer agreed to the change and requested that the City pa~icipate in the cost of the storm sewer. Due to the fact that no agreement has been reached with the developer on cost pa~icipation, ~he developer has submi~ed a revised grading/drainage/utility plan showing a 30-inch storm sewer. The City Engineer has indicated that the revised storm water plan provides for storm water treatment for this site and the Navarre site, but not the 35.8-acre upstream drainage area which presently flows through existing 30-inch storm sewer. Due to the fact that the Council approved plans that included a 36-inch storm pipe and the developer has now submi~ed revised plans including a 30-inch storm pipe, staff is recommending that the Council approve a resolution approving the revised grading, drainage and utili~ plan. A determination was made that this plan change did not need to be re-submiffed to the Planning Commission for consideration. The a~ached resolution approved that change and staff recommends approval of the resolution. M~ON BY ~ SECO~ ~ ~ I ~: ~~Uon: F~e: ~A-~ I ~ ,/ '1 I l ~J 3)4) ,/ / / / / -~ STMH1 ON EXIST 30' RE:B96.0 INV--887,58 COUNCIL Originating Depa~Lment Approved for Agenda A~enda Section DeveTopment City Manager & Planning / ~~-9-97 Kirk McDonald Item No. By: Management Assistant B~. 8.2 RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTIO~DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION FOR PUBLIC STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT AT 7300 49m AVENUE NORTH (STORM SEWER RELOCATION PROJECT NO. 598) At the May 12 Council'meeting, the City Council approved-a Resolution Declaring Adequacy of P,ctition for Public Storm Sewer Improvement at 7300 49"~ Avenue North and Ordering Preparation of Engineering Report (Storm Sewer Relocation Project No. 598). This action was taken because the developer had submitted a letter formally requesting that-~/he City undertake the project as a public improvement. Subsequent to that meeting, the developer has verbally indicated that he will construct the storm sewer as a private project. As a result, a Minn. Stat. Chapter 429 assessment proceeding will not be necessary. The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed resolution rescinding the previous resolution. The City does not have any written confirmation from the developer indicating he is withdrawing his petition. Therefore, the City Attorney recommends that the developer state this intention publicly at the Council meeting prior to the adoption of the resolution so that the record is clear that a specially assessed public improvement is not being requested by the developer. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. , ! Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ B .qestroo Eosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Arctmitects MF MO DATE: May 29, 1997 TO: Kirk McDonald Jcannine Clancy Steve Sondrall FROM: SUBJEC'r: Mark Hanson ' 5000 Winnetka 2~ Addition Lot 2, Block 1 Our FH, No. 34-Oen ~9.7-07} " .. . The develaper ham submitmed a revised site plan a~ it relams to storm wa2r drainage for t~e above- referenced siU~. The buildin$, Darking lot layout, and laudscaping {)lan have not chaug~d from that considered at the May 12, 1997, Council Mecfln$. The revised s~orm water plea i:u'ovides for the following: The existing 30..inch storm sewer that is located beneath the proposed Building will bc t~locat~ by the developer. Appm~imamly :~13 feet of 30-inch storm ~wer wiLl be consmacted at a 0.32 pefx~ut Bade mpla¢iflg 370 feet of 30-inch RCP storm sewer IocaU~t beDe~b ~ l~oposed building. Water' quality requirements for d~ Navarre site and d~s sim will be satisfied by expanding thg NavmTg water qoIttit7 pond and constructing a similar size l'~nd in thc n~ c~rn~r of this site. · The revised storm water plan u submitted provides [or.storm water .t~.a. tmer~ fo~..,hi~, site and tho Navarre.site, not the 35.8-acre upstream drainage .at'ma wmcn.pm.senuy r,ow.~ The de~(n~ has inaic~u~ ~ win nm ~.ow me o~ m ~ .o~?..? ,~,,y s e,aS.uns, o- inch storm ~wer pipe, which is required to a.CC, O ..mn~)da~ .mmr mm,ams ~..~uUCUOn, ,.o, tseamaent for the 3.q.g-acm upmsemn drainage ama, which could eamly be accommo(m in the poud!-~ mas ~posed for this p~'oject. Outflow West Pond East Pond Phosphorous Phosphorous 47.6 ac. (t) 0.3 ac. 0.4 ac. 1.12 ac.-ft. 56.2% 175.3 ppb · Upstream drainage area it a~ follows: Navarre. 3,6 acres, Lot 2 5000 Winnetka 2~ Addition. 8.2 acres, $.~.8 acres through e. tistin8 .?O-inch RCP. Although thc recommended 60 percent phosphorous removal could not be obtained for the whole 4'/.6 acre upstream watershed, the previous plan as proposed from an engineering standpoint was preferred over the plan being reviewed at this time, If the City elects to approve the plan as submitted, the following is recommended based on drainage: The relocated 3e-inch storm sewer shall he constructed in accordance with City standntcis. The existing 30-inch storm sewer ouffall shall be protected and may warrant additional rip rap depending on conalraction (detail plan shall be provided). The existing 30-inch storm sewer no~ of the relocated storm sewer shall be cleaned and televised bf the developer to verify its condition. The developer shall be responsible for damage due to his construction while the City shall be responsible for all other needed repairs. Water quality f~ the Navarre site and this site shall be in accnrdance with New Hope standards and Shingle Creek Watershed. The existing outfall for the Navarre pond (west pond) shall be relocalnd to the northerly end of the pond providing greater separation between inlet and outlet to prevent short-circuiting. The location of the out'fall .,,hall be ptoL~rly located neat the existing 3e-inch nuffall (detailed plans shall be provided). The outfall of the westerly pond shall blend in with the existing ditch in the railroad right- of-way. Conal~uction in railroad right, of-way shall be reviewed by CP Rail (detailed plans shall be provided). Metes and bounds easement descriptions shall be provided over the relocated storm sewer and water quality pond areas (west and east). A maintenance agreement shall be provided similar to Navarre pond. · A Letter of Credit shall be provided based on the following: 300 LF Televise/clean existing 30-inch storm sewer O $3/1.f. S900.00 515 LF Rekn:am 30" stu~m ~wer i~:l. Mils · $(d3/1.f. 30,900.00 L.S Pmte~ exis6n8 30" outfall O $1,000 1,000.00 7000 CY Water q~ilty pond/easements 0 $6/c.y. 42,000.CI0 LS Restoration/erosion control 0 $5,000 5.000.00 LS Sipage along sktt~ private driveway ~ $1,000 1.000.0~ Subtotal $95,800.00 +50~1, Bond 1~ ~ TOTAL, $143,700.00 Originating Department Approved for Agenda _ A~enda Section L~eveTo0ment City Manager & Planning 6-9-97 Kirk McDonald Item No. By: Management Assistant By:. 8.4 PLANNING CASE 97-11, REQUEST FOR,~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN EXTENSION ONTO THE EXISTING TOWER FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS WIRELESS SERVICE, 5008 HILLSBORO AVENUE NORTH, AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM, NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS. AND JOHN MINER, PETITIONERS This is an application for a conditional use permit amendment for a proposed Personal Communications Services (PCS) wireless telephone antenna cell site at the existing Nextel tower at 5008 Hillsboro Avenue North. Nextel, or OneComm, has previously been issued a conditional use permit to cons[ruct a tower at this location. This application is for an amendment of the existing CUP to allow for a 23.6 foot extension to the tower, including three antenna array. The property at issue is controlled by Nextel and owned by John Miner. APT is providing PCS services to the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area. Last year, APT was granted a license by the Federal Communications Commission to operate a PCS Wireless Phone System in the Twin Cities market area as well as five other major markets in the United States. APT is the 5th largest PCS license holder in the United States in terms of population equivalents The site is located in an I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District and all of the properties surrounding the site are I-1 Limited Industrial. An existing Cellular One self-supporting radio tower is located on the adjacent property to the north. The existing lattice style tower was granted a CUP in 1994. APT is proposing to extend the tower by 23.6 feet and place its antennas at the top of the extension. There will be up to nine directional panel antennas mounted at a 120 foot elevation. Unmanned prefabricated equipment cabinets measuring approximately 5' high x 3' wide x 3' deep will be located at the base of this tower. The antennas will transmit and receive Iow power radio signals. No lighting or advertising is planned or required for the tower or antennas. The tower extension will be coated with galvanized steel to match the existing tower. The site contains 1.8 acres and the tower is located at the northeast corner of the property and contained within a 50' x 50' (250 square feet) fenced enclosure. Ingress and egress to the existing tower is by a recorded easement through the Miner's property using the existing driveway from Hillsboro Avenue. The site is visited approximately once a month by maintenance personnel using utility trucks. The existing building and tower enclosure occupy most of this fiat lot which abuts a large wetland to the east. The east side.of the lot has a tall wooded buffer of softwood trees, such as cottonwoods. Because of the existing buffer, no additional landscaping was required when the existing tower was constructed in 1994. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Arl~ation: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 8-9-97 Conditional Use permit 1. All of the Zoning Code criteria for a CUP were addressed in 1994 when the existing tower was constructed and were found to be met. Statements submitted by the applicant with this CUP amendment that address the Zoning Code criteria for a CUP are as follows: A. The proposed use is consistent with the existing use of this property. The existing tower has been in place since 1994. It will not impair the use and enjoyment of surrounding property nor impede its normal development. No special parking is necessary and traffic will not increase due to the use. B. The site will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. PCS wireless uses Iow power to insure that the signal stays within the designated ~cell" and does not interfere with neighboring "cells." An important feature of this Iow power is that no ionizing radiation is created. C. This site will enhance public safety and welfare because it will enable APT to bring PCS technology to the City of New Hope. Ordinance 97-04 The newly adopted ordinance establishing regulations for the construction and placement of telecommunication towers and facilities states that "Personal wireless service antennas erected on an antenna tower may be allowed as a conditionally permitted use within Industrial Zoning Districts, provided they comply with certain standards. This application is compared to the specific appli,~able requirements of the new Telecommunications Ordinance 97-04 as follows: 1. Written authorization by the property owner has been pr. ovided. 2. Building Code compliance will be a condition of approval. 3. Structural design verification by engineer - a structural analysis has been provided and will also be a condition of approval. 4. Setbacks or "confined collapse" documentation - The existing tower does not meet the setback requirements of the new ordinance and is essentially "grandfathered in." The tower is located adjacent to the north property line and is setback 50 feet from the existing building. The ordinance states that the setback requirements may be reduced if "confined collapse" documentation is provided. In the 5/21 petitioner's correspondence, they indicate they are in the process of having a report prepared on this issue. Any approval should be subject to the petitioner providing adequate "confined collapse" information. 5. 1,000-foot separation - The existing tower does not meet the 1,000-foot separation requirement, as there is another existing 150-foot tower located 175 feet north of the site. This is not an application for the construction of a new tower, but a request to extend the height on an existing tower, it is staff's opinion that the existing tower does not need to meet this requirement. 6. Height - Maximum height of a two-antenna array tower can be 145 feet and this tower is 123.5 feet tall, with two antenna arrays at 100 feet and 120 feet, respectively. 7. Illumination - none proposed. 8. · Advertising - none proposed. 9. Painting - The tower extension will be galvanized and match the existing structure. 10. Security fence/anti-climb device - The site is currently surrounded by an eight-foot chain-link fence and the petitioner has submitted concept information for an anti-climb device. Any approval should include this condition. 11. Equipment at base of tower - There will be four equipment cabinets at the base of the tower to accommodate the tower extension. The cabinets will be light beige in color and are approximately the size of an air conditioner. 12. Landscal3in.q - No additional lands(Japing is being proposed due to the natural buffer that currently exists on the site. Request for Action Page 3 8-9-97 The Planning Commission considered this request at its June 3 meeting and recommended approval of the CUP amendment to add a 23.6-foot extension to the existing tower at 5008 Hillsboro Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with State Building Code. 2. Minnesota Registered Engineer's certification of all tower modifications, with statement on the condition of the existing tower. 3. Submittal of "confined collapse" information, which is to be reviewed/approved by Building Official. 4. Finalize anti-climb device details for this tower and submit revised elevation and specifications, which are to be reviewed/approved by Building Official. 5. Site plan to show all utility connections and eight-foot fence detail. 6. Site plan to identify location of all buildings, 7. Lease information on removal of antenna arrays after cessation of use. 8. Annual inspection by staff. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. COUNCIl ["~).~,}S~ ~ '- REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda ,,, Ag.enda~Sectlon ~lannlng ~, City Manager Development 6-9-97 Kirk McDonald Item No. ]~Y: Management Assistant Ely:. 8.5 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE ~F SECURITY FOR KIMBALL ADDITION (PLANNING CASE 94-15) The City has held a certified check in the amount of $3,000 on the Kimball Addition housing development at 36'~' and Decatur for the installation of public improvements. The developer originally provided a Letter of Credit in the amount of $133,500, and in August of 1995, the Letter of Credit was reduced to $25,000. In August of 1996, the Council authorized staff to draw on the Letter of Credit, bul also agreed that the developer could pay the administrative fee (due at that time) and prese,pt an alternate security for a lessor amount based upon the remaining grading work. At that time, the developer paid the administrative fees and provided a certified check in the amount of $3,000. As you are aware, for the past six months there have been'on-going discussions between the City and the developer regarding corrections to the drainage swale between lots 7 and 8. At the May 27 Council meeting, the Council gave the developer the approval to proceed with a solution to correct the situation. That work has been completed and the City Engineer has inspected the work and prepared the attached correspondence recommending release of the security. The one outstanding issue that needs to be settled is the administrative fees that are due. It is routine policy (and stated on the planning case application materials) that all outside consulting expenses (legal, e_ngineering, and planning) will be the responsibility of applicants. The City bills applicants on a quarterly basis and Hidden Creek Development was current on their bills up through the 2nd of 1996. Since the 2nd quarter of 1996, no invoices have been paid and there have been significant legal/engineering consulting expenses incurred by the City over the past year in dealing with the drainage swale issue. Per the attached invoices, $847.50 was incurred in expenses during the 3rd and 4th quarters of 1996, the 1st quarter of 1997 and an additional $824.50 has been incurred during the 2nd quarter, for a total of $1,672.00. The attached resolution authorizes the release of the $3,000.00 security, subject to the developers paying outstanding administrative expenses for legal and engineering services in the amount of $1,672.00. If the Council desires to change this amount, the resolution needs to be modified. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Originating Depa~hl~ent Approved for Agenda A~enda Section DeveTopment City Manager & Planning 6-9-97 Kirk McDonald Item No. By: Management Assistant ~ 8.6 RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT/~OR BUILDING DEMOLITION AT 7528 42N° AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 595) At the May 12 Council meeting, the City Council passed a resolution approving plans and specifications for the demolition of the City-owned building at 7528 42"d Avenue and authorized advertisement for bids. Bids will be opened on June 5 and will be presented to the Council on June 9. The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed resolution awarding the contract for the building demolition and paragraph 3 of! the resolution will be completed after the bids are opened. The demolition will be financed with 42'° Avenue Redevelopment TIF funds. As you are aware, the City acquired the building from Foremost, Inc. several years ago and leased the building to Phoenix Manufacturing. The lease with Phoenix Manufacturing expired after the first of the year and they vacated the building. Earlier this spring, the Council approved the sealing of wells on the property and an environmental survey of the site. All work has been completed and the building is ready for demolition. The long-term goal of the City is to rezone this and adjacent properties from industrial to commercial use and to redevelop the site. The plans and specifications call for demolition and removal of the existing structure and its materials. Site restoration will include topsoil borrow and seeding. The plans call for the removal/replacement of approximately 90 lineal feet of curb along Quebec Avenue North. The plan includes alternates for the construction of two different sized parking lots, which would provide parking for 28 and 89 parking stalls, respectively. Both plans assume a temporary design, which includes a 6-inch thick bituminous surface. Concrete curb is not included. The large parking lot design assumes that a new storm sewer system (catch basins125-foot pipe) would collect storm water runoff while the small parking lot design assumes overland drainage. The large parking lot design assumes two access points (42~ Avenue and Quebec Avenue) while the small parking lot assumes one access (Quebec Avenue). The construction cost estimate for each parking lot design is as follows: Parking Lot - 89 stalls $43,750.00 Parking Lot - 28 stalls $17,100.00 MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action.~ Page 2 6-9-97 Staff has included the alternates only for bidding purposes and assumes the lots would not be constructed unless an agreement was reached with a neighboring business to finance the construction of the temporary lots. On June 3 the City Manager met with the owner of the Sunshine Factory to review the parking lot alternates and costs. Randy Rosengren indicated that, depending on the bids, the Sunshine Factory may have an interest in financing one of the temporary parking lots. After the bids are tabulated, if agreements can be reached with the Sunshine Factory, the Council may want to award the bid with one of the parking lot alternates. Due to the fact that it may take several weeks to prepare the maintenance and financing agreements between the City and Sunshine Factory if the parking lot construction proceeds, the Council may want to postpone the contract award until June 23. If a determination is made not to proceed with the parking lot construction, staff recommends approval of the resolution as presented. :~ ~or~e,-too Anderlik & ^ o¢iate Engineers & Architects MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Kirk McDonald Mark Hanson May 6, 1997 Foremost Building Demolition Parking Lot Alternatives City Project No. 595 Our File No. 34205 Attached are two cost estimates to construct two different size parking lots after the Foremost building is demolished at 7528 - 42"d Avenue. The two parking lot sizes are based on providing 89 parking stalls and 28 parking stalls. The two layouts are attached. Both layouts-assume a temporary design, which includes 6-inch thick gravel base and 2-inch thick bituminous surface. Concrete curb is not included. The large parking lot design assumes that a new storm sewer system (catch basins / 25-foot pipe) would collect storm water runoff while the small parking lot design assumes overland drainage. The large parking lot design assumes two access points (42~d Avenue and Quebec Avenue) while the small parking lot assumes one access (Quebec Avenue). The construction cost estimate for each parking lot design is shown below. Parking Lot - 89 stalls Parking Lot - 28 stalls $ 43,750.00 · $17,100.00 2J3S ~X/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN SS113-3898 * 612-636-4600 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE FOR FOREMOST PARKING LOT - 89 STALLS FILE NO. 34205 Qty. Unit 1,400 cY 100 CY I00 CY 60 LF 25 LF I EA I EA 1,460 TN 450 TN 20 LF 60 SY 2,100 LF 180 CY O.5 AC I LS Item Common excavation @ $5.00 / c.y. Subgrade excavation @ $5.00 / c.y. Select granular borrow @ $6.00 / c.y. Remove concrete curb and gutter @ $5.00 / 1.f. 15" RCP, Class 5 @ $30.00 / l.f. Construct MH over existing 21" RCP @ $1,600.00 / ea. 2' x 3' CB @ $1,000.00 / ea. ' Class 5, aggregate base @ $7.00 / tn. Typ~ 41 bituminous wearing course @ $30.00 / tn. Concrete curb and gutter @ $15.00/l.f. Bituminous curb @ $10.00 / l.f. 2" bituminous trail @ $10.00 / s.y. 4" solid white paint @ $0.50 / l.f. Topsoil borrow @ $I0.00 / c.y. Seeding @ $1,500.00 / ac. Traffic control @ $2,000.00 Subtotal + 5% Contingencies TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST Cost $7,(K)0.00 600.00 600.00 300.00 750.00 1,600.00 ! ,000.00 IO,22o.oo t3,5oo.o6 900.00 200.00 600.(30 1,050.(30 1,800.00 750.C~ 2,000.00 $41,670.00 2,080.0O $43,750.00 i:X34X34205~orelm_ est PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE FOR FOREMOST PARKING LOT - 28 STALLS FILE NO. 34205 500 50 50 550 170 550 50 0.5 ! Unit CY CY CY TN TN LF CY AC LS Item Common excavation @ $6.00 / c.y. Subgrade excavation @ $5.00 / c.y. Select granular borrow @ $6.00 / e.y. Class 5, aggregate base @ $8.00 / tn. Tyl~ 41 bituminous wearing course @ $40.00 / tn. 4" solid white paint @ $0.60 / l.f. Topsoil borrow @ $10.00 / c.y., Seeding @ $1,500.00 / ac. Traffic control @ $2,000.00 ' Subtotal + 5% Contingencies " TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST C,ost $3,000.00 250.00 250.00 4,400.00 6,800.00 330.00 500.00 750.00 2,000.00 $16,280.00 820.00 $17,100.00 Orlgtnatmg Depmm.ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Developmen~ & Parks and Recreation 6/9/9~ P~anning Item No. Shad French By: · 8.7 RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRAC'~ FOR TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENTS FOR SUNNY HOLLOW SCHOOL PARK (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 593) TO BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS Bids were opened on Wednesday, June 4th and have been evaluated by the engineers for tennis court improvements for Sunny Hollow School Park (Improvement Project 593). The Engineer's letter regarding bid evaluations is attached. Plans and specifications were approved at the May 12th Council meeting. The 1997 CIP contains $100,000 for this purchase. Contractor Base Bid Alternate Bid Bituminous Roadways 64,334.15 5,851.20 Frattalone Paving 69,723.50 5,602.80 Barber Construction 81,454.86 3,864.00 Lan Dar 84,742.50 6,072.00 AIber Construction 88,240.20 6,072.00 DMJ Corporation 88,290.40 6,072.00 Den'nco Construction 95,480.53 4,642.32 The alternate bid is for a vinyl fence coating. Staff recommends award to the Iow bidder without the alternate. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 COUA '- REQUF T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Developmen~ & / ~ 6-9-97 Planning Dan Oonahue Item No. DISCUSSION REGARDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 486 - 36TH AND WINNETKA AVENUES City staff would like to update the Council on efforts to correct the bituminous problems around the 36th and Winnetka intersection. Staff has worked with the County to correct the Winnetka Avenue part. Staff has also recommended that we reject the bituminous wear course on 36th from Louisiana to west of Winnetka. Staff will present a proposal to make all corrections. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Adminkstmtion: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ 8onestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Daniel Donahue Jeannine Clancy Tom Mathisen (Crystal City Engineer) Mark Hanson June 5, 1997 36th Avenue City Project No. 486 Our File No. 34137 We have been in contact with C.S. McCrossan to complete the above-referenced project. There are two outstanding issues other than minor punch list items that need to be resolved to complete the work: l. Resurface Winnetka Avenue (500' north & 200' south of 364 Avenue) 2. Raveling that has occurred in 36th Avenue Resurfacin~ in Winnetka Avenue The change order amount to resurface Winnetka Avenue is as follows: Unit Item No. Item Description Unit Price Quantity Total 2232.501 Mill bituminous surface (1.5") SY 1.00 4,600 $4,600.00 2331.508 Type 41 wear course mixture (1.5") TN 28.00 435 12,180.00 0563.601 Traffic control LS 1,500.00 1 1,500.00 0564.603 Pavement message, left arrow-paint EA 50.00 2 lO0.O0 0564.603 36" solid white line - paint LF 3.40 130 442.00 0564.603 4" solid line, white paint LF 0.14 240 33.60 0564.603 4" double line, yellow paint LF 0.27 105 28.35 0564.603 4" broken line, white paint LF .56 1,250 175.00 2506.522 Adjust miscellaneous structures EA 185.00 7 1,295.00 0565.601 Install and connect new loop EA 510.00 20 10,200.00 detectors Supplemental Agreemeht Total $30,533.95 2335 ~./est Highway 36 ' St. Paul, MN 55113 - 612-636-4600 · Fax: 612-636-1311 The cost would_be shared by Crystal and New Hope as follows: New Hope $19,641.59 Crystal .10,912.36 TOTAL $30,553.95 Tom Mathisen (Crystal Engineer) has verbally agreed that Crystal will finance its portion. In addition, we have discussed this work with the State Aid Office and all costs are eligible for City State Aid Funds even if Hennepin County refuses to participate. Ravelin~ in 36th Avenue The raveling or stripping in 36th Avenue is the result of an interaction problem between the asphalt cement, and aggregate in the bituminous surface. Corrective repairs are required and are the responsibility of the contractor. However, the method of correction can be subjective depending upon whether you are the owner or contractor. In most cases, a seal coat is acceptable. However, owners are typically not comfortable constructing a seal coat over a new street surface. Therefore, the owner will typically favor a mill/overlay. overlay are listed below: Seal Coat Item No. 2356.505 2356.507 0563.601 0564.603 0564.603 0564.603 0564.603 0564.603 Item Description Unit Bituminous material for seal coat GL Seal coat aggregate TN Traffic control LS Pavement message, left arrow-paint EA 4" solid line, white paint LF 4" double line, yellow paint LF 4" broken line, white paint LF 36" solid white line paint LF Supplemental Agreement Total The costs for a seal coat and Unit Price Quantitv Total $ 1.00 5,000 $5,000.00 24.00 250 6,000.00 1,500.00 1 1,500.00 50.00 4 200.00 · 14 7,960 1,114.00 .27 17,000 4,590.00 · 14 6,200 868.00 3.40 470 .l,598.00 $20,870.40 Mill/Overlay Item No. 2232.501 2331.508 2357.518 2506.522 0563.601 0564.603 0564.603 0564.603 0564.603 0564.603 Item Description Unit .Mill bituminous surface (1.5") SY Type 41 wear course mixture (1.5") TN Bituminous material for tack coat GL Adjust frame and ring casting/gate EA valve box Traffic control LB Pavement message, left arrow-paint EA 4" solid line, white paint LF 4" double line, yellow paint LF 4" broken line, white paint LF 36" solid white line paint LF Supplemental Agreement Total Unit Price Quanti~ Total $1.00 4,200 4,200:00 22.50 1,600 36,000.00 1.90 825 1567.50 160.00 20 3,200.00 1,500.00 1 1,500.00 50.00 4 200.00 .14 7,960 1,114.40 .27 17,000 4,590.00 · 14 6,200 868.00 3.40 470 1,598.00 $54,837.90 We have discussed both projects with C.S. McCrossan, and they are agreeable to construct a mill/overlay; h6wever, they have stated that they do not expect to finance the whole cost. They have verbally indicated that they would construct the mill/overlay project if the City were agreeable to finance the following quantities: Mill bituminous surface Traffic control Stripping (w/paint) TOTAL $4,200.00 1,500.00 . 8,370.40 $14,070.40 The cost would be shared by Crystal and New Hope as follows: New Hope $9,145.76 Crystal 4,924.64 TOTAL $14,070.40 Tom Mathisen has verbally agreed that Crystal will finance its portion. In addition, we have reviewed the work with the State Aid Office and they have indicated that all work is eligible for State Aid Funding. ' In summary, if the City is comfortable with the above proposal, a Supplemental Agreement will be prepared such that all work including punch list items will be completed by July 1, 1997. The Supplemental Agreement would include only those items in 36th Avenue that the two cities will finance. Therefore, the total Supplemental Agreement is as follows: New .Hope Cry. stai Total Winnetka Avenue $19,641.59 $10,912.36 $30,553.95 36t~ Avenue 9,145.76 4,924.64 14,070.40 TOTAL $28,787.35 $15,837.00 $44,624.35 COb'N( Originating Depm~uent Approved for Agenda _ A/tenda Section Ordii"fances & City Manager Resolutions 6-9-97 Kirk McDonald [tern No. By: Management Assistant By:. t0. t ORDINANCE NO 97-21 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE CODE BY EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON PAWN SHOPS The attached ordinance extends the current moratorium on Pawn Shops until Septemb,er 30. 1997. On November 25, 1996, the City Council implemented a moratorium on pawn shops so that a study on this issue could be undertaken by the Planning Commission and so an ordinance could be drafted regulating such uses in the City. The Planning Commission studied this issue and presented two ordinances (a licensing ordinance and a zoning code amendment ordinance) to the City Council in December 1996. The City Council conducted a work session to review these ordinances in May 1997. The Council found the ordinances to be generally acceptable, however, the Minneapolis Police Department notified the Council at that work session that the Automated pawn System (APS) would not be able to accommodate New Hope until later in 1997. The Minneapolis APS technology is an integral part of New Hope's pawn shop ordinances. The Council also directed staff to conduct 'further research on the "second hand dealers" section of the ordinance. Taking the above factors into consideration, staff is recommending that the moratorium on pawn shops be continued until September 1997. Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance extending the moratorium. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: I~,FA-~ I ~ REQUF T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda ~ A~enda Section uralrT'ances & City Manager Resolutions J~ 6-9-97 Kirk McDonald ½ / Item No. By: Management Assistant ~ / / tO.2 ORDINANCE NO. 97-2 (CONTINUED): AN/ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING LICENSING REGULATIONS FOR PAWNBROKERS. PRECIOUS METAL AND SECOND HAND GOODS DEALERS (PLANNING CASE 96-04) At the November 25, 1996, City Council meeting, the Council also considered Ordinance No. 97-02, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the New Hope City Code by Establishing Licensing Regulatio0s for Pawnbrokers, Precious Metal and Second Hand Goods Dealers. (This ordinance does not require a public hearing because it is not part of the Zoning Code.) The ordinance establishes license and application requirements, establishes four (4) fees for applicationlinvestigationllicenSelbillable transactions, establishes conditions of approval for licenses, describes general license restrictions, etc. The ordinance is a result of a resolution passed by the City Council in March 1996 authorizing a planning study on this issue. The Planning Commission considered this licensing ordinance at its November 6 meeting and recommended approval of the ordinance. Due to the fact that the APS (Automated Pawn System) technology will not be available until later in 1997, staff recommended that the City Council table this issue for consideration at a future Council work session so that staff could explain all sections of the ordinance to the Council in detail. The Council tabled this ordinance until January 13, 1997. At the J. anuary 13 Council meeting, the Council tabled the ordinance to March 24, 1997. At the March 24 Council meeting, the Council tabled this ordinance to the June 9, 1997, Council meeting and that is why this item is appearing on the agenda Ordinance No. 97-21,'which appears under the "Ordinances & Resolutions" section of this agenda, extends the current moratorium on pawn shops in New Hope until September 30, 1997. The comments contained in that request explain the reasons for the extension. Due to the moratorium extension, staff recommends that the Council table this ordinance until the September 22 Council meeting. ,MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: I RFA°001 ~ EDA REQUEST FOR .aCTION Originating Depaztment Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager ~ F:F~A 6-9-97 Item No. Kirk McDonald ]~: Management Assistant 4 / DISCUSSION REGARDING SANDPIPER COVE TOWNHOME ASSOCIATION LOAN PROGRAM AND ESTABLISHMENT OF HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 600) For the past 1 ~ years, City staff have met on several occasions with representatives of the Sandpiper Cove/Rockford Townhome Association regarding potential City financial assistance to upgra~de the exterior of these properties. Sandpiper Cove is a townhouse development located at 8101-8953 42~" Avenue that contains 36 owner-occupied townhomes (four 4-plexes and 10 duplexes). The complex is 20 years old and there are significant extedor deterioration problems (please refer to the enclosed correspondence). They have sought preliminary bids from contractors who estimated that $350,000 is needed to make siding, deck, window and other improvements. Although they have recently taken steps to increase their monthly association dues, they do not have the financial capability to make these improvements. Due to the fact that they are a townhouse association consisting of individual owners, they have been rejected by several banks for loans to make the needed improvements. That is why they have approached the City for assistance. Staff have cooperated with them because it is felt that the City has a vital interest in maintaining multi-family dwellings. Staff and the City Attorney originally explored utilizing the existing multi-family financial assistance policy for apartments for this situation, however, the policy is not applicable because it requires a 50 percent match from the owners. Over the past year, staff have inquired about programs utilized in other cities to address townhome/condominium improvements and became aware of some new legislation that was recently enacted to address these situations. The City Attorney has outlined the new legislation and procedures in his attached March and June correspondence. The program allows for City-funded loans to property owners unable to obtain financing through private means. Instead of securing the loans as a typical mortgage transaction, the City can assess the benefiting properties similar to a special assessment project. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 6-9-97 The general process to establish a housing improvement area is as follows: 1. Initially, the Council would need to adopt an enabling ordinance specifically defining the improvement area or areas and specifically indicating the necessary improvements to be made within the area. The City cannot adopt this ordinance on its own initiative. Before such an ordinance can be considered, there must be a petition by at least 25 percent of the owners within the proposed area requesting the enabling ordinance. 2. Before adoption of the enabling ordinance, the City would need to conduct a public hearing. At the hearing and within the ordinance, the Council would need to make findings that the necessary improvements will not be made if the housing improvement area is not created and making the improvements within the area is needed to maintain and preserve the area's housing units. Further, the enabling ordinance will allow the City to impose a fee against the benefiting property owners to pay for the cost of the improvements. 3. The property owners within the improvement area also have veto power over the ordinance. In other words, if 35 percent of the property owners object to the ordinance after its adoption, it will not take effect. As a result, the effective date of the ordinance must be at least 45 days after its adoption by the City Council. During that 45-day interim period, the property owners, after all receive notice of the ordinance and its contents within five days of its adoption, can file an objection to the ordinance with the New Hope City Clerk. If 35 percent of the owners object, the ordinance is void. 4. If the ordinance is not vetoed, property owners can individually object to their inclusion ,in the improvement area or the imposition of fees against their property. The objection procedure works similar to the special assessment challenges found in Chap. 429. Also, the City will need to hold a second public headng before it can collect fees or specially assess properties for payment of the improvement costs. Again, this works like the special assessment procedure found in Chap. 429. 5. If an improvement area is established, the repairs would be done as a public improvement. This may potentially require the City to act like a general contractor for repairs on private property. The City would be subject to the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law for letting contracts. 6. Finally, this law has a sunset provision of June 30, 2001. After said date, no housing improvement areas can be established pursuant to Minn. Stat. {}428.11, et al. Therefore, we do have some time to consider this kind of funding option for the Sandpiper Cove Development. City staff recently met with representatives of Sandpiper Cove and explained this program and the process. They are interested in the program and have submitted the enclosed petition requesting that the City begin work on establishing an ordinance that would create a housing improvement area for their property. Staff desires to discuss this request and program with the EDA to determine if the EDA is favorable towards proceeding with this project/program, If the EDA is agreeable, the direction to staff would be to begin work on the creation of such an ordinance. AVE. ~ ROCKFORO TH AV NEW H ELEMEI $CHOC 4, TH &~ CI~, CEN PA $UN-02-97 MON 09:52 P, 02/03 Comuc~ & SOm~tAZ. t.. P.A. state June 2, 1997 Kirk McDonald City of New 14ope 4401Xylon Avenue NOrth New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Sandpiper Cove Loan Program Our File: 99.11155 Dear Kirk: Thim letter will confirm our May 29, 1997 meeting with the repre~enbaCives from the Sandpiper Cove Townhome Assoc. re~ardin~ the establishment of a housing improvement area for their proper~y pursuant to Minn. ~tat,'§§&28A.11 through 428A.21. This is a new program es:ablishe~ by :ne S:a:e las: year. allo~ for City funded l'oan~ ~o property owners unable :o obtain financing through private means. However, instead of securing the loans as a typical mcr:gage :ransacbion hhe City will be allowed assess the benefitting oroper%iee much like a soecia~ assessment project. However, it will reauire :he affected orooer:y owners :o petition the City for an ordinance establishing the improvement district and ~he work wi31 need %o be performed as a ~bli¢ improvement in c0mpllance wi[~ ~be Uniform Nunicipal Con:fac%lng law, Ny 27th 3e~te~ goe~ ~hrough some of the d#%ai~ on how %his wil~ work. [t is my under,tending the Rsndpiper Cove Homeowners Assoc. wi~ submit a petition me ~oon aa possible. We can then st&r~ on ~ra~Ctng t~e enaDllng or~tnance ~or consideration by ~he Council. This may take some ~ime s~nce this ~s a new ~rogramw~%h lit~le or no past history from other cities on how the program w~ll. [t is my understanding s~af~ is con%aching Brooklyn Park in that they may be working w~h thte ~rogram a~ ~h~s tlme. We e~ould be aDZe utilize the~ framework ~or our program and ordinance. JUN-02-97 I~ON 09:52 P, 03/03 Kirk'NcDonald June 2, 1997 Page 2. Contac= me t~ you have any ~ur=~er questions or comments abou[ this ma,=er. very ~;rul y yours, Steven A. Sondrall zlm ~'r~EN A. $ONOtRALL ,vI~C~AIEL R. CAI=CEUR MA~I?If,,I P MALECHA WIL~_IAI~i4 C. STRAITql' CORR~CK & $OZ~Dm~.T., P.A. ATTORN£Y$ AT LAw Ed~burgh ExecuHve O~ce Plea 8525 Edinbr~k Crossing Suite ~203 Br~ki~ P~k, M~nesota 55443 ~ (s12) ~ March 27, 1997 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Loan Request for Housing Improvements/Sandpiper Cove Association Our File No: 99,11155 Dear Kirk: This letter is your long awaited response regarding your question about the loan and other funding options for needed improvements at the Sandpiper Cove Townhome Development. It is my understanding the orooerty owners in the development need collectively between $200,000 to $300,000 for replacement of siding, replacement and/or repair of defective decks and other structural problems. It is my further understanding the Townhome Association is severely underfunded and as a result are without any reserves to pay for these needed repairs. The Associatio~ has also informed us neither the Association or the individual unit owners can arrange a private loan. Banks apparently will not transact business with the Association and the individual unit owners lack equity in their units sufficient to secure a loan by a mortgage against the individual units. The City has two options it could implement to assist the Association and individual owners at the Sandpiper Cove Development as follows: Bond counsel has indicated we could provide loans to either the Association or the individual unit owners utilizing our existing TIF funds. Basically, we would be acting like a private banking institution taking back mortgages from the individual owners and/or the Association as security for the loans. Unfortunately, the City has the same problem as the lending institutions in this regard. Namely, lack of unit equity as security Kirk McDonald March 2.7, 1997 Page 2 for the loans. Nor do we want to become owners of the units in the event of default on the loans requiring foreclosure of the proposed mortgages and quite possibly being subject to superior first mortgages already in place on the property. Our second option involves establishing a housing improvement area under Minn. Stat. §§428A.11 through 428A.21. As you know, this law was enacted during the 1996 legislative session. Basically, it allows us to define a housing improvement area, permits Us to make improvements within said area and assess the benefiting properties for the cost of the improvements much like the special assessment procedure under Chap. 429. This appears to be a more viable solution to the funding problem for Sandpiper Cove than direct loans ko individual property owners from excess TIF funds secured by a mortgage. The remainder of this letter will briefly detail how the City could implement a housing improvement area for the Sandpiper Cove Development or any area in the City. Initially, the Council would need to adopt an enabling ordinance specifically defining the improvement area or areas and specifically indicating the necessary improvements to be made within the area. The City cannot adopt this ordinance on its own initiative· Before such an ordinance can be considered, there must be a petition by at least 25% of the owners within the proposed area requesting the enabling ordinance. Before adoption of the enabling ordinance, the City would need to conduct a public hearing, 7 days published notice and 10 days mailed notice to all property owners within the proposed area is required for the public hearing. At the hearing and within the ordinance, the Council would need to make findings that the necessary improvements will not be made if the housing improvement area is not created and making the improvements within the area is needed to maintain and preserve the area's housing units. Further, the enabling ordinance will allow the City to impose a fee against the benefiting property owners to pay for the cost of the improvements. However, the ordinance must also specify the basis for the imposition of the fee and the number of years it will be in effect. The property owners within the improvement area also have veto power over the ordinance. In other words, if 35~ of the property owners object to the ordinance after its adoption it will not take Kirk McDonald March 27, 1997 Page 3 effect. As a result, the effective date of the ordinance must be at least 45 days after its adoption by the City Council. During that 45-day interim period the property owners, after all receive notice of the ordinance and its contents within 5 days of its adoption, can file an objection to the ordinance with the New Hope City Clerk. If 35~ of the owners object, the ordinance is void. If the ordinance is not vetoed, property owners can individually object to their inclusion in the improvement area or the imposition of fees against their property. The objection procedure works similar to the special assessment challenges found in Chap. 429. Also, the City will need to hold a second public hearing before it can collect fees or specially assess properties for payment of the improvement costs. Again, this works like the special assessment procedure found in Chap. 429. Collection of fees also may take two forms. It can be done either by an ad valorem tax or it can be done like a special assessment to benefitted properties. If done like an ad valorem tax, it would be based on the net tax capacity of the property, the square footage of the property, or some other method determined by the Council. If it is done like a special assessment, we would need to codify special assessment regulations and incorporate them in the ordinance. If an improvement area is established, the repairs would be done as a public improvement. This may potentially require the City to act like a general contractor for repairs on private property. Obviously, we would be subject to the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law for letting contracts. Further, it creates numerous liability and warranty issues involving the completed work. I would not consider this program unless we had extensive releases, hold harmless and indemnification agreements with the involved property owners. It would also allow the City to issue general obligation bonds to finance the construction costs in lieu of using TIF funds. Finally, this law has a sunset provision of June 30, 2001. After said date, no housing improvement areas can be established pursuant to Minn. Stat. §428A.11, et al. Therefore, we do have some time to consider this kind of funding option for the Sandpiper Cove Development. Some extensiye work is involved to establish a procedure for creating housing improvement areas. I have contacted the League of Minnesota Cities to find out if o~her municipalities have Kirk McDonald March 27, 1-997 Page 4 implemented a program like this under Minn. Stat. §428A.11. Possibly, there is a model ordinance developed by the League or we could obtain ordinances from other cities that have already adopted this program. Before we get into this project too far, I think we need direction from the City Council whether they would be willing to entertain this kind of program for the Sandpiper Cove Development or any other area within the City requiring this kind of assistance. At any rate, I will not do anything further unless I receive direction from you or the City Manager to proceed. Please contact me if you have any other questions or comments regarding the content of this letter. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slt4 Enclosure cc: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager (w/enc) Jerry Gilligan, Esq.' (w/enc) REQUF T FOR ACTION Ortgmatmg Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Public Works 6-23-97 Development & Plannin.q Itcrn No. 8.1 By: Jeannine Clancy By:. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE AND AMES CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE NORTHWOOD LAKE STORM WATER, PONDING, AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT ¢f.498) Project Scope: This project includes upgrading the existing storm sewer crossing under Boone Avenue, relocating the channel on the east side of Boone Avenue to the location in which it existed before the park was developed, construction of water quality ponds, construction of new softbait fields and a youth soccer field, construction of pedestrian bridges in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and reconstruction of bituminous trails. Background: This project was the subject of the Northwood Lake Flooding Feasibility Study prepared for the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission adopted in 1993. In addition, this project was identified as a priority one project in the City of New Hope Surface Water Management Plan adopted in 1996. in April, 1996, the Citizen Advisory Commission held a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed project. After taking public testimony, the Commission requested that the City Engineer develop six options for implementing the project. These options were presented to the neighborhood in May, 1996. Between May, 1996 and January, 1997, the Citizen Advisory Commission studied documents and listened to expert testimony regarding the need for the project, the applicable standards for implementing the project, advantages and disadvantages of each option, the cost of each option, and the available funding sources. Also during this period, the Citizen Advisory Commission took public testimony from the neighborhood at a minimum of three of their meetings. ~ ~ e~ ue sts ~4 ~J ~.~wl'{ L~ MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: [ RFA-O01 Northwood Lake Storm Water, Ponding & Park Improvements Project 498 June 23, 1997 Page 2 In January, 1997, the Citizen Advisory Commission recommended that the City Council implement Option 5 because it best met the following goals: · To minimize existing flooding, erosion and sedimentation from surface water flows. · To protect and enhance wildlife habitat. · To preserve and promote water and park facilities. · To improve storm water quality (by maximizing the amount of areas available for treatment. · To promote ground water recharge (by promoting additional ponding areas). In February, 1997, the City Council accepted the Citizen Advisory Commission's recommendation and directed the City Engineer to prepare a preliminary report. The preliminary report was presented to the Council and {he Northwood Lake neighborhood in March, 1997. At this meeting, the Council authorized the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the project. Public testimony was accepted at this meeting as well as the May 27, 1997 meeting. On May 27, 1997, the City Council reviewed the plans and specifications, approved these documents, and authorized staff to solicit bids for the project. Bid Results: Bids were opened on June 18, 1997,, The detailed results are presented in the attached bid tabulation. A summary of the bids.received is as follows: Ames Construction Jay Brothers Base Bid $896,957.10 $966,650.35 Alternates A. Water Stub $ 4,000.00 $ 6,100.00 B. Boardwalk $10,654.00 $10,391.00 C. Concrete pad between fields $27,120.00 $38,420.00 D. Maintenance Curb $21,500.00 $19,870.00 E. Galvanized Fencing $39,812.50 $41,427.50 F. Vinyl Coated Fencing $59,000.00 $61,003.00 G. Additional Landscaping $13,960.00 $15,822.00 H. Box Culvert Extension $41,400.00 $51,060.00 The contract documents have been prepared select from the alternates identified. so that the City Council may award base bid and Staff is recommending that the Council approve the base Northwood Lake Storm Water, Ponding & Park Improvements Project 498 June 23, 1997 Page 3 bid plus alternates A. C, E, G and H. The advantages and disadvantages of each alternate are described in the attached memorandum. If the Council approves the base bid and the recommended alternates, the total contract amount is $1,023,249.60. Staff is aware that Council is concerned about the height of the fence (Alternate E) and the amount of landscaping proposed (Alternate G). Staff suggests that these items be approved so that the contractor is committed to the unit price bid for these two items. However, staff requests that a work session be scheduled with Council to discuss the two alternates at a later date. Should Council decide at a later date that these alternates should be eliminated or modified, staff will prepare a change order to reflect Council's direction. Staff has compared the bids received with the cost estimates identified in the preliminary report. Comparing the scope of the base bid project and the recommended alternates demonstrate that the Iow bid is approximately $40,000 under the Engineer's estimate. Funding Sources: The construction costs will be paid for with the following funding sources: Municipal State Aid Storm Sewer Revenue Bonds Bassett Creek Fund Road and Bridge Capital Improvement Fund Surplus TOTAL $150,000® $458,000 $120,000 $150,000 ~!50,000 $1,028,000 ~The State Aid Office has informed the City that $300,000 of the project is eligible for funding. However, the Capital Improvement Plan currently under development allocates $150,000 to this project and the remaining funds for other eligible projects. Schedule: Should Council approve the resolution, a proposed project schedule is as follows: Award Contract Begin Construction (west of Boone) Begin Construction (east of Boone) Substantial Construction Final Completion June 23,1997 July 14,1997 July 31,1997 Fa11,1997 Spring, 1998 Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (J(JUI~ICIL I REQUEST FOR ACTION Orl~nt l~Pc~ar~l~t ^pp~ved for Agenda &i~ia~[~P~n ~' Planning 6-23-97 Shari French Item ,No. By: By: 8.2 MOTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR PLAY EQUIPMENT FOR CORNER PARK (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 594) The 1997 Park CIP calls for replacement of play equipment in a park. The Citizen Advisory Commission and staff received numerous requests from the Corner Park neighborhood over the' past two years to consider this park for 1997 for new equipment. The present equipment was installed in the late 1970's and so contains the oldest equipment in the system. In February neighborhood representatives spoke before the Commission and presented a petition as a formal request for new play equipment. The CAC then recommended that Corner Park be chosen for 1997. The budget contains $50,000 for this project. This item was tabled at the June 9 Council meeting, as the Council requested information on the process used to select parks for playground equipment replacement and requested information on park usage. Roger Rubin, Chair of the Citizen Advisory Commission, will be in attendance at the Council meeting and wishes to address the Council on the process · followed by the Commission in choosing Corner Park for replacement of equipment in 1997. The Park & Rec Director has attached information, regarding park usage. A meeting was held March 20~ with twelve people attending to plan the new park equipment. The engineers have drawn up plans and specs based on input from that meeting from staff and the neighborhood. Staff is requesting approval and a call for bids. It is hoped that the project can be completed this fall. Staff recommends approval of the motion. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant Shari French, Parks and Recreation Director June 13, 1997 CORNER PARK PLAY EQUIPMENT Attached you'll find a RFA with back up regarding approval of plans and specs for Corner Park. Roger Rubin, Chair of the CAC, will be in attendance at the 6/23/97 council meeting and wishes to speak on i~ehalf of the Commission regarding the process they followed to reach their decision to recommend that the equipment at Corner Park be replaced this year. The equipment itself is approximately twenty years old. Standards in the industry have changed greatly in the past twenty years especially in terms of safety features of play equipment as well as accessibility. When the present equipment was installed in the 1970's it was perfectly acceptable. In the 90's that equipment is not considered to be safe anymore. It is also not accessible. Equipment also wears out and this equipment has worn out. If this little park is to contain play equipment it needs to be safe as well as accessible. If the decision becomes not to replace the equipment, the City needs to consider the real need to remove the present equipment as the pieces become unusable. It is staff's opinion that the park is Used by the neighborhood and will be used even more when new equipment is installect. The homes around the park areturning over gradually to young families who will enjoy the park for many years to come. It should be noted that the only features at Corner Park are the play equipment and % basketball court. There is no ice sheet maintained at Corner. The only other neighborhood parks with no winter ice sheet are Begin and Meadow Lake parks which received new play equipment in 1992 and 1996 respectively. The Park Rangers tell me that the usage over a five year period (1991-1995 report included) shows lower attendance at Meadow Lake Park than Corner, albeit the numbers are quite close. It should be noted here that the rangers take daily counts as they drive by parks. Sometimes they are there when people are there and sometimes they aren't. Over a five year period the activity level trend can be seen, though. Raw numbers have little meaning but the trends shown begin to make some sense and show a pattern of usage. Again, the parks without a winter ice sheet will have the lowest numbers over a year's period of time. Page 2 -- May 25, 1997 Z.B. Ordinance-- Landowner says statute allowing neighbors to block rezoning is unconstitutional Cary v. City of Rapid City, 559 N. W. 2d 891 (South Dakota) 1997 Cary asked the city of Grand Rapids, S.D., to rezone property from general agricultural to medium-density residential. The city granted Cary's request and approved an ordinance. Before the ordinance went into effect, more than 40 percent of the neighboring property owners (who owned less than 18 percent of the surrounding property) filed a written protest to challenge the rezoning. According to a South Dakota statute, the adoption of an ordinance could be challenged after the fact if at least 40 percent of the neighboring owners protested it. The statute didn't make any allowance for challenges made before an ordinance was adopted. The owners succeeded in blocking the new ordinance. Cary asked a court to force the city to enact the ordinance. She also asked the court to find the law didn't apply to her property and to declare the law unconstitutional. The court decided the law was constitutional and applied to Cary's property. Cary appealed. According to Cary, the statute was unconstitutional because it didn't outline the standards and guidelines for legislative action after property owners challenged an ordinance. Cary claimed the absence of these provisions resulted in an unlawful delegation of legislative power, and allowed a small number of property owners to prevent a landowner's use of property. DECISION: Reversed. The statute was unconstitutional, so its applicability to Cary's land didn't need to be determined. Cary's right to use her land for a legitimate purpose, on the other hand, was constitutionally protected. When a statute failed to provide minimum standards and guidelines for the application of a city's police powers, it violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. In this case, the statute did not provide any guidelines for protesting an ordinance. As long as a certain number of property owners filed a written protest, they could impose restrictions on neighboring property without reason or justification. By not including any of these provisions, the statute basically bargained away the authority of legislative bodies to determine the public's best interest, and subjected the public's best interest to the whims of a few property owners. The ?gislature._,~p~o~t !ndividual owners, had to dete__~_~ine what was best for the public. / ;ory ay are s rv,ces chu c ' \ function? ~,' ~~~W~shington Township Planning Board, 689 A.2d 804 (New Jersey) 1997 The Trenton Seventh Day Adventist Church owned a 10-acre lot in Washington Township, N.J. The church wanted to construct a church building, a daycare facility, a religious sanctuary, a library and offices on the land. May 25, 1997 -- Page 3 The land was located in a Iow-density residential zone. Churches were permitted uses in Iow-density residential zones. The township's ordinance listed 12 accessory uses that were permitted. Daycare centers were not included in the list. The church applied to the Washington Township Planning Board for site- plan approval and various bulk variances and design waivers. As part of its plan, the church proposed an entranceway onto a major boulevard directly across from a shopping center. The shopping center contained a liquor store. The board held a hearing, which focused primarily on whether the proposed church's activity would generate increased traffic hazards on the boulevard. In particular, the board was concerned the church's entranceway would create a "four-way intersection" with the shopping entrance across the street. The board examined the potential traffic patterns on Saturday mornings and afternoons, when the church held services, and during weekday rush hours, when children would be dropped off and picked up from the daycare center. The church's traffic expert testified the entranceway would present a safe means of access to and from the boulevard. In addition, the township's planning officials considered alternative locations for the entranceway. After a number of additional studies, the officials concluded the church's proposed entranceway was safer than the alternatives. The board voted to approve the church's site plan application. As a condition of approval, the board required the church to pay for traffic-safety measures if they were needed. The liquor store sued the board and the church. It said the day care center was not an accessory use but a variant one, which required the church to submit separate site plan and variance applications. It also claimed daycare centers were not allowed as permitted or conditional uses in the zone, nor were they on the list of 12 permitted accessory uses. According to the liquor store, the board's approval was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to consider the full extent of the area's potential traffic congestion. In response, the church's pastor testified the daycare center was part of its overall mission and just one of the church's many services. The court affirmed the board's decision. It agreed the church did not have to submit separate site plan and variance applications for the child care center because it considered the center an ancillary use to the church; according to the court, daycare centers were typical services provided by churches. As for the possible traffic congestion, the court found the board's examination of the issue was adequate. The court said the daycare center would house at most 60 children, and that was not enough to warrant consideration of a separate site plan. The liquor store appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The liquor store was correct in arguing daycare centers were not allowed in the zone either as permitted or conditional uses, and were not included in the list of acceptable accessory uses. However, an accessory use did not need to be detailed explicitly in an ordinance; it was implied as a right that accompanied · Page 4 -- May 25, 1997 the principal use. The list of 12 accessory uses was intended only to provide examples of acceptable uses -- not to exclude uses left off the list. Once it was established that daycare centers could exist as accessory uses, the church had to demonstrate that its day care center was an accessory use. To be considered accessory, a use had to conform to three standards: it had to be subordinate to the principal use and minor in significance; it had to be located on the same lot as the principal use; and it had to be "customarily incidental" to the principal use-- that is, it had to be a normal, related function of the principal use. The church's daycare center obviously satisfied the first two conditions -- it was a subordinate use to the church, and it was located on the same lot. The third condition was not as clearly satisfied. However, while churches were once solely used for worship, their functions had expanded to include social services such as daycare. As the church's pastor testified, the day care center was part of his church's mission. Therefore, the daycare center had to be considered customarily incidental to the church's activities. The board's decision to approve the site plan with regard to the traffic question was not arbitrary, and capricious. The church's expert testified the entranceway would not cause traffic problems. In addition, the township devoted much time and effort to its own traffic studies, which showed the church's plan was the most reasonable option. Taking w Can board force developer to acquire rights-of-way from neighboring owners? Snider v. Board of County Commissioners of Walla Walla County, 932 P. 2d 704 (Washington) 1997 Snider requested preliminary approval for a 21-lot subdivision plan in a Walla Walla, Wash., agricultural-rural zone. The plan located the subdivision between two roads -- a highway and Two Acre Lane. The Board of County Commissioners of Waila Walla County approved the map but imposed six conditions on the development. The board's fifth condition required Snider to widen the 12-foot-wide Two Acre Lane to 50 feet. To do this, Snider would have to get rights-of-way from owners of property adjoining the lane. Snider sued the board, asking the court to eliminate the condition. The court found the evidence supported the board's contention that the road was not adequate for the development. The court also found, however, that it was arbitrary and capricious to make Snider himself acquire rights-of- way over property owned by third parties. As a result, the court modified the condition, determining that Snider would pay for the right-of-way acquisitions and improvements, but the board had to exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire rights-of-way. Both Snider and the board appealed. The board said it was not acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it imposed the condition, and said the trial court had exceeded its authority by requiring that the condition be modified. Z.B. May 25, 1997 -- Page 5 The board said it was merely protecting public welfare and safety, and asked the appeals court to reinstate the original condition. Snider argued the condition was unreasonable, because it imposed requirements beyond his control and basically gave adjoining landowners the power to veto his project. He argued the requirement amounted to a taking because he did not have the power to obtain property rights from third parties. DECISION: Reversed in part. The condition the board tried to impose on Snider was not arbitrary and capricious. Even if the condition was unreasonable, the trial court did not have the authority to modify it. The right to impose the condition belonged to the board, so the court couldn't usurp the board's power. The trial court was correct, however, in its assessment that Two Acre Lane was not fit to support the development. Only 12 feet wide, the road was not large enough to sustain even a small increase in traffic, even if most of the subdivision's residents used the highway instead. Therefore, the board's original condition had to be reinstated. As for Snider's claim of a taking, be had to show that the board's condition fundamentally deprived him of ownership or prevented him from making economically viable use of thc property. Snider did not prove he was deprived of this use. The condition may have thwarted Snider's best economic option for the land, but that was not enough to constitute a taking. The land was zoned agLLc~ultura -l:L~LLa..l,...so Snider had other options for developing the land. ditional Use eveloper says sketches of plan are suffieient for permit ~eq~est // ---.J,~tde..wTo~ of Ayden, 482 S.E. 2d 44 (North Carolina) 1997 In 1995, Parrott applied for fina~ approval for a conditional use permit. He planned to build a 136-unit, multifamily housing development in the town of Ayden, N.C. In his application, Parrott included a traffic study and made several statements that the development complied with the town's regulations, standards and general plan. Parrott apparently also submitted a sketch plan and maps of the project. To receive approval for a project, an applicant had to include site plans and be prepared to provide a full explanation of the proposed use, including its location, appearance and operational characteristics. According to the town's zoning ordinance, an applicant could either request preliminary approval first or request final approval without getting preliminary approval beforehand. The purpose of the preliminary stage was to allow the applicant to submit less detailed plans; if the applicant went directly to the final approval stage, it had to submit complete plans. Parrott never applied for preliminary approval. During the board's hearings, an engineering expert testified the plans were incomplete and lacked several elements, including any plans for "water, sewer, Page 6 -- May 25, 1997 street development, or drainage or erosion control or any other damage control." One of Parrott's general contractors agreed the plans were incomplete, but said from his experience, only a sketch plan was required for a permit, with more detailed plans developed after the permit was issued. A number of property owners contested the development, arguing Parrott's application should be dismissed because it was incomplete and did not comply with the zoning ordinance. The board decided to issue the conditional use permit, and the property owners appealed to a court. The court affirmed the board's decision, and the owners appealed again. DECISION: Reversed. The property owners were correct to oppose the board's decision to issue the permit. The board didn't have the authority to approve a plan that wasn't complete. According to The American Heritage College Dictionary, the word "complete" meant "having all necessary or normal parts, components, or steps; entire." Parrott's application was not complete-- it contained only sketches of the development, not the detailed plans required by the ordinance. The ordinance clearly stated that "complete final plans" were necessary to receive a conditional use permit. Parrot could still apply for preliminary approval, for which the requirements were not as stringent. Variance -- Neighbors put brakes on owner's parking lot plan Allegheny West Civic Council v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 689 A.2d 225 (Pennsylvania) 1997 In 1985, Irwin Associates bought a vacant lot in a multiple-family residential zone. It wanted to develop apartments on the property. After discovering that federal funding was not available for the project, lrwin Associates entered into contracts to sell the property in three parcels for housing development. The total price was $431,500. The agreements fell through, however, when environmental testing revealed the land was contaminated with chemicals. Saying it would be too costly to clean up the land for housing, Irwin Associates asked the Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment if it could use the property as an open-air parking lot. To do so, Irwin Associates needed use and dimensional variances. The Allegheny West Civic Council opposed the parking-lot project, saying it preferred residential development on the property. The zoning board heard testimony during four hearings. At one hearing, the civic council's attorney handed the president of Irwin Associates a contract offering to buy the property for $200,000. Irwin Associates' president testified he was unable to evaluate the offer on the witness sta.nd, so the civic council sent the offer by mail. At a later hearing, the president said he rejected the offer Z.B. May25,1997--Page7 because he didn't believe it was made in good faith. The zoning board decided that the contamination prevented Irwin Associates from developing the land for residential purposes. It also agreed the costs of environmental cleanup would be prohibitive. The board granted the variances, finding that Irwin Associates didn't create its hardship, and that the variances wouldn't be detrimental to the neighborhood. The civic council appealed to a court. Irwin Associates had an environmental consultant testify that the cost of rehabilitating the land would be high, ranging from $2.5 to $3 million. A real estate financing expert also testified on the company's behalf, saying financial institutions would be reluctant to fund con- struction on the property because of liability concerns. Irwin Associates' presi- dent said the lot's small size precluded it from supporting other permitted uses. The trial court affirmed the board's decision. It said the contaminated property could not be used for any purpose allowed by the zoning ordinance because the cost would be too expensive. The court concluded Irwin Associates should be granted the variances because it showed unnecessary hardship. The civic council appealed again, and the appeals court reversed the decision. According to the court, Irwin Associates could not claim the land was valueless when it turned down an offer for the property. Irwin Associates appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the appeals court. To get a variance, a property owner had to show that an unnecessary hardship would result without the variance, and that the variance would coexist with the public interest. However, a property owner didn't need to establish that the land was completely valueless without a variance. The appeals court s[rouldn't have expected Irwin Associates to try to sell the property before requesting a variance --especially for an offer less than half of the land's original value. Irwin Associates' refusal to sell the property could not be used as a rea~n to deny the variance. Irwin Associates proved it needed a variance. The environmental consultant, the financial expert and the company president himself all testified that, short of spending millions of dollars, it would have been impossible to use the land for a permitted activity. Because lrwin Associates proved unnecessary hardship, it was entitled to the variance. Mobile Home -- Can mobile home lots exist in residential zone? In re Appeal of Lunde, 688 A.2d 1312 (Vermont) 1997 Fecteau Construction owned land in a residential district in Barre, Vt. Lunde owned property next to Fecteau's land. Fecteau got permission from the city's planning commission to divide its land into two lots. Fecteau sold an option to buy the first lot, guaranteeing the buyer a permit to place a mobile home on the lot. A few years later, the city granted approval for a mobile home with a 27-foot setback. Lunde and others appealed the permit to the zoning board, which upheld Page 6---June Itl. Iqg7 Z.B. company's appeal. sec also: Foster v. Mayor of Bevcrh', 53 N.E. 2d 603 (1044). see also: Livoli ~: Zoning Board ~(Appcal,~ of Southhorough, 676 N.E. 2d 68 (1997). ilhm Rcal Estate Co. hw. 688 A.2d 1264 (Pennsyh,ania) Turkey ltill Minit Markels owned a parcel of land in a Mounl Pocono, Pa., downtown commercial zoning dislrict. Il asked the Mount Pocono Borough Council if it could establish a convenience slore lhat also sold gasoline. The borough council delermined that zoning laws prohibited the sale of gasoline in downlowu commercial districls, so it rejecled lhe plan. The laws permillcd gasoline sales in general commercial dislricls. Turkey ttill appealed lhe decision to lhe Zoning Hearing Board, arguing the sale of gasoline would nol be a principal use of the property, bul lin accessory use to the convenience slore. The board made lhe following findings of fact: The property was located in lhe downlown commercial dislrict; and based on lhe returns of other slores, lhe gasoline sales would conslilule 47 perceni of the proposed store's gross sales. The board said Turkey Hill was prohibited from selling gasoline in a downtown commercial dislricl, as either a principal or accessory use. Turkey ltill appealed lhe board's decision to court. According to the courl, the sale of gasoline was not an accessory use, and even if it was, il was not permilled in lhe downtown commercial dislrict. Turkey Hill appealed, arguing gasoline could be sold in the dislrict, provided it was a secondary or accessory use. DECISION: Affirmed. The zoning ordinance prohibiled Turkey Hill from selling gasoline, as either a principal or accessory use, in downtown commercial districls. According lo the ordinance, ouly properly in general commercial districls could have gasoline- selling operations. Conditional Appn~val -- Board approves only two-fifths of subdivision's proposed lots Matter.of Graham, 654 N. YS.2d ,542 (New York) 1997 Graha'rn rcquesled approval to develop 25 lots ou a Tully, N.Y., parcel of land. The Tully Planning Board approved l0 of the 25 proposed lots, but made approval of lhe remaining lois conditional, requiring Graham to build a second access to a public highway. Apparently, the board did nol explain why the second access was necessary for the remaining 15 lots. Graham asked a court lo annul the board's condition, but the court dismissed Graham's petition. Graham appealed. June I 0, 1997 -- Page 7 DECISION: Reversed and returned to the board. Phuming boards dM have the right to consider traffic patterns and deny subdivision applications accordingly, but only if they provided clear reasons for doing so. Tile phmning board didn'l explain wily the first 10 lots were acceptable, while thc olhcr 15 needed a second access road. As a result, Ihe board's decision had lo be disregarded, and the matter had to be retnrned to tile board so it could make findings and arrive at a new decision based oil lhose findings. sec also: Matter of M c~ M Partnership v. Sweenm; 619 N. YS. 2d 802. see also: Matter (~f Genesee Farms v. Scopano, 431 N. YS. 2d 219. Mobile Home Park ~ Pfirk owner wants to add eight new homes to 60- unit park Cox v. Board of Appeals of Carvet; 677 N.E. 2d 699 (Massachusetts) 1997 Commercial Design Associates Inc. owned a 60-unit mobile home park in the town of Carver, Mass., that existed as a nonconforming use. It wanted to buy a 2.5-acre tract of land across from the existing park and add eight new mobile homes. The new land, which bordered a pond, would give residents in both the original and new parks access to a beach. The purchase-and-sale agreement was conditioned on Commercial's getting all the necessary permits. The town's zoning bylaw required that mobile home parks occupy at least 100 acres and that their owners get a special permit from the town board of appeals. The board granted Commercial the special permit, and neighbors of the 2.5-acre tract appealed to court. Because they at first filed incorrectly, their complaint was delayed. Before they could file correctly, Commercial had bought the property. Commercial tried'to claim the neighbors filed their complaint too late to bring it to trial. It said it had proceeded with the purchase because it knew the neighbors' complaint was flawed. The court allowed the complaint, saying Commercial should have put off buying the property, knowing the neighbors could simply fix their complaint, it also found the board abused its discretion in granting Commercial the permit because the park extension would violate the 100-acre area requirement. Commercial appealed. It argued the neighbors lacked standing to appeal the permit because the proposed extension wouldn't decrease their property values. It also claimed it didu't have to meet the bylaw's area requirement-- it had to show only that the extension wouldn't be more detrimental to the neighborhood than was the existing park. DECISION: Affirmed. The board abused its discretion when it granted Commercial the special perm it. ' The bylaw's ambiguous language had been clarified by thc state Supreme Court in a pasl case. The court said the Iown's bylaw should be interpreted to mean nonconforming uses c~uld be extended if I ) tile extension complied with Zoning Bulletin SPI~X~IA L REPORT REGULATING TOWERS AFTER THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 by lonathan Cohen, Esq. Buried deep within Ihe massive federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, a scl of provisions may have escaped pnblic notice but has had a significant impacl on Ihe work of local zoning and hind-usc officials. The provisions, which apply lo federal, slale and local governments, concern regulation of personal wireless services facilities -- primarily cellular and other communicalions lowers. The law prohibits local governmenls from: · discriminating unreasonably among service providers; · dircclly or indirectly prohibiling personal wireless services; and · reguhlting facJlJlies based on Ihe envJronmenlal effccls of radio frequency emissions, if the facililies comply wJlh FCC regulalions. lu addition, Ihe Act slates decisions must be based on subslanlial evidence and made wilhin a reasonable limeframe. Parlies can sue in slale or federal courl or appeal h) tile FCC if Ihe case concerns lhe hcallh effecls of radio emissions. Thousand and lhousands of lowers By one estimale, 100,000 new lowers will be buill over the next several Publisher: E Michael Ouinlan. F. sq. Mann:Ring Edilor: Stephanie Federico legal Edilors: (~arol Johnson Perkins, Esq, Michael R. Jung, Esq.. Joaltne 1,. Belasco, Esq. F~Jlo~: Elm l)ugan, Jennil~'r Kavanaugh 23 Drydock Ave., Boston, MA 02210-2387 (617) 5420048 Copyright ;c~ 1997 E-mail: infoCq)quinlancom http://wwwquinlan.com l'a~c 2 ,";lX'Ci;d Rcpor! Z I~ ycms. According Io David ('ht,rch. cxcc01ivc dircclor of Iht New York I'hmni.,E Fcdcralion and an cxpcrl on Iclccommunicalhms siting communilics face a r;lflgc of issues COI1CCrllJllg IcJeconllnmiJcalions reg.hdion and contpliance wilh Ihe Acl. Few courl cases have addressed Iht new provisions, and o,ly one has r, lcd direclly on Ihc validily of a local ordinance. In Sprint Speclrmn. I,.!'. r. ('ltv ~' Medina (smnmarizcd in Ibc Augnsl 19q6 issue of Zonin~ lhdh'~in), a l'edcral dislricl coati npheld a six-monlh morah~rium on Iht issuance, nol Iht processing, of special use pcrmils for wireless communicalions fi~cililics. In ils morah~rium rcsol01ion, Medina's oily council slalcd Ihal five wireless commnnicalions companies wanled Io build facilities in Iht oily. And because Ibc cily cxpeclcd more requcsls, il said il needed lime Io slody Ibc fcasibilily of requiring co-location of fi~cililics in Iht limilcd numhcr acccplablc siles. A Mudy was also needed Io ensure Ibc conlinucd availahilil y o1' silos in Jhc I'ulnre. A closer look al Ibc Acl and ils provisious sho01d help mnnicipalilies aw~id r.nning afiml of Ibc law while maximizing lheir ahililv Io rc~ulale commtlllicalions lowers. No prohibilions In rcgnlaling personal wireless service Eicililics, Iocalilies c;mnol prohihil, or have Iht cf feel ol'prohibiling. Iht provision of personal wireless services. According Io ('onFrcss. lifts provision was inlendcd Io prcvcnl Iocalilics from bamfing personal wireless services or fi~cililics. II was meanl Io require decision-making on a case-by-case hasis. , Thc courl in Iht Sprinl Spcclrum case said Ihc six-monlh moralorinm did nol viol;de lhis provision. The moralorium was merely a shorl-lcrm s,H~cnsion of permil issning, Iht courl slalcd, so Iht cily could galher i.H'ormali,m and process applicalions. All Iht oily had done, Iht courl dclcrmined, wa~ proceed carefully in a rapidly changi,g field. While Iht Acl'~ hah on prohibilions may nol reslricl lemporary mol;dorium~, a mmdcipalily lhal imposes highly reslriclive and inllcxible rcqt.ircmcnl~ mighl viol;dc Ihc bau. Mark Bohrowski. a Massachu~ells ;lllorllcv wilh experience i, mm~icipal and land-usc issues, offers lhe cxampic of a Iowa Ih;d req,ired an applicaul Io nsc a monopolc ralhcr titan lalliccwork. If such a rcquircmenl is ~lricllv adhered 1o, Bohrowski says. il could hc succcssl',lly challc.~ed. No unreasonable delay I.ocalilies musl process applications wilhin a rcasonaldc period lime. laking inlo accounl Ibc lypc of rcqucsl. They musl snpporl any denials in wril'ing and base Ihcir decisions on subslanlial evidence. .V, pec'i::l l,i:'l:C, rt PAW,' 3 In one inslance, a I'ederal court ruled Ihal a counl~ I'ailed (- sali~fF Ihi~ requircmenl when il denied a permil applicalion. The counl~'~ oulv evidence 1o ~Uplmrl il~ denial wa~ five minule~ .f le~limony from a ic~idenl (ti~clm~in~ lhe proposed Iower'~ effecls. According Io ('ongrex~, if an aplqicalion involve~ a zoning variance or public hcariug m' commcnl, Iht clccision-nlak in~ process shouM la~l no hmgcr Ihan Iht "tmnal period" for lho~c circum~lanccs. The law was nol inlendcd Io ~ivc prcfcrcnlial healmcnl Io lhe personal wireless service iuduslry. The courl in Spriul Spcch'nnl, noting Congress' inlcnl, mlcd lhe moralorium did nol violalc lhe provision. I,ookin~ lo Iht slale law thal aulh~,izcd Iht moratorium, Iht c~mrl holed lhc ~cneral limeframc zoning decisions in W;~shin~lon cmdd include a reasmud~lc nmralorium. No discriminalion Thc Acl prohibils any h~cal action Ih;il "uureasonahly discriminalcs" anmn~ providers of cquivalcnl pcrsmuJl wireless services. Thronsh Ihis provision, ('on.~rcss has indic:~led il~ iulcnl Io encourage free cmupclilion' by prcvcnling municipalilies from favoring ccrlain service providers. I lowcver, il' Iwo differcnl proposed facililics wmdd have difl'ereul visual, acslhclic or safely efl~cls, lhcn a Iocalily may Ireal lhe facililies diffcrenlly, even if Ihc facililic~ provide Ihe same service. For example, a municipalily Ihal gr;ml~ a pcrmil for a lower ~ranl a permil fl~r a compclilor'~ lower in a rcsidcnlial dish'icl. By conlrasl, a municipalily lhal refuses 1o allow more lhan one filcilily in a ~ivcn ama could face a legal challenge if Iht rcslriclion placcs a grcalcr burden on some providers of a similar service lhan il imposes on olhcrs. In Ibc Sprinl Spcclrum case, lhc courl ruled lhal lhe cily's across-Iht- board nmral.rium did nol violalc Iht nondiscriminalion provisMn. The oily, Iht conrl said, would con~idcr any new applicalion, no mailer wh(~ Iht applicm]l wi~s, mMcr Iht same rules. No re~ulalion based on environmental effects According 1o Iht Acl, local governnlenls cannol usc environmcnlal c~mccrn~ (such ;,~ radio cmi~q.n~) as a hasis lo reguhllc wireless service facililies lhal already cmnply wilh al~plicablc F('(' slandards. Thc Acl was designed Io b;H dcciq.n-makin~ based cilhcr direclly or imlircclly Ihcsc el'feels. Thc F(~(' has issued new guidelines g.vcrniu~ lransnliller facililies ilUd cquipmcnl mslhorizalion, which will lake eft'ecl in Scplcmbcr Igg7. Rc~uhilors nccd h~ bc familiar wilh Ille F('('rules and musl ensnrc lhal lhcir ordinances (h~ uol impo~c nmrc ~lringcnl rcquircmcnls, l,ocalilics remain frcc h~ rcguhllc on Iht basis ol lhc sal'clv of lowers and. Io a variable de,fcc from ~lale h~ sl;~Ic, lhcir ac~lhclic cf feels. Page 4 - Special Reporl ZB. What's a town to do? I.ocalilies should review Ihcir ordinances to ensure consislcncy with lhe Acl's requirements. In particular, municipalilics should note thc ban on prohil)iting facililies from discriminaling, as well as lhe lack of aulhorily to regulate based on heallh cf feels of radio frequency emissions. Officials also should ensure prompt responses Io pcrmil requesls, through Ihey need nol give lelecommunicalions companies prcfercnlial Ireatment. Localities should also update their ordinances lo reflect new technologies and should treat applications for communicalions facililies as uses allowed only by special permit, suggests Church, whose Planning Federation has drafted model language addressing telecommunications facilily siling. Localilies should also encourage shared use of property. In addilion, cities and Iowns should consider limiting telecommunica- lions lowers to municipal property. Several Massachusetts lowns have used overlay districts thai contain only towers and nmnicipal uses. According to Bobrowski, this approach has a dual benefit-- it garners Ihe fee for leasing the property and keeps lowers oul of residential areas. Officials may, under Ihe righl circumstances, adopl a temporary moratorium on issuing permits. An Internalional City/County Management Association report on siting telecommunications facilities encourages local governments to communicate with applicants about the duration of any moratorium, what Ihe locality expects to accomplish during the moratorium, and how applicants can help the locality achieve its goals. Localities should seek technical support to help them identify tower sites. For lechnical reasons, companies are often very specific abdut where they want to locate. Nonetheless, they should be able to identify alternative sites. Municipalities may want to ideutify candidate sites ahead of time. To the extent authorized by law, municipalilies should enact provisions to minimize the negative impacls (visual, safety, traffic and, where allowed, aesthetic) of tower facilities. Again, officials should be aware that rigid adherence to strict criteria may have Ihe effeclt of prohibiling facilities. Municipalities should provide for the proper cleanup of tower sites once a facility is no longer in use. Finally, local officials and citizens should look lo their own state's law, which may require environmcnlal impact review or change the way communications facilities arc treated. Officials also must be mindful of other requirements of federal law, snch as thc Nalional Environmental Policy Acl and FAA reqt, iremcnls concerning air Iraffic. .hmathan E. ('ohcn, ILW., L¥ affiliated with thc AIbany, N.Y., law firm Fclh'r ~ I"crrcntino, which specializes in environmental, municipal and latld-lt.s'c law. 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 City Hall: 612-531-5100 Police: 612.53t.5170 Public Works: 612-533-4823 TDD: 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: 612-531-5136 Police Fax: 612-531-5174 Public Works Fax: 612-533-7650 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531-5175 TO: Scott Hoelscher, CB Commercial fax: 645-1526' ~ FROM: Doug Sandstad, Building Official DATE: June 20, 1997 RE: St. Therese Apartment Building- 8008 Bass Lake Rd. Your June 9, 1997 packet describing two antenna arrays on the elevator penthouse of this 6 stow building has been reviewed and approved in concept. In accordance with our new tower ordinance 4.039 D, I will be able to administratively handle the building permit process as soon as two sets of detailed plans are submitted, including the required engineering. [You have been provided a copy of the code.] I have attached a building permit application. Please call me at 531-5122, with questions. cc: McDonald j file BP Application Family Styled City ~ For Family Living